Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:48, 15 April 2010

Abd

Please ignore his reply. Your notification was polite and required. His comments are typical and show a continuation of his problematic behaviour. Best, Verbal chat 17:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. -- samj _in 22:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy

SamJohnston, you said, "Abd has since admitted to willfully violating the editing restrictions and claims "originating party" status, apparently because they were "about to file a report"(!?!)" You gave this diff: and you quoted Abd as saying "I considered requesting special permission from ArbComm to intervene, but decided that the welfare of the project required immediate action, and my restriction allowed me to file as an "originating party."

Your statement is inaccurate. In that diff, Abd does not admit to "willfully violating the editing restrictions", nor anything like it; in fact, in that diff, and in the very passage you quoted, he made it clear that he considered himself to be an "originating party"; the editing restrictions explicitly allow him to participate if he is an originating party.

There's no excuse for mischaracterizing the statements of other editors like that, because you always have the option of either just quoting whole sentences verbatim, (while also supplying a diff to reduce the chance of quoting out of context), or of supplying your paraphrase and taking responsibility for it with a phrase such as "It seems to me that ...".

Please avoid mischaracterizing other editors' statements in future.

To write an encyclopedia, Wikipedians need to be able to quote accurately and cite accurately. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Coppertwig, I'm a bit surprised by this. Sam's summary is accurate, and has been held up by the clarifications. What we have seen here is Abd's usual boundary pushing and baiting. Abd wilfully violated the restrictions because "the welfare of the project required immediate action" - but that isn't his call to make. Verbal chat 22:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Verbal. The point was that Abd was well aware of the restrictions and chose to "willfully violate" them because he "judged that an emergency existed, and that serious and permanent damage might be done". Abd was not referenced in my complaint and yet they jumped straight in before anyone else had a chance to (ironically claiming "There is no emergency."). I probably could have worded it differently so as to avoid ambiguity but it got the point across. I'll be more careful in future. -- samj _in 22:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding, SamJohnston, and I'm sorry for the tone of my comment. It can be very difficult to paraphrase someone one disagrees with (which is why I suggest opening, in such cases, with something like "It seems to me that..."). Verbal, my point was that Abd apparently believed he was not violating the restrictions; therefore he didn't "admit" to violating them. This is a completely separate point from whether he was actually violating the restrictions or not. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography | Further Reading

Dear Sir, please forgive my ignorance with regard to Misplaced Pages. I have no quarrel with you. Indeed, I admire your diligence in maintaining the highest quality standards. I am a novice and wish to learn.

I am puzzled by your removal 9 Feb 2010 of the Bibliography section of Cloud Computing. I find these sections enormously helpful in many of the Wiki entries. Hence my feeling that it runs counter to the spirit of Misplaced Pages to suppress links to potential sources of additional more detailed information. A random selection of other Misplaced Pages articles with references for further reading include Google Apps. Grace Paley, Baroque, Retina, Laser.

I have researched the links that were in the bibliography of cloud computing and although not exhaustive they all appear relevant and provide a rich source for further exploration. I therefore respectfully request clarification on the basis for removal. Maarten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.222.64.210 (talk) 10:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I missed the notification before. I removed the See also section because, while it was initially carefully curated, it regularly turns into a spamtrap (albeit not as badly as External links sections). At the time there were only a few links that could have afforded to be more relevant. You are of course welcome to reinsert the section but I would suggest that you also then take some time to regularly check on and/or watch the article to vet additions - you would be surprised at the variety of coats that particular coatrack attracts! -- samj _in 22:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Sir for your prompt and courteous response. I am very new to wikipedia as an editor. I will consider reinserting and monitoring the section if nobody else wants to assume that task and responsibility. --Maarten —Preceding undated comment added 10:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC).

