Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:40, 22 January 2010

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Talkback

Please help

I want to update this article but i cant because edit button is removed. http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_security_forces_fatality_reports_in_Afghanistan So please add these in the article.And my request is please add the edit button in the article.

Afghan security forces losses in other time periods

2010

• January 10, 2010 - An Afghan soldier killed alongwith a US soldier and a British journalist in an explosion in southern Afghanistan.

• January 12, 2010 - An Afghan policeman has been killed and two others wounded in a suicide attack at a police station in south-central Afghanistan.

• January 13, 2010 - Various Taliban attacks in the country killed five policemen and 4 Afghan soldier.

Afghan private security guard losses

• On January 7, 2010, seven PMC's including the commander of Afghan security guards killed by a suice bomb attack in Gardez, the capital of Paktia province.

• The article needs to be semiprotected because of sock editing. I suggest you make this request on the article's talk page, and someone who is more familiar with the topic can review it. If no-one responds, use the {{Editsemiprotected}} template. Another option is for you to create an account. EdJohnston (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

How to use thing thing?{{Editsemiprotected}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.32.188 (talk) 08:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

New ANI created.

I believe I should give you a heads-up on this ANI regarding Proofreader77 http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proofreader77_Established_record_of_continuous_unrelenting_Disruptive_Editing

--Tombaker321 (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Bad block

Re Misplaced Pages:ANI#Someone block this disruptive editor? - The editor had received two very stern warnings from administrators threatening to block on continued disruptive behaviour. They have not continued - in fact, had not edited for nearly 24 hours since the warnings. Why did you block despite my urging not to? Exasperation at having to fix past unwanted edits that were made in good faith is not a justifiable reason for blocking. –xeno 13:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It was the fact that he had already removed a block warning, and then continued to do the archiving. Opinions could differ on whether the behavior had stopped as of 07:00 on 13 January, but he had already failed to take any appropriate notice of the ANI. The thread had been open since 11 January, and he had certainly continued past that point. By this time he should have joined the discussion to find out how he could help to undo his changes. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

He stopped fussing with WikiProjects and moved to article talk pages. That's a different matter altogether. –xeno 20:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If you feel that the block was premature, you are welcome to undo it. My reaction was due to his complete lack of interest in responding to the ANI thread, plus the fact that many hours of work would be needed to undo what he did. EdJohnston (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Mladifilozof

Thank you for your concern. I will take a little rest these days. Maybe it is the best solution when the situation becames tense. Greetings! --Mladifilozof (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at Creation according to Genesis

Sysop Ed, thank you for your courtesy. I agree to your request that I not edit the above article for one week (13-19 Jan.) Some questions, please.

1. Does User:Ben Tillman not qualify as edit warring during the same period as I? Just for my info, please explain if "no." Is it a case of no one complaining?
2. How does one locate an edit's number, like this: diff=prev&oldid=337146764]
3. I've found that when there are one or two very dominant controlling editors of an article, consensus on any edits contrary to their view is essentially not going to happen. What appeal processes are available in a case like this?
4. Revision as of 00:34, January 11, 2010 is not my edit. (All the others on your 3RR list are mine.) I cannot understand how that edit, which did occur at a time when I was logged in, is even possible. I want to get to the bottom if this so I can prevent it from happening again.

I will appreciate this assistance. Afaprof01 (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to the proposal.

1. It is hard for a reviewing admin to tell very much about an article with so many edits, and it's conceivable that others may be warring as well.
2. How to interpret diffs: if you just bring up the article's history, and click on one of the 'prev' buttons, it will open a diff page. The diff page has a complete URL, which may end with a string such as diff=prev&oldid=337146764. See m:diff.
3. If you have not tried using an WP:RFC before, I suggest that you consider one. This provides a way to obtain a clear consensus on a Talk page. Since the lead of the article seems to have evolved somewhat since your last edit, it's possible that it does not annoy you so much now.
4. I can't explain the unusual diff that you found, that does not seem to be your edit.

One advantage of an RFC is that they can be advertised, to bring in more editors than just the ones who are usually active on the article. The prospects of arriving at a genuinely neutral version can thus be enhanced. For content disputes, there is really no completely satisfactory appeal process. The best you can do is get more opinions. If article wording is in dispute, it is usually best to convert it into a debate about what the sources say. Discussions about sources are the best to have, since they are more likely to arrive at a solution. EdJohnston (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

And thank you for your prompt, complete, and very helpful responses. I'm grateful for your suggestions, and for the time you took to write them to me. Afaprof01 (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at Pubococcygeus muscle

Your evaluation, asking for a WP:Third opinion, doesn't reflect reality. There were a number of people involved, Freikorp, 2010 Duncan, NickPenguin, all opposing Minutae, which, against consensus and ignoring the warnings, kept adding his original research to the article. I ask you to reevaluate that.--Nutriveg (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

