Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:40, 19 January 2010

Archives

Note: If you leave a message here I will most often respond here

Ban Appeal Notification

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Appeal_of_an_Unjust_Topic-Ban and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks.

File:Athens montage.jpg

OK, I added source declarations. I think that the article of Athens should have a collage as its primary photo but this image is rather narrow for the infobox. Would you agree if I created a new, wider one? Dimboukas (talk) 13:20, 14 December 2009

More on Cold Fusion

Please see my comment given here. --GoRight (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Give it up. The community has spoken, this case is closed. And you, with your well-documented history of disruptive wikilawyering, are hardly the best person to convince people of the need to reconsider. Pcarbonn is free to appeal his ban with the Arbcom sub-committee. I plan to close and archive that noticeboard thread fairly soon, so don't waste your breath. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

HELP HELP HELP

Ceha is starting to intimidate me. Please but please keep an eye out so that there will be no problems. Please. (LAz17 (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)).

Uhm, he made one single edit asking you about your topic ban. Hardly a reason for drama. Nevertheless, I have commented there, hopefully to clarify things and help avoid escalation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely you can see through this. This was his only edit in a month. And it particularily targets me. I am 100% certain that he is a sock puppet. Off of his regular account he just glanced at what I was doing and then logged into his Ceha account. He was banned for sock-puppetry in the past. (LAz17 (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)).

Second question. How on earth is adding demographic data part of the topic ban? In no way is that related to cartography. I just transfered census data onto the page. There is absolutely nothing controversial there. I have regularily been doing this on many municipalities thoughout the republics of the former yugoslavia and nobody ever had an issue with it. (LAz17 (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)).

On reverts and the climate change probation

Thank you for discussing with Jpat34721 on this matter. They have now raised a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation#Proposed Change to the Article Probation Warning, and your advice would be welcome. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Admin's check

Please, if you can, check the article Jonče Hristovski, because Laveol puts dubious tags. I have given several Macedonian references and one non-Macedonian (as the site says from Jerusalem) and please just check whether the article needs such tags. There is no possibility to find additional third party sources since he is regionally known singer. Regards--MacedonianBoy (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a friendly notice ...

Per an off wiki request I have made the following inquiry, . I am just doing a favor for a friend so please don't shoot the messenger. --GoRight (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Ref User_talk:Marknutley#NPOV_warning which is a tinsy bit bitey to a Newbie with good faith, could we have a chat by email? I really don't want to get into a discussion on wiki because there are loads of polemic editors who will butt in and make it difficult to stay calm and thoughtful. I would like to understand the reasoning more and if I have done something wrong myself understand what it was. --BozMo talk 08:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

BONAPARTE = ARBËERSHË

Dear sir. You communicate that change you made to House of Bonaparte is wrong. The family has Arbereshe origin. On 1903, Adolf Thieres write: "When Joseph Bonaparte, the older brother of Napoleon Bonaparte became King of Naples on 1806, Arber / Albanians that went to welcome him, he told say:" And Bonaparte family is from arberesh origin. "Adolf Thieres , x-president of Franz said: Bonapart's older brother admin on 1806, that his family was an Arberesh origin and had very close relationship to Ali Pasha. On Bonaparte's family, Professor Robert d'Angely with origin from Corsica enlight in his book " Enigma of race of origins and languages of Pelasg, Arian, Hellen, Etruscan, Greek and Albanian ". It is a book with seven volumes and 30 years with a work from this professor. In pages 113-117 he wrote that Napoleon Bonaparte was an Albanian origin, same as it was Great Alexander and Scanderbeg.It is interesting that the professor says in his book that the old Surname of Napoleon was "Horse-best" (in Albanian good-hours) and not as Greeks Kalimeros lie.

Additional Details Napoleon apparently also swore in an 'unknown language' when becoming furious. Smth makes us conclude that this language couldn't have been a language near France, because I don't think Italian, German, Spanish, Dutch or English were 'mysterious' idioms that nobody not only didn't understand, but apparently never even heard to. Another thing which might indicate smth, is Napoleon's treatment of one of the generals who conquored Egypt (who's name I cannot recall). He was besieging a fortress in Egypt protected by Albanians for the most part. The general gave the Albanians his promise that if they surrendered the already lost fortress without further resistance, they would be pardoned and left to go. But when they abandoned the fortress, they were disarmed and executed (2,000 men according to the source ). 2 years ago

Napoleon upon hearing what happened, fired the general and confiscated his medals, stating that 'French soldiers do not fight that cowardly' - did Napoleon do this because he felt kinship with the betrayed warriors who defended the fortress, or because he was a fair soldier or because of his blood from ......Arberesh?(it could be the latter, but didn't Napoleon's men slaughter people wherever they went, more or less?)?? --Irvi Hyka 13:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Users: Irvi Hyka

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Castle of Irchonwelz

Was it all copy and pasted verbatim? I think not. Also i was given permission to use stuff from the owners website to improve the article. Would you care to self revert or shall i just rewrite everything? --mark nutley (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Please rewrite. What I saw was pasted together from text blocks from at least two sources, with several full-sentence chunks copied verbatim. That's never good. Not only does it create copyright/plagiarism issues, it also never produces a good, coherent text. (About incoherence: e.g., what role does the "sale of the domain of Ath" play in the argument? What is the medieval French term translated here as "stronghold", given that the English word "stronghold" doesn't actually have the specific meaning described here, in normal usage? "It is often forgotten..." is unencyclopedic. The whole passage about the "controversy" is unsourced. "sits on the site and houses..." is ungrammatical.)

