Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:45, 15 April 2009

User:Mixwell/scrolling

Archive

Sathya Sai Baba article

Sathya Sai Baba is a living person, who lives in a small city called "Puttaparthi", in South India, state of Andhra Pradesh. Thousands of people gather everyday to see him, in a place called Sai Kulwant Hall, inside a complex called "Prasanthi Nilayam", where Sai Baba's residence is located. This people believe he is a saint.

On the other hand, there is a group of people who believes he is a criminal.

So, we have two radically opposite points-of-view.

The article in Misplaced Pages is being used by the group with the "anti-Baba" point-of-view to do theirs propaganda. This group is engaged in a strong effort to avoid the article to be a truly representative of NPOV.

Currently, the article suffers from:
- lack of NPOV
- offends Basic Human Dignity
- suffers from Information Supression

Link to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Sathya_Sai_Baba

In the brief description of the case, above, I myself have assumed a neutral point-of-view.

Below, a link to my first comment about the article. There, I write with my own POV feelings, but using NPOV arguments, so neutral editors could follow and, with common sense, agree: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#What_if_Sai_Baba_is_really_an_Avatar.3F

But, after that, I found many unpleasant things:
- trying to edit results in "removal of large-scale vandalism", and the edit vanishes from the history; (thus, the history itself is biased)
- there is an editor, "White adept", acting as policeman to maintain biased, not-NPOV status quo;
- there is another user, "Andries", faking a positive POV; (thus, you are mislead)
- their combined actions drive anybody who arrives to read all negative-POV references;
- also, they managed a pack of ready-made arguments that classifies the huge amount of positive-POV references as "not reliable";
- making, in this way, extremely difficult, if not impossible, to restore or improve the article's quality.

This article constitutes a very serious issue for Misplaced Pages itself. Millions of people around the world support Sai Baba's efforts (six million, in the negative-POV estimate; from 50 to 100 millions, in the positive-POV estimate). The current article is an offense not only to Sai Baba himslef, but also to all of them.

Thank you.

Moved from your userpage

I tried to use the mediation window but couldn't. My concern is simply that the article "Pro Se Litigation in the United States" is missing essential information. Most particularly the Rules of Conduct for U.S. Judges and its changes in March 2009 that affect pro se litigants. This information has been deleted and should be available to the public

The current code of conduct for United States Judges requires "A judge should accord to every person who is legally interested in a proceeding, or the person's lawyer full right to be heard according to law". On March 17, 2009, a new code, going into effect on July 1, 2009, was announced requiring "A judge should accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, and that person’s lawyer, the full right to be heard according to law." The wording was changed from a person "or" their lawyer to a person "and" their lawyer.

James Cawley

I have tried editing James Cawley with the truth about who's money has built and funded the New Voyages project and that he was an extra in the new Star Trek movie. These are both true statements and yet he and his "followers" kept deleting my edits. So that the article makes him sound better than he is. When I posted an article of a group that truly researches the fact they re-edit my change saying Memory Alpha can not be trusted. If that is so, is anything that comes out of James mouth to be trusted. Why don't you call up Paramount and ask them what he did on the movie. Why don't you ask the people that have donated thousands upon thousands of dollars to New Voyages. Finally why don't you ask James to provide you with tax returns of the last couple of years. You will see that his "day job" is not an Elvis Impersonator.
Please help me resolve this. Actually he should not even be in the Misplaced Pages. He says he is an actor. A true actor belongs to one of the Guilds, he belongs to none. As for film producer, if I shoot a film with a video camera and it is not sold to anyone does that give me the right to call myself a producer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.27.133 (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

They have done it again. Please help me resolve this situation. Your wikipedia is being over run by people who like to use only half truths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.27.133 (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of DFT, I'd point out that the user has been offered many opportunities to present reliable citations for what appear to be, at best, a negative impression of the subject of the article. So far, they appear unable or unwilling to provide support. BLP means that potentially disparaging information needs to be well-documented. - Arcayne () 01:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