White Brazilian

Good afternoon, my friend. Could you be kind and tell me why you've protected the White Brazilian article? The only reason why it was protected before was because one editor began reverting other editor's edits but gave no reason to it. He has departed the article's talk page for quite some time by now. Why protect it if the editor that caused the first protection has abandoned the article itself? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:White Brazilian#Protection again. If most of the editors want protection lifted, I guess it should be done. The earlier problem was that that there was no talk page consensus for anything, and the reverts were large and confusing. See my new comment on Talk and please sketch out what changes you would favor. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for answering me. Well, I'll write there a few comments, then. Thank you once again! Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see the other topic about the subject until now. I do remember that editor Off2riorob was the one (and only one) who complained about Ninguém's edits on the article although he did not give any reason to why he was against it. He never brought, for example, a book that said something different from what Ninguém was writing. And arguing that "mass edits" are occuring has never been an issue as long as it were done to improve the article. The article has been for weeks protected until everyone simply got tired of discussing with him as he kept denying telling us what was wrong with it and according to which authors. Now the article was unprotected and he has returned to complain that another editor was making edits in it? Why he abandoned the talk page and left the article to dust for weeks, then? Only to keep the article unchanged? So, to him no one can make any edit in the article or else it has to be kept protected? Isn't that ownership? Is that reasonable? Could you simply ask him this: "According to which authors are Ninguém's edits wrong?" If he brings sources instead of simply "I don't like your changes so I'll revert them" I promisse that I will support him. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Protected

White Brazilian is still protected and the editors have move on to similar projects at related articles, I don't like to see this article protected long term, have you get any suggestions, one possible one is if I take it off my watchlist and you unlock it, the wiki wheels won't drop off, what do you think? Off2riorob (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this would be better discussed at Talk:White Brazilian. -- Hoary (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to discuss it where ever you want, I just wanted a quiet word with the protecting Admin. Off2riorob (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I've left a question over at User talk:Hoary. We'll see how it goes from there. EdJohnston (talk) 04:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you remove the protection? The article is again being mass edited by the previous editor, under the comment, "back to work" ? Off2riorob (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The only reasonable objection you raised concerning the article was the size of the lead. As you may see, I am keeping the lead short - in fact, quite shorter than the previous version. Ninguém (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

What we were missing before was any kind of a talk page consensus on what to do. If you can get others to express an opinion on Talk, and back your changes, then most likely we are done, and there will be no further need for protection. For instance, if you, Off2riorob and Hoary all wanted the same thing, I suspect that it would be the winning proposal. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Linear Programming repeated adding of unpublished papers

Hello Ed!

Here's an update on Linear Programming.

The fellow put back his thesis. I used the WP utilities for checking IP address, and they indicate that the editor"s" all come from Malaysia, even though one of the displayed IP-numbers begins with a different prefix.

The name of the registered editor is similar to the user name of the sourced account at "Optimization On-Line", a repository of reprints. The thesis thanks people in Malaysia for their assistance. It seems to be a potential case of conflict of interest, as you noted on the registered editor's page, before.

Today, I observed that the claimed representation admits the trivial solution of omega=0, so the claimed result is obviously wrong.

I did invite the registered editor to try to contribute to a stand alone article on "generalized inverses in linear programming", but there's been no response there either. (This seemed to be most constructive use of his energies and material, imho.)

Again, thanks for your help before. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This material was restored by another IP-editor (without comment):

Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have semiprotected the article, on the assumption that COI-affected IPs are trying to force the mention of certain publications that would not otherwise be included. Will you consider opening a complaint at WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, if this has not already been done? Whether PhD theses are considered 'unpublished' is a gray area, so I would prefer to use citations to judge the matter. If the PhD work is not very well known, as judged by Google Scholar or other appropriate rankings, then the IP promotion of this work may need to be resisted. EdJohnston (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Following your suggestion, I wrote a . Thanks again for your help. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I updated my notice there with three other articles where the manuscript of Dr. Abdullah has been posted, and sometimes removed. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: Another anonymous IP editor (also from Malaysia, apparently) to the article on convex optimization today. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I have semiprotected Convex optimization to keep Jalaluddin Abdullah from using his IP socks to add mention of his work to that article. EdJohnston (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the semi-protection. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Feedington requesting unblock

{{Tb}} -FASTILY 04:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I let him know he can be unblocked if he'll agree to get his image uploads checked for copyright compliance. EdJohnston (talk) 05:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: January 2010

Hi EdJohnston, I just want to help Misplaced Pages peformance by archiving talk page both article and WikiProjects. Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 04:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Re So-called Editing War With Respect to Linear Programming

From Jalaluddin Abdullah: Surely it takes two at least for a war, so what are the motives of the other party? Surely three Ph.D's and a book are sufficient (and I haven't found any serious mistakes in any of them, including my own Ph.D. and book). As for "unpublished", at law I think twenty (20) copies in the public domain constitutes publication and I dare say there are considerably more than twenty copies of the (which happens to be my) book on computers; as for "published" work in the area, it is in my opinion quite turgid (I mean Cline and Pyle) which is why I did not refer to it. As for COI, I suggest you ask yourself if the person who keeps removing my addition has a problem and maybe even a conflict of interest - perhaps that person should be blocked. And how do you know that "nobody but you supports including this material"? Misplaced Pages is not supposed to contain unsubstantiated statements.