About the image, please feel free to ask me if you need advice on how to handle the copyright issue. Basically, you need an explicit statement from the copyright owners stating what legal conditions they wish to release it under (like e.g. cc-by-sa). A mere "you may use this" is too vague. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I have mailed them again asking if it is ok to apply "fair use" to the images copyright, will that be suitable permissions? --mark nutley (talk) 09:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I'm afraid not, sorry. "Fair use" is when we use an image without the owner's release, because we have a legitimate need to use it for purposes such as analysing and discussing the image itself as an object of encyclopedic coverage. That's not the case here, and it would also never pass WP:NFCC, because it would be obviously replaceable with a free image somebody else might take of that building. An acceptable license would be something like cc-by-sa. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Followed that link and i think this one is already covered by the permission i got from the owner. Cite the author's name, screen name, or user ID, etc. If you are publishing on the Internet, it is nice to link that name to the person's profile page, if such a page exists. I did all that did`nt i? --mark nutley (talk) 10:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, true, but the point is, have the owners given explicit permission for everybody else to do the same elsewhere under such conditions, for any other purpose? Or did they just talk about us using it here on Misplaced Pages? If the latter, I'm afraid that wouldn't be enough.

Sorry we have to be nitpicky about such things, but thanks for making the effort – it would obviously be nice to have the image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

A, now i see what you mean, it would be easier to rewrite it then :) I have also asked them to d othe form for the pics from their website, cheers mate. --mark nutley (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for protecting Talk:Western world. (Taivo (talk) 13:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC))

Let's not play silly games about source tags; we all know this is used as an ethnic flag. I can proove you that this flag is the flag of the "Macedonian State" when the other flag is use are flag of "Macedonian People" (and this last is a great isue with the Albanians that refusing a ethnic coat of arms) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indymediacentral (talk • contribs)

Hello, Indymediacentral, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! While efforts to improve Misplaced Pages are always welcome, unfortunately your contributions are not written in English that is good enough to be useful. You appear to be more familiar with Macedonian; did you know there is a Macedonian Misplaced Pages? You may prefer to contribute there instead. In any case, welcome to the project, and thank you for your efforts! -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I work for hours in forums and Encyclopedias to see my work to be bandalist.

Why it is removed the German flag? You desagree with this? The German people are not represented with a flag?

Read the discussion page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

argumentum Jimbonis

Excellent! And, by the way, do I read your user page correctly ... you are semi-literate in Latin? :-) Proofreader77 00:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Files listed for deletion

Hello. I seem to have misinterpreted the 'Replaceable' criterion. I agree with all deletions except for this (possibly pd-art), this (also pd-art) and this (for which I obtained a permission from its author at www.forum.ge). Thanks for letting me know about all of these.Kober 05:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your understanding. About the cases you mention: this and this are problematic because they are not 2D objects and hence it is assumed that taking photographs of them involves enough creativity to create new copyright. The law case that our concept of PD-art is based on, Bridgman vs. Corel, only referred to 2D objects. As for this, I'd ask you to add some documentation about what exactly the author told you about the usage conditions. Thanks, -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

WrestleMania 23

(1) No, I have no connection to the IP editor. (2) The current version does not reflect consensus. (3) Waiting for someone to remove the sourced information before immediately protecting the article does not at all reflect the neutral intervention I expect from an administrator. I believe you have handled this poorly. I have no doubt that you don't care, and I don't require a response, but I feel the need to register my disagreement with what I perceive to be a poor use of the administative tools. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Full Protection of WrestleMania 23

Can you please unblock it there's an administrator that's going to keep bugging us about no footnote and now he's going to think he got his way.--C23 C23's talk 18:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Re. to both the above: this was an honest-to-god "wrong version" protection of what happened to be the current version when I came to the page. I had been considering if it would need protection while it happened to be in your preferred version; by the time I had made up my mind that protection would be needed, the other guy had reverted. I had not been "waiting" for that to happen. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Will you please un-protect WrestleMania 23?--C23 C23's talk 18:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I could only do that if I had an assurance from all editors currently involved in the dispute that they'd stop reverting and leave the status quo until things have been sorted out on the talk page. You see, that's the whole point about protection. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yah, I know it's just that User:JzG someone who argues just for the point of arguing and it's not me who is the root of this problem it's him so I promise to stop reverting but he won't even when we get a consensus.--C23 C23's talk 18:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