And since they would not stop adding the same edits, the user has been reported for 3RR. - Arcayne () 04:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

James Cawley: arbitrary break

Please help me with Arcayne (cast a spell) and others. They think an interview with James Cawley is valid. While Memory Alpha who has researched multiple sources is more truthful. The basic changes I want is James Cawley was an extra on the new Star Trek movie but they keep deleting my edit. Also they do not want people to know that James Cawley did not himself spend $100,000 to build the set. Hey just go to the New Voyages website and they are always asking for money. James does not work. Maybe in the past he was an Elvis impersonator but when was the last time he was employed. Why is this so hard to believe this is the truth?173.55.27.133 (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

What published, reliable, and/or verifiable sources have you offered to back up your assertations? None, so far as I can see. As I've mentioned to you on the Cawley talk page, not only is Memora Alpha a wiki (and therefore not a reliable source, you've also vandalized the Cawley article there as well.

You're trying to give motives to other people that have no basis in reality. You do not know for a fact that Cawley is an extra - none of us can know that until the film comes out. The present wording is accurate - yours, while possibily true, is unsourced, which is why it gets removed. Your speculations here about SAG or pay don't mean anything - heck, for all we know, they gave him a few lines and Taft-Hartley'ed him, which makes it all a moot point - but I'm not putting that in the article, because a) it's irrelvant right now, and b)again, unsourced.

Also, you keep claiming "everyone knows" certain things... again, reliable sources? You want us to take everything you say at face value, but I'm sorry, but an anonymous person hiding behind an IP from Murietta, CA isn't exactly a great source. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you have blocked me from editing and have taken my 1st Amendment right but you are allowed to write anything. I will let you put in James Cawley was an extra in the Star Trek movie because he said it. I have printed out the Trekmovie page so do not have them delete it. Please add James Cawley was an extra in the Star Trek Film. The reference being James own words....http://trekmovie.com/2008/11/12/editorial-james-cawley-on-the-new-star-trek-movie/

"121. James Cawley - November 12, 2008 To those of you who feel I have sold out etc. You are dead wrong. NO ONE loves The Orignal Star Trek more than me. No one is more devoted to it’s look and feel, for Christ’s sake, I own a full scale bridge set and play Kirk in my spare time! I have poured more of my life into classic Trek than I care to discuss. Being an extra in the film has nothing to do with my opinion either. "

Please tell me this is enough for you now and add that he was an extra. Thank you173.55.27.133 (talk) 04:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.27.133 (talk)

Pardon me, but wouldn't this discussion be better suited to the article discussion for James Cawley? Seriously, Ryan's a dandy, eclectic fellow, but this is simply clutter here. Take it to the discussion page, 173anon; that' where it belongs. I am sure that, if Ryan is so inclined, he will keep a watchful eye or two on the situation. - Arcayne () 04:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

PedMen

I'd love some help if you got time. :) None of the mentors are as active as they once were, & I could use a hand. You have muh more experience in the topic. hmwithτ 18:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ryan, there's a bit of an issue with one of the articles, but so far it's not like the kind of heated incidents we've seen on the related pages in the past. The question is being discussed by several editors and at this point it looks like it will be resolved by the references and consensus. Your help would certainly be welcome to keep things on the positive track. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys - I've got one more day left at work before a bit of a break so I'll get on with it tomorrow. Hope that's ok for everyone. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Cooling my jets

Cooling my jets too

Ryan, I just saw your note over on Greg's talk page (I noticed my name in one of his edit comments) and although you haven't (yet?) asked me to stay away from the poll talk page, I'm going to do so anyway. The "proposed compromise" I've mentioned there is just this: we give the date autoformatting opponents everything they want (disable the DA software entirely, allow mass de-linking by script/bot/whatever) in exchange for them staying out of the development process for some replacement software. When the replacement software is ready, it would be put up for community approval/rejection. I had thought that the proposal would meet with enough approval that it could be enacted rather quickly, and although nobody on the pro-autoformatting side has voiced any complaint, people on the anti-autoformatting side are vehemently opposed to it, for reasons that honestly baffle me. Perhaps it's just because I was the one proposing it? In any event, I don't think deferring to the Wikimedia developers is a good idea. I'll stay away for at least a few days (maybe longer if it seems to improve things) and I hope you can come up with a workable solution to this mess. Good luck. --Sapphic (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