Moreover: Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote "Today, I observed that the claimed representation admits the trivial solution of omega=0, so the claimed result is obviously wrong." Yes, certainly the fixed-point representation admits the trivial solution ${\displaystyle \omega =0}$, but perhaps he should focus his eyes on the word "Nontrivial" in Bruni's Ph.D. thesis, before embarrassing himself further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjjalal (talk • contribs) 15:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

About notability and reputability, and the alleged "turgidity" of Cline & Pyle: Cline and Pyle published articles, which were favorably reviewed; then their results were discussed in two books by Campbell (Pitman and then republished by Dover; the second by SIAM), and perhaps other authors.

As far as I can see, Dr. Abullah's research in linear programming remains in an unpublished Birmingham thesis (not at Cornell or Stanford or Georgia Tech or Cambridge or Edinburgh, etc.) which has never been published in an article on linear optimization listed by Google Scholar. His latest "book" doesn't cover "nonlinear optimization" as claimed in his Misplaced Pages entry (which has been repeatedly inserted), but only convex minimization and even there his "method" collapses (see his section 9.3.2), so that his text was misleading. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Day NYC

You are invited to celebrate Misplaced Pages Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Misplaced Pages Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at New York University; sign up for Misplaced Pages Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You have a message

NPOV?

I believe I have been referred to the admins because of my views rather than the edits themselves.andycjp (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC) If I was an an atheist and a liberal no one would say anything.andycjp (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy the edits to back pain that you have made have nothing to do with political views this is about proper formatting of an encyclopedia.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

Despite not ruling in my favor, I wanted to thank you anyway for the speedy response and for pointing me towards a resolution on the other issue on the Saoirse Ronan article. Take care. RyanGFilm (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Page used to advertise theater company

Your attention here would be much appreciated. There is a user called Smatprt being an acronym for Stephen Moorer AT Pacific Repertory Theatre. He is the founder of the Pacific Repertory Theatre. On 22 July 2006, he created an article about himself and such was the concern that it was put up for deletion on 20 July 2009 but the decision then was "keep". At that time the article was 34,000 bytes. However, it has now grown to 46,000 bytes and recently he has uploaded a photo of himself . It now seems clear, if it wasn't then, that this article is intended for self-promotion. TermiteGo (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If a person already has an article on them which survived AfD, then uploading a photo for that article seems OK to me. Could we be looking at different articles? I see that Stephen Moorer is about 17,000 bytes and has hardly changed since July, 2009. Personally, I agree with the Keep result of the AfD. I'm not seeing any big problem with promotion -- maybe a phrase could be tweaked here or there. What change do you think should be made? EdJohnston (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on my talk page. Please see my response at the coi noticeboard, as TermiteGo is the likely sockpuppet of banned user:BarryisPuzzled. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

White Brazilian

If I had a dollar for every time my name was mentioned I would be starting to get very rich, I made a good faith request the other day but they didn't want it, there is no debate as such for me to actually join, I will happily remove myself from the issue, go for it unlock it, I don't like to see an article locked for so long, I made my position clear that actually all I wanted was a bit of discussion as the pov of the article was being totally altered without discussion. Tiresome, the wiki will overcome... go ahead for me..unlock it..I will keep out of the meele, no worries, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced message

Hi. I believe this message was meant for you. -- Whpq (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

NW at AN3

I see you've been active at AN3 today; I'd like to draw your attention to Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:NimbusWeb_reported_by_User:William_M._Connolley_.28Result:_.29. Thanks, William M. Connolley (talk) 08:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, has been dealt with William M. Connolley (talk) 11:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Cladistics

Thanks for the kind words. I got into the subject when I noticed that many other areas of the encyclopedia seemed to involve it and yet no one could figure out what was meant from the articles given. I see my role as mainly producing some clarity here, which can be partly had by attention to the confusing formatting - no one's fault, WP takes a while to learn. I'm still learning. However it appears that confusing use of language is the main impediment. For example, as plesiomorphy and synapomorphy are RELATIVE terms non-careful use can completely destroy any meaning a section was intended to impart. So, I'm not really adding or taking away any content or taking sides in any controversy, only trying to make sure that whatever is said has authority and comprehensibility. It's up to people like you to add strategic direction and appropriateness of content. Thanks.Dave (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Afghan security forces fatality reports in Afghanistan(Update)

Please add below this Add below information in this article.article.http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_security_forces_fatality_reports_in_Afghanistan

Afghan security forces losses in other time periods

2010

In 2010, 21 policemen and 16 soldiers were reported killed.

• January 14, 2010 - A police officer was killed and six others were wounded Wednesday in a roadside bombing in Ghazni province.

• January 17, 2010 - Various taliban attacks in country killed 2 Afghan soldiers, 5 policemen and an Afghan district chief.

• January 18, 2010 - A policeman killed in explosions and heavy machine-gun in Afghan capital, Kabul.