A minor disagreement

Would you take a look at the Cantonist article? A hassidic editor (User:Debresser, now the subj. of an Arbcom ase for POV-pushing) keeps putting a dubious tab on a (most authoritative) secular source, while removing a similar tag from an academically discredited hassidic one. This is quite minor as a content dispute, but increasingly looks like a provocation.Galassi (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Longitudo

Can we just grant IPBE? I don't see where he's been a problem. He's an infrequent user, but I don't see where he's been disruptive. I will also buzz Hersfold, who was the original blocking admin on the blocked range, to see what's what. --Jayron32 03:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No objection from me. Could you do the necessary steps? He seems to be innocent collateral damage. Thanks, --Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not terribly familiar with Sheynhertz-Unbayg's contribution history, although Misplaced Pages:SU appears to detail some of his typical "tells". Checkuser evidence shows that it is quite  Possible that Longitudo is S-U, but I'm not able to confirm any connection. I've got no opinion on the unblock, but I would recommend if a IPBE is given, that one of both of you keep a close eye on the account just in case. Hersfold 20:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your feedback and the info. I'm not seeing any suspicious similarities between the socking pattern and this account, so I'm assuming it's a good-faith user. I've set the IPBE for him now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Guidance needed

Hi Fut. Perf, please have a look at my proposed finding of fact at User:Shlomke/drafts and tell me if this is what you mean the arbs are looking for, as well as if anything needs explaining, corrections etc.. If this is not what they want, please clarify what it is. Thanks, Shlomke (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Please review this

GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), "still no valid opposition" seems to me to be plain old fashioned obduracy - several people have stated perfectly valid opposition, but he doesn't like that so he chooses to ignore it. I think stonewalling in discussions like this is not productive, I don't think he's going to shut up until he gets the answer he wants, and I think that sooner or later someone is going to have to work out what to do about that. Perhaps you are that person? Guy (Help!) 12:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a note: won't have much time for dealing with this until later this evening. Will have a look then. Cheers, --Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. The article is still protected, I think (did not check expiry on that), so there's no urgency. Better to be calm and right than start yet another dramafest. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I have cited policy repeatedly. Meltzer meets the criteria for a reliable self-published sourced. As a result, the statment meets the threshold for inclusion per WP:V. Nobody has given a valid argument that overrides WP:V. We have personal preference (nowhere in any policy does it say a second source is required) and a complete misunderstanding of WP:OR (no Misplaced Pages editor is trying to put any sort of spin on it, other than the exclusionists, who claim that any number ending in a 7 is too precise and therefore not worthy of inclusion). I have provided quotations from numerous policies and guidelines, only to be met with links to policies that are either irrelevant or do not support the exclusionist position. If people are unable to come up with a valid argument, that is certainly no reason to seek a topic ban for the other side. This whole debate is over 7 words, which can be reliably cited: "Dave Meltzer stated (or estimated) an attendance figure of xx,xxx". It is completely verifiable, and the majority of the opposition comes from people turning a blind eye to the very first line of WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true"...not that truth would have anything to do with it, since I can't imagine anyone not believing that Meltzer made that statement. As I have demonstrated repeatedly, Meltzer is a reliable source because he is "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." In fact, he has been cited by numerous reliable publications for his work in determining WrestleMania attendance figures (in the disputed attendance of WrestleMania III. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just quickly reviewed the discussion as it has developed so far at the article RfC, even though my brain was in risk of ending up like the one at the top of User talk:Abd. I can see that the consensus is currently leaning clearly towards Guy's view, and I note that Enric Naval (talk · contribs), a highly respected and experienced outside observer, has made a well-argued policy-based statement in support, together with most of the previously involved editors now agreeing with these two. Since RfCs are typically allowed to run for a somewhat longer period, I'll leave this one for a couple more days, and then see if there is need for a formal closure and determination of binding consensus, which I could do as an uninvolved admin. For the time being, given the indications of consensus leaning this way, I would strongly advise GaryColemanFan leave the status quo in the article as is when the protection will expire in a short while, until a formal determination is made (or, better still, a consensus is mutually acknowledged by the parties). I also recommend toning the volume of dispute down until then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

rollback

Please restore, review anon edits to articles that have had to be manually reverted (Malta) and others. How long are you planning on excluding me from the feature? Cheerzzz Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I will restore it once I have assurance that you understand the problem and will not abuse the feature again. Unfortunately, I see no signs of this. To the contrary, you seem now to be misusing the "Undo" feature in the same way. This edit is again an unexplained revert of a good-faith edit. Is it really so difficult to understand that if you revert another user, and it's not blatant vandalism, you owe them the courtesy of an explanation? Incidentally, your restoration of the cat in this case was technically incorrect: the cat doesn't belong, because the page already has a more specific subcat Category:Collective recipients of the George Cross. This too was wrong at least in parts (it was indeed the Second Punic War, not the First, that happened in 218BC; the First was 264 – 241 BC). So, no, you need to become a lot more careful with reverts before I'll give you Twinkle back. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a pity that factual accuracy isn't high on your agenda! Also, I don't believe you're competent to make this decision (re. restoration of twinkle) and will require further opinions. Where should I request these? Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)