Ryan, sorry to ask, but what are the rules with regards to canvassing about the RfC? I've just become aware that Tony1 has posted twenty or more notes to people who participated in a previous poll regarding autoformatting, encouraging them to vote. (Sample text: "However, I'm afraid this issue is the subject of another RFC which proposes among other things the addition of long template strings to dates." "You may wish to make your views known again on this same issue, whatever your opinion now. It's open until Monday, I think") Further investigation shows that Lightmouse is contacting dozens of editors who have used his date-delinking script (ostensibly, people who would oppose DA) to encourage them to vote. If this is kosher, so be it - but given the stink raised over Sapphic's recent talk page posts, this doesn't seem right. Thoughts? --Ckatz_spy 09:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Ryan, it would be nice to see some feedback from you on this. Unlike Sapphic's talk page comments (which were not canvassing, the people being talked to were already aware of the RFC and had already voiced an opinion, Sapphic was engaging in further discussion which should never be discouraged in a consensus seeking environment) Tony and Lightmouse have contacted editors who were not aware of the RFC (or at least, who had not already voiced an opinion) to try and gain additional support. Is ArbCom aware of this disruption? —Locke Cole • t • c 18:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Stay off my page

Stay off my page, keep your veiled threats for those who deserve them like you mate Neurolysis. You had not the common decency to challenge him on Misplaced Pages for his trashing posts, so just keep away from me. OK. Giano (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe Neurolysis is a mate of mine - I simply spoke to him because I felt what he did was wrong. I didn't have a quiet pally word with him - I laid into the guy quite a bit actually. But fair enough, I'll stay clear of your talk page. (I would however note that there was not a single threat in my post to your talk page, just a simple request which you could have taken however you wished and a bit of advice). Ryan Postlethwaite 21:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your order

Here is your requested fish :

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Would you share it? I think I deserve a bite or two for bumping your AN thread without double-checking the dates. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, excellent - just what I needed! ;-) Unfortunately, I refuse to share this! Ryan Postlethwaite 10:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Your block of Lightmouse

Just wanted to let you know that since you last checked, Lightmouse has given more legitimate reasons for his actions. Also, a seemingly uninvolved admin has offered his opinion. See . Dabomb87 (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been following it, yet I don't believe anyone has said anything that I didn't already know. Lightmouse sent the emails (I know exactly what was sent in them) and there's no changing that. I might unblock him ealier (i.e. when the poll finishes) but he won't be taking any further part in the poll. Any edit he makes to the poll page or talk page will be met with a block. He's disrupted the poll and now made it skewed - he's no longer welcome to participate further in it. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mean that the entire poll is invalidated. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the whole poll isn't invalidated, but it's not a reliable as it was. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ryan, while I appreciate that this is frustrating, the poll attracted well over 500 WPians—such a large sample that it is difficult to influence its outcome in any significant way. Tony (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I respect that, but if people aren't happy with the results, it's one more reason for them to dissent it. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we should also note that not all parts of the poll were affected equally. There has obviously been more efforts (by both sides) to garner !votes on autoformatting; check the numbers—about 260 !votes on year linking, but nearly 500 !votes on autoformatting. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please provide a verbatim copy of one of the e-mails (sans identifying information) at the Date delinking evidence page? Thank you. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. Lightmouse still owns the copyright of the text in the email so he would have to release it before it could be printed on-wiki. Basically, Lightmouse needs to give his approval. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's how copyright works, as I've seen logs (IRC logs, for example) posted for arbitration, and I could have swore e-mails were posted as well. At any rate, this is important evidence that must be available to the parties. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, that's how it works. It's the major reason why emails and IRC discussions can't be published without consent of the individuals taking part. You can ask Lightmouse if you want, I'm going to send it to arbcom directly anyway. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Locke, for the relevant policy, see Misplaced Pages:E-mailing users#Abuse handling. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Signpost: 13 April 2009