Afghan private security guard losses

• January 13, 2010 - An Afghan PMC killed by a gunfire during a protest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.131.120 (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Please make these requests on the article's Talk page. I doubt the practicality of doing these updates on a daily basis. Perhaps the article should be changed to only present summary information that is occasionally updated. If you are actually User:Top Gun, you should not be making these requests at all. Instead, apply for unblock on the talk page of your registered account. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

User:DegenFarang

Please take a look at this ANI notice. User:DegenFarang has a long history of abusive edits, particularly BLPs, and has stated that the only rule he will abide by is ignore all rules. 3RR is just the tip of his iceberg. His abusiveness needs to finally be dealt with. 2005 (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Unblocking of Yakudza

Re, your message, in case you do not already know, I am not an admin.. if you do, cool then. That aside, I cannot give a good judgment at this time, but I will look into it tomorrow.. sorry for not responding earlier, I had been a bit busy. Also, do you know of any programs that check for copyrighted text? If so, then please refer me so that I can check up on the user's submitted article to make sure that it doesn't violate any copyright, as that is what the user was blocked for. If they have shown the ability to write articles without violating copyright, then I'm fine with unblocking.— Dædαlus 12:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I just thought you should know, after some research, I found some interesting information, and as you are involved, I want to make sure that you know, just in case my reply is deleted by the blockee or some other user. Here is my reply. Yak was the one that added the copyrighted line, not other users as they belay. I shall be posting this message to all involved users.— Dædαlus 02:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Please unprotect SitNGo Wizard

Since SitNGo Wizard is currently undergoing a delete vote (AFD), please unprotect the page so that people interested in keeping the article can clean it up, add references, etc. Thanks! Samboy (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The protection will expire on 22 January, but the AfD won't close until 25 January. Consider adding the proposed new references to the article talk page in the meanwhile. (For a hotly-disputed article, it is surprising how little discussion has occurred on the talk page). If the edit war restarts, it will make the AfD even more difficult. EdJohnston (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Yakudza19 still requesting unblock

-FASTILY 00:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

repeated violation of editing restriction

Please see User talk:Polaron#repeated violation of editing restriction. This is unfamiliar territory for me. I believe that I am acting in full compliance with all agreements I have made with Polaron and others relating to article structure (merge vs. allow separate NRHP HD articles vs. village/hamlet/neighborhood articles) in what is now a long-running dispute. I have been working to clear the informational issues in a big backlog of disputed cases, largely by adding NRHP document sources and developing information to allow informed decisions based on common information. But now, Polaron is again redirecting, in clear violation again of the formal editing restriction he agreed to. I don't know what happens now. Shouldn't there be some consequences. It certainly undermines my motivation to make the agreements that Polaron accepted work out fairly for him, tho i am not about to welch out. I thot a horrid long experience was winding down, and am disappointed again. doncram (talk) 04:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Though I have doubts about the wisdom of Polaron's action, I need to ask what prompted you to go boldly forward with a separate article on the Historic District. The thing you created seems quite small and vestigial. Couldn't the HD have been adequately treated by a section inside the Fenwick, Connecticut article? The last time around, I recall that other editors suggested you begin your work off line if there really wasn't much data available yet on the HD. If you can get Acroterion to agree that a separate article on the HD is desirable in this case and is consistent with previous agreements, then I'll pursue the matter with Polaron. EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Now trying to understand the basis for a length requirement of HD articles. I just found this wording in your Proposal B at Talk:Poquetanuck:

We agree to ask via a template at Talk:Poquetanuck that no one should create the NRHP HD article unless a) a DYK-equivalent length starter article could be created, using substantial information (such as would be provided by the NRHP document), and b) the person creating it judges in good faith that it is beneficial to have the NRHP HD be a separate article.

The stub you created for the Fenwick HD does not look to me like a DYK-equivalent length starter article. I don't know if the Poquetanuck principles apply here, or were generally accepted, but a substantial and detailed HD article would certainly affect the weighing of the options. EdJohnston (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The basis for a length requirement was my attempt to get away from the minimal stub creation/redirect/argue cycle. An inarguable DYK-length article seemed like a reasonable basis for a stand-alone article. As you observe,the best way to approach this is to write a one or two paragraph summary in the parent article, then proceed to a separate article if one can be sustained. Some of Doncram's recent articles have the content spread very thinly to eke out 1500 characters. Doncram really, really wants to have separate articles on every possible NRHP property; Polaron wants tighter integration with existing content. Polaron's redirect was, in my view, a violation of his restriction. The article, though was (at the time of redirection) scarcely informative: "It has some significance" doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Nevertheless, Polaron shouldn't be following Doncram around, ready to redirect if an article doesn;t measure up. Acroterion _(talk) 12:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The exchange at User talk:Acroterion/NRHP HD issues list#Middlesex County HDs provides some insight. Acroterion _(talk) 13:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