Your assistance would be most appreciated - I am quite sure there are many relevant articles that could be included here - perhaps start by checking earlier revisions of the page? -- samj _in 11:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

User:GoRight

At this point, I feel that a greater community discussion is warranted concerning GoRight's editing behavior. I have started a discussion here. As a possible interested party, your input would be appreciated. Thanks. Trusilver 01:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Everything as a service

Hello SamJohnston, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Everything as a service, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Author has not requested deletion, or other users have added substantial content. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. The Wordsmith 16:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Cloud networking

Hello SamJohnston. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Cloud networking, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Creator was not the only editor of this page. Thank you. Tim Song (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing

Isn't this & this Canvassing? Spartaz 11:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so - I didn't tell them to vote one way or another, am not aware of any bias (eg to the best of my knowledge they're both nonpartisan - they certainly weren't targeted anyway) and I only notified two editors (which I figured would be enough for consensus) - looks kosher per WP:CANVAS to me. -- samj _in 11:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I can't agree. Why choose these two editors? Verbal at least is likely to vote delete on this one and in any event you are soliciting extra opinions to influence the outcome of a discussion. It doesn't matter what your motivation was I looks really bad. The only valid way to advertise this is to tell everyone who has editied the same set of AFDs or notify a wikiproject. This really smells Sam and I thought you knew better. Spartaz 12:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Fine, I've reverted both as I don't fancy wasting any more of my Sunday afternoon on this. BTW, WP:AGF. -- samj _in 12:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

More on this, Tetracube only has 3-4 contributions to AFDs at all and the last one was to vote delete (as did Verbal) on another article you nominated for deletion. Yeah AGF and all that, but it does rather look to me that you chose these two because you had an idea of which way they were likely to vote. If you were serious about just coming to a conclusion you would have told ARS, no? Spartaz 12:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm currently working on a spate of "as a Service" spam, one of which was "Integration as a Service" aka "SaaS integration" - I chose these editors not because they voted to delete the article but because they have an interest in the area. Nobody outside of the author themselves is likely to vote to keep this article - you said yourself that it was "pretty much the definition of non-notable spam"!?! -- samj _in 12:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawn. Happy? -- samj _in 12:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Not particularly since you don't seem to be able to see how your actions will look to any external disinterested party. Ideally you would have left well alone and then this wouldn't have arisen. I advise you to refactor some of your comments as being overly combative or you are welcome to take the matter to ANI if you disagree with my position. Spartaz 12:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• The blatantly conflicted author derailed the consensus gathering process and even relisting the debate failed to garner further contributions (which is often the case with complex/confusing debates) - the only thing left to do was to notify some other editors which is explicitly allowed by WP:CANVAS. My choice of editors was made in good faith based on their interest in the area rather than any voting bias, and it's hard to imagine any editor voting to keep the article anyway. Cleanup is hard, unrewarding work (particularly when doing it in your own name rather than an anonymous alias), so is it really that surprising that you would solicit a combative response when repeatedly accusing me of acting in bad faith? Put yourself in my position for a second... -- samj _in 13:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Mobility as a Service article review

I have put my comments for the Mobility as a service article for your review.Looking forward to your mentorship!. PCJain (talk) 05:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Which barnstar?

For a speedy on Bibble? Better take the AFD route. It's a pity that a good startup ended in a flop, but v.4 was good. Even yours truly uses it occassionally and it's a legit copy. Way better than Lightroom. NVO (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

IBM stuff

Thanks for your note. After reviewing my response, it occurred to me that it could have been interpreted to have been a challenge to the facts contained in Black's book (which was not my intent). I have corrected my comments to be more specific, and I regret having given that impression (as I don't challenge the facts he's presented). My comment was regarding the facts he presented in his 6,000 word article about Misplaced Pages -- there are plenty of factual errors that have been challenged by plenty of editors and admins (even Jimbo) -- and it is my impression that your accusations of "active concealment" are based solely on Black's presentation of the Wiki-drama. No one is trying to "actively conceal" anything or whitewash, but there are some serious concerns regarding the conclusions Black draws and his "fervor" to indict IBM (figuratively). The only thing I've ever asked for are additional independent reliable sources that support his conclusions -- without any other sources, it's certainly not neutral to give so much weight to a single researcher's conclusions. I have given a more in-depth response here. I hope this helps, and thanks! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)