• License update: Licensing vote begins
• News and notes: WMF petitions Obama, longer AFDs, UK meeting, and more
• Dispatches: Let's get serious about plagiarism
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Color
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No further disruption to RfC

Ryan, please see my 18:31 post at the end of this section on Talk:RfC. Greg L (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've seen. Tony would be well advised to stay clear of the poll completely from this stage onwards. As I said to him and lightmouse, they aren't welcome on the poll anymore - they've disrupted it enough with their sly tactics. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ryan, that comes close to a personal attack ("sly"). I wonder why you believe you can exceed your role by making subjective slurs. It is not necessary and damages your role as an independent party.

A repeat of my reply to your entry on my talk page: I have already explained why I believe these are false assumptions. I won't participate on the poll pages as you ask, but since the poll results are germane to the temporary injunction, and the temporary injunction is bound up with the ArbCom case in which—against my wishes—I am a party, I presume that I am free to express my views elsewhere on the injunction and the case. Otherwise, I think I'd have to be excluded from the ArbCom case: people can hardly be parties but not allowed to speak on their behalf in relation to it.

The other issue is that if I am attacked on the poll page or my views misrepresented, I now have no right of reply. Are you going to deal with that if it arises? Please let me know whether I will be protected from such comments. Tony (talk) 05:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Should you feel you are being attacked or misrepresented, you can tell me here and I'll remove any offending edit. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Date formatting poll

In answer to your query, I learned about the poll in two ways, first because MosNum, Date Formatting & associated pages were on my watchlist (from the time this issue first came up last autumn), and secondly because there was one of those to-all-editors flags pasted on the top of my watchlist when the poll opened. I knew it closed this week, although I'd misremembered it as closing on the 14th, but I hadn't participated because the sheer size and reading-time is intimidating (even on the blank ballot before the poll opened) and because I'd deliberately pulled away somewhat from Misplaced Pages a week ago to regain perspective when I found myself on the edge of 3RR edit war over another article. Knowing the poll was about to close very soon (and with Real Life permitting), I searched for it last night, but it actually took some work to find it again. I've certainly not been canvassed by anyone else about this poll. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Cherokee

No worries. "cobin king" might in fact be a "stud", but the information was unreferenced :) -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I'll get looking for a source :-) Thanks for understanding. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

Talk:Homosexual_transsexual#Homosexual_transsexual_.22Used_in_psychology.22.3F If you have time could you please give your input on this request for comment.--Hfarmer (talk) 03:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Celtic F.C.

OK I am learning so thanks for the advice but you really should take a look at the history. There is vandalism all over the place and it should be protected (Pointer1 (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC))

Linking, protection, arbcom etc

Hello Ryan.

What seems like an age ago, I fully protected:

• Misplaced Pages:Linking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Misplaced Pages:Build the web (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I did so in response to repeated edit-warring by multiple editors at these and other pages. I did not set an expiry on the protection but instead specified that I thought the protection should remain until the end of the Date Delinking arbcom case. At the time, I never imagined that the case would take so long to reach a resolution; had I known at the time that the case would be unresolved even now, I may not have used page protection or may have protected the page with a different expiry.

I saw today that you edited Misplaced Pages:Linking and was wondering if you thought that the pages should be unprotected. Since you are more familiar with the background to the whole debate than I, I'll leave this to your discretion and simply say that if you wish to change the protection status or expiry of these pages, you should do so without worrying about overriding my earlier action.