As I stated on Acroterion's talk page, I think it would be appropriate to insist that Doncram refrain from creating "fill in the blank" stub pages in article space. Creating pages like that one that he started in Fenwick Historic District is like waving a red flag in front of a bull; its difficult to fault the bull for rushing at the flag. --Orlady (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I left a warning for Polaron not to violate his restriction. I agree that Fenwick Historic District is still a 'fill-in-the-blank' stub, and my DYK-checker says that its readable prose is only 729 characters. Since it's less than 1500 characters it's too small for a DYK. EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The requirement of DYK-length is part of the Poquetanuck compromise which applies to CT NRHP HDs that meet 3 defined criteria which Polaron originally proposed. Measuring whether the criteria are met has been left to Polaron; only he has convenient tools or otherwise figured out how to measure the .2 mile distance one. I have previously, and repeatedly enough, asked Polaron to work ahead and state which cases in the worklist (and which cases in the CT NRHP list-articles) meet those criteria. He has not done so. In the meantime, I have been proceeding for some time, as A, O, P are all fully aware, in going through the worklist to develop the NRHP HD articles including adding NRHP documents. So the process has been working by me proceeding, others usually whining some and criticizing, and then eventually it is sorted out whether 3 criteria are met (in which case I agree to a merger or I judge separate article is better and commit to developing a decent article over DYK-length). In each of these cases, once determined 3 criteria met, i have carried out what I committed to. In several cases i stated that I would develop DYK+, then marked the article "Under construction", then did the development over a couple days, and finally removed the Under Construction tag and announced i was done in the central work-list. In no case has the bot which removes stale "Under Construction" signs come around before i was finished. I am dealing with all of this perfectly responsibly, while others are following me around and just heckling, basically.

By the way, in many of these cases, I am correcting information in the related articles that turns out to be fabrications, and incorrect. Such as assertions that the entire borough/village is a historic district, or that the historic district is some current arts district when it turns out the historic district is a WWI-era housing project, completely different, instead. The village/hamlet/neighborhood articles in CT are all rather lousy, frankly; it is simply weird that these other editors are fighting so valiantly against the temporary existence of perfectly well-sourced albeit temporarily unfinished NRHP stubs. They should be embarrassed about the lousy quality of the hamlet articles in CT in general, including ones that they are trying to force merger to. Many of those have no sources whatsoever and are just piles of speculation, often incorrect. The development of a related NRHP article is, in almost all cases, leading to improvement of the village-type corresponding articles, whether or not the NRHP stays separate or not. The more I do adding in from the actual NRHP documents, the less respect I am having for the opposition here. And the more I think that generally lousy quality of the CT articles, relative to those in other states, has something to do with the pervasive, rude behavior of one proprietary wikipedian, perhaps driving away many potential CT editors.

So about Fenwick Historic District, i am still not sure if those 3 criteria are met (what is the mileage difference, by the way?) If it turns out they are, which does seems likely now, I will comply with the previous agreements, which perhaps would require me to invest more time in developing a more detailed article or perhaps i will agree to a remerger. Note that in a remerger, the material i develop will have improved the corresponding Fenwick article. By my developing the separate NRHP article, I am building common information to help everyone have more informed views. What is galling is the arrogance shown by Polaron that no way no how could there be room for an article on the topic of the NRHP. He didn't need no stinking information to make that judgement before, here and also in now-hundreds-of-cases where his prior judgements and assertions turned out to be wrong. He may be right here that the NRHP HD substantially overlaps with the village. But he's too happy to seize upon work-in-progress and his quick read of an NRHP document (adding to whatever else he knows or thinks he knows) to make that judgement. And then to act like judge-jury-executioner and edit war to get his way. This is embarassing, rude behavior on his part. I have been choosing to pursue the NRHP HD issues in Connecticut in order to clear away the minefield for new/other editors. I do see in passing that P shows extreme proprietary attitude about other CT articles and issues. I do think he is cumulatively irritating and driving away many new wikipedians who don't know how to stand up to his battling behavior. Here, anyhow, I am trying to insist that P behave civilly. This includes raise content issues at talk pages, make merger proposals to be discussed civilly, etc. It is depressing to see reversion to battling behavior as his first and strong instinct. It has not been my goal to force change in Polaron's general behavior, but since he is acting out again now, in explicit violation of edit restriction, I think some more review of his behavior is called for. My main goal, again, has been to clear away the minefield on the NRHP topics alone. I have compromised, already, in giving up what is a basic right (to create stub articles on valid Misplaced Pages topics, with no length requirement, unless and until a valid AFD process is run and reaches a delete decision (which in almost 100% of NRHP cases would result in KEEP decision)) for CT NRHP topics.

About waving a red flag in presence of a bull, by my creating a stub article in an area that might offend P in some way, that is not my problem. If the bull cannot behave himself when under edit restriction, then there is a serious problem with the bull. It is not correct to tell everyone else in wikipedia to avoid valid article development (creating stub articles on valid Misplaced Pages topics) because it might irritate an irrational, policy-defying individual. In particular I am concerned for the new wikipedians, or new-to-NRHP-topics editors who might start, only to encounter the rude, proprietary behavior. I have repeatedly expressed this analogy of clearing the minefield, which I am proceeding with. I am certainly eager to finish and get on with other stuff, elsewhere.