CIreland (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoops

My bad. I was just trying to help; my mistake. Revert away if it is for ArbCom-ers only! — BQZip01 —  13:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Autoformatting

Ryan, please implement Sapphic's proposal, which amounts to disabling DynamicDates (setting $wgUseDynamicDates = false in LocalSettings.php, not disabling date preferences entirely, as they're used for things other than DynamicDates) and barring the opponents of autoformatting that are named in the ArbCom case from interfering in any future discussions to develop a new software replacement. --169.229.149.174 (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Votes

Hi Ryan,

In response to demands, I contacted people to tell them there was an injunction relevant to my delinking script. As I said before, it would be bizarre to mention the dispute but not mention the RFC that would resolve it. I did this by email and by posts on talk pages, sometimes both. You accused me of being 'sly' but the allegation is untrue and posting on talk pages is not evidence of slyness. Anyway, while there is a lot of talk about 'skew', I happen to think that the poll about the removal of a feature has an inherent skew towards votes by people that want the feature.

I think that users of my script were entitled to vote. In hindsight, this issue should have been discussed prior to the start of the poll. Nevertheless, to end the debate about this, I tell you that 12 people voted in the autoformatting poll chronologically after my email and talk page contacts. One of those people voted as 'neutral' and eleven were 'oppose'. Should you wish, you can confirm those figures by looking at voter talk pages and cross checking votes, emailing voters, etc.

If you are considering discounting these 12 and those of Tony, I strongly suggest that you:

• (a) discount vote reversals as a result of contacts from Sapphic
• (b) ask the 4? main autoformatting lobbyists a direct question about whether they contacted (email, IRC, talk page) any voters either before they voted or to 'clarify' votes.

I hope that helps us all move forward. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Still the obsession with Sapphics continued discussion. What she did was not wrong under any interpretation of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. It's sad that Lightmouse seems genuinely afraid of discussion that might reveal problems with the delinkers arguments. An RFC is a solicitation of discussion, see WP:VIE, etc. Your behavior here is reprehensible and beyond the pale, I sincerely hope ArbCom doesn't take what you and Tony1 have done lightly. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Lightmouse, could you please provide me with a list of the people you contacted (I already have the number of emails that were sent). I'm not necessarily going to start discounting votes - but I need to know who was contacted and look at how much of an impact it has made. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a trivial task, lets not make extra work for no added value. The effect is 11 oppose votes and 1 neutral. If you want a list of names of those, I can give you them. You said you already had a list and the two lists will match up. If you get a name of a person that didn't vote, that will make extra work for me but won't benefit your analysis of the effect. Similarly, if you want to check that one of the voters acted without contact from me, you will have to: (a) either accept my word for it (I can't prove a negative); or (b) contact them and ask. Trying to help. Lightmouse (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, trying to make progress…

Ryan, please see my 02:09, 15 April 2009 post here on Talk:Poll. Greg L (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sapphic's obnoxious posts (March/April 2009)

Hi Ryan. I notice that you have removed the exchange Greg_L and I had with Sapphic recently. I'm not happy with that removal, and I would like to have it reinstated. There are important aspects to the debate in that exchange (not related to Sapphic's behaviour) that the wider community should be aware of (and I'm sure we can all handle a few swear words). In addition, Sapphic is currently playing a curious game in regards to the results of the date linking and formatting poll, and it is important that people who come into contact with her have a glimpse of her "style". More worrying is that the removal of her comments makes it looks like she has done nothing wrong. Why does the slate get wiped clean for her? Based on the obnoxious attitude she has shown during this debate (e.g. , , and ), I formally request that you instigate action against her—preferably resulting in some sort of block. Thanks for your attention to my request.  HWV258  22:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hold on, you must have missed my post here - I've banned her from the talk page for a week. Should she post there again (or I see any other incivility from her) she'll be blocked, no questions asked. My removal was not to wipe the slate clean for her - far from it in fact - it was because I couldn't honestly be bothered looking at her ridiculous statement and I didn't want to waste other peoples time replying to it. I've taken action - she won't be doing that again. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)