Sorry about the length of this post, somewhat of a rant, but I wanted to share a bit more of my perspective to EdJohnston, who seems to have some good concern about the behavior issues. Thanks. doncram (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Must Doncram's HD articles be developed in article space?

I question why we need to have so many tussles in article space. Can't Doncram create draft versions of HD articles in his own user space until they pass the criteria? He could create links to those draft articles from Acroterion's list, which would allow others to see and comment on them. I suggest that those articles should not move to mainspace until they pass a length check using a DYK-checker script, which would ensure that they have 1500 bytes of readable prose. EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Doncram has already agreed to plenty of compromise, but is willing enough to consider more, if the basics of an agreement are held to by other parties as well. Going further, I have specifically committed to trying to make the agreement work for Polaron, as well, and if some clarification and/or amendment is proposed i will be receptive.

I have already agreed to follow the Talk:Poquetanuck agreement and not create short stub articles in cases where it has been determined that 3 criteria for a merger are met. It would help if Polaron would go through and identify the cases where he feels the 3 criteria are met. I have requested he do so and he has not. In a case where 3 criteria are met, the agreement is not clear on how to implement a good faith decision to do a split article (requires good faith judgment that a split is beneficial, plus commitment to DYK+ length). What is not explicit is whether the splitter has to create DYK+ length article separately, or whether it can be done in article space in some timely fashion. In practice, I have been working in article space because that is where the articles already are, or there are previous redirected-over versions in place, and I have made public announcement of commitment to develop to DYK+, posted an "Under Construction" tag, and proceeded to complete out some decent development. I am willing to amend/clarify the agreement to agree that in 3 criteria cases where there is not currently a separate NRHP article, i would work in userspace first, and meet DYK+ before moving to mainspace.

In the absence of 3 criteria not being identified, it is not reasonable to prohibit article development. The fact of previous edit warring is little indication of whether 3 criteria are met. Polaron originally judged in hundreds of cases that he would enforce mergers, and did redirects and edit warring to prevent separate articles. In most of these original cases, Polaron agrees that forcing merger is not reasonable.

After the fact of an article being started, if it is then determined that 3 criteria are met, then i have always agreed to bring the situation into compliance, either by performing a merger or by developing to over DYK-length. Note, all these split/mergers are subject to further, usual wikipedia processes of merger proposals etc., based on actual information; this tussling has to do with temporarily stabilizing CT NRHP cases only. I don't feel inclined to agree to ask Polaron for permission to develop any article in CT. I already did ask him to identify the 3 criteria cases where he wishes to object to article development. So if I start or re-start an article in mainspace, and he then wants to object, I think it is reasonable to allow for some time to complete out some decent development, leading either to a valid separate article being kept or to a merger of the developed material.

Also, another way that Polaron and others could address things, is to actually develop the currently-lousy village/hamlet articles that they favor. There are only 2 or 3 cases in all of CT, maybe one being the Old Wethersfield article, where any serious effort to develop NRHP information in the village/hamlet articles has occurred, except in response to separate NRHP article development. To this date, I believe Polaron has added an NRHP document as a reference to a village/hamlet article only one time, ever, except when deleting and copying material that i had developed in a NRHP article. So, consider this as an option already available to P, that P can get something in terms of stopping NRHP development, if that is his goal, if he actually has done or is doing some good amount of NRHP development in a merger article. If he puts an "Under Construction" tag up, and is actually seriously working, I would agree to not do competing work in a corresponding separate NRHP article. --doncram (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

To my knowledge, development of articles in main space is allowed on Misplaced Pages. Why should I or Doncram, or anyone else have to agree to give up behavior that is explicitly allowed in order to keep the freakin' bull from overreacting? I would not want to have to agree to develop every article I start to DYK length before introducing it to mainspace. It seems to me that this would be a direct contradiction of the Misplaced Pages process of growing the encyclopedia. Starting stub articles that others come along and work on is integral to that process.

Further, Doncram is much less opposed to merging articles than I am, in spite of what others may think. I do not enjoy at all the process of trying to work NRHP info into existing articles, which often have unsupported information or at least require me to make judgements about and check info that I have no interest in. There are several articles in my home area that I have pictures for languishing while I procrastinate because there already exists an article that I don't want to deal with. It is my opinion that just the infobox and a couple sentences DOES convey good information. If I am travelling elsewhere and look at the NRHP list to see what to look at historically, having an article available with just the infobox is a huge step up from having to request every nomination form separately in order to have a clue about it, especially in areas where nomination documents are not available online.

In my opinion, Doncram has done more than his share of compromising in this dispute. NRHPs are Misplaced Pages valid topics. If I develop an article you think should be merged, then there's a way to handle that. Why should Polaron be allowed to circumvent that process? I agree there shouldn't be so much tussling in main space, but I think you guys are trying to change the behavior of the wrong (and wronged) party. Perhaps you do this because you can't get Polaron to listen or respond any better than Doncram has been able to, but how is that fair? Let the bully have his way, then he won't beat you up. Or in this context, play in your own yard (user space), but don't venture out, because others might defend you in your own yard, but they'll let the bully beat you up out on the street. Doncram is certainly right that Polaron's behavior would rapidly repel any newbies trying to work on CT articles. I am not a newbie, and I witness this whole thing with fear for the ramifications that these CT agreements may have in other areas of the country. If in the whole country DYK length articles are required before they can move out of user space, then further development of NRHP topics will virtually halt, I believe. I think that would be really sad. Lvklock (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

We would not be here, having this discussion, if there had not been a long-lasting edit war that people are groping to find a solution for. There needs to be a way to bring consensus into the process. What do you advise to stop the war? Polaron has a restriction in place; Doncram should also agree to limit his behavior so these contentions don't constantly occur. You could suggest ideas that will keep this from going to Arbcom. Do you want to try explaining Poquetanuck to Arbcom? EdJohnston (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Recently Doncram has been creating pages in article space that consist largely of placeholder and "fill in the blanks" sentences and citations, as well as pages that look like notes for an article to be developed later. Statements like "The district has some significance", "It has some history," "It has a cut stone ring somewhere and rusticated brownstone curbing somewhere else," "The district includes some core area," and "The district has significance described in its NRHP nomination documents", lists of 200 street addresses of individually nondescript houses included in a historic district, and bulleted items like "*more" (all of these are extracted from Doncram's recent work) do not belong in article space.
Doncram expressed outrage at Talk:Glenville Historic District after I moved that article to his user space, suggesting that he was unaware that articles could be developed in user space. It's surprising that a user of his experience was unaware of this, but it's not too late for him to learn -- and get in the habit of starting skeletal articles in his user space, rather than article space. Other users would not be so motivated to merge, delete, or redirect his rough draft articles if he didn't put them in article space. --Orlady (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Orlady, I cannot see anywhere in the linked discussion at Talk:Glenville Historic District where Doncram says anything that suggests "that he was unaware that articles could be developed in user space." I know he was aware that they could, but that it is not his preferred method of development. There wouldn't be an "under construction" tag if it weren't acceptable to develop articles in main space. I get that you don't like it, but I don't get how you can prevent it. Do you patrol other articles tagged with "under construction" to make sure they all live up to your standards of what should or should not be allowed in mainspace? EdJohnston, as far as I can see, the only way for the contentions to not occur would be for Doncram to completely drop the whole mess, leaving CT an undeveloped mess of redirects, etc. I do not see Polaron adding a whole bunch of new content, all I see him doing is running around messing with merging stuff others have done. Disagreement (contention) is not against the rules. There are procedures set up to deal with it. Polaron is not following those procedures. How are you supposed to deal with someone who refuses to work within the system? I, personally, would chuck the whole darn thing...not worth the ulcers. But, Doncram responded in kind because he coiuldn't get Polaron to discuss, and to stop making his contentious edits any other way. I guess he perceived the edit warring as the only way to get people to pay attention to what Polaron was doing. Now, obviously, that didn't work very well, since all it did was focus criticism on him. My impression was that since Polaron agreed to the edit restrictions, Doncram had not been edit warring. Has there been recent incidences of edit warring by Doncram that I missed? When Polaron violates the edit restrictions, Doncram tries to get someone else interested in dealing with it. I still am worried that putting more and more restrictions on the exact ways in which Doncram chooses to develop articles will then be applied widely by others, limiting development by requiring too much perfection. Lvklock (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I just read Misplaced Pages:Give an article a chance, which says in part,

Often, instead of outright deletion, someone will suggest moving an extremely short article to the main contributor's userspace. This, however, defeats the whole purpose of a wiki. A wiki is for collaborative editing; articles grow organically as different people come along and contribute their own bits of information. Keeping short articles in userspace, where almost no one (certainly not casual editors) will be able to find them, until they are expanded to meet some arbitrary criterion makes this whole process impossible. Don't do this.

Lvklock (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at Daniel S. Razón

Thank you for the heads-up! This article and others connected to the Members Church of God International network of articles is highly-controversial and have a "rich" history of oh-so-many-socks who all ended up being perma-blocked. Basically, everyone who edits in favor of the notorious cult, its leaders, and any programs and projects related to it are suspects. Because, never in the existence of any of these articles has there been even one editor who contributed anything in praise of these personalities who did not turn-up as a disruptive puppeteer/sock at the very end. I have provided some links on the 3RR page itself to support, which should be enough for any neutral editor to have a good grasp of what's really going on. More evidences can be provided, not to mention the articles themselves, which are all duly-sourced and clearly depict what sort of people we are dealing with here. – Shannon Rose 18:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The Last Airbender edits:

Hello:

I thought to contact you as an Admin, as I seem to have ended up in an Edit war with Dylan0513 (talk)

The page has a casting section, which had been expanded with some quotes regarding the film producer, Frank Marshall and film pundit Roger Ebert. Dylan0513 did not like the idea of having those quotes in page and deleted them. I disagreed. I eventually created a Controversy section, which he also disagrees with and deletes, although some of the previous editors preferred the idea.

Upon the leaked names of the main cast members, Avatar fans campaigned for a change in casting to reflect the ethnicity or the appearance of the characters. As of January 2010, even though the film has not been released, there is still an ongoing controversy in the Avatar fan community over the casting choices and boycott websites, for the film, have been set up. On April 20th, Frank Marshall stated in his Twitter account that the casting was complete and that they did not discriminate against anyone. Finally, that he was done talking about it.

- Recently, Movie critic Roger Ebert called the whitewashing of the cast as wrong and asked, why Paramount and Shyamalan would go out of their way to offend the fans? He clarified by stating that there were many young Asian actors capable of playing the parts.

I perused the controversy sections in Dragonball Evolution and 21 (2008 film). They both contained more information regarding their casting controversies. It would be a disservice if statements from these two persons were left from the section.

It has already been pointed out that we are breaking the rules, but further discussions seem to be of no use, we are at an impasse. An Admin to make a judgement would be better.

Thank you, Nemogbr (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC) --Nemogbr (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have protected the article for five days due to the edit war. Consider opening an WP:RFC to bring in more people to the discussion. Perhaps you can find more press sources that show that the controversy has been widely noted. If you are deadlocked, follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

For a film that has not been released, it is receiving plenty of coverage in the internet and there are 141,000 entries, regarding the controversy if you check via google. Various blogs like racialicious, 8 Asians, Geneyang, Angry Black woman and others have mentioned the so-called racebending and any article pertaining to the film, like in Variety magazine, ends up with dissenting voices from pro-casters and anti-casters.

Both 21, Tropic Thunder and Dragonball Evolution mentions the controversy in those films, but Last Airbender does not. Not mentioning the controversy is a disservice to the fans and those looking for information. You end up with only half the information, making the article more an advertisement for the movie, rather than a neutral source.

--Nemogbr (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You mentioned blogs, which normally don't count as reliable sources. This is not a good way of showing the importance of the issue. Moreover, the controversy about the race of the actors is *already* mentioned in the article, you just seem to want to emphasize it more. To avoid undue weight, any mentions in reliable sources would be valuable. EdJohnston (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Understood, the blogs show POV. The brief mention looks as if it was a sideline issue, when various minority rights groups ended up contacting Paramount studios and the film makers had to answer questions. That's the reason for only having two entries in the quote, I posted on your talkpage. Frank Marshall, the film producer and Roger Ebert, a film pundit whose reviews are syndicated in over 200 newspapers worldwide. I thought their view points had more impact, compared to Rathbone's comment. --Nemogbr (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Unclear why you say the article doesn't mention this. The controversy about the actors' race already gets about 100 words and five references in the article. If you think it deserves more space, try opening an WP:RFC. For judging the impact, a publication like Variety would be more significant than a reprint of Roger Ebert's opinion, since he is essentially giving his editorial comment, not acting as a reporter. Frank Marshall's Twitter postings are a primary source. EdJohnston (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit war at Samuel Sevian

You helped before with an edit war starting at Samuel Sevian. We are still having problems with the same editor. Can you give some input over there? Thank you, Bubba73 , 16:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I have commented on Rapido's false claims under his report

Please check my view in the report area. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

More personal attacks and WP:AOBF from the IP editor above. As usual, nothing is done about it. Rapido (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

He seems to like to call criticisms attack and takes criticism against his editing style and behaviour as a personal matter. Again signs of Opinion.

Rapido has removed my links on your talk page

Again, a clear example of his deceptive editing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:EdJohnston&diff=339386500&oldid=339381181

1. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34790930/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/
2. http://www.realclearworld.com/news/ap/international/2010/Jan/12/afghan_police__policeman_killed_in_suicide_attack.html , http://www.newsday.com/news/world/afghan-police-policeman-killed-in-suicide-attack-1.1694992
3. http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2010/01/blast_kills_two_american_soldi.html , http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100113/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan_180, http://www.canada.com/news/Factbox+Security+developments+Afghanistan/2436264/story.html
4. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34752416/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/
5. http://en.trend.az/regions/world/usa/1617428.html
6. http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/SHIG-7ZSJ7K?OpenDocument, http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SGE60G01W.htm
7. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100118/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan
8. http://www.samaa.tv/News16129-2_US_soldiers_among_7_killed_in_Afghan_violence_.aspx
9. Extra refrence:The UN report also highlighted the "cultural insensitivity" of some foreign troops. The report's release comes a day after nine people were reported killed in a protest in southern Helmand province's Garmsir district. Violence erupted on Tuesday over rumours that NATO-led forces had defiled a copy of the Muslim holy book the Koran during a military operation. "Eight protesters were killed when the protesters attacked national security officials in Garmsir," deputy provincial police chief Kamaluddin Khan told AFP. http://www.samaa.tv/News16129-2_US_soldiers_among_7_killed_in_Afghan_violence_.aspx
10. http://www.racebending.com/v3/
11. Third twitter update
12. Roger Ebert (December 23, 2009). "Answer Man". Roger Ebert. Retrieved December 26, 2009.