Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:46, 16 March 2011

See my archives here.

Any relationship with the author?

of this book? I have to say the coincidence in names and preoccupations would be hilarious if totally serendipitous... Tijfo098 (talk) 12:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that's my PhD thesis on Misplaced Pages. ;)--Scott Mac 12:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

OMG, you also wrote "Confessions of a Feminist Porn Watcher"? jstor (famous why) (UC Press full text, not sure if the link will work for you though) Tijfo098 (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Every Wikipedian should write at least three books like that. Indeed, no one who hasn't should be an admin.--Scott Mac 12:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Internet Movie Cars Database

I know it's a little late to ask this question, but why did you delete the Internet Movie Cars Database article? The references were a little bit old, but most new articles don't have a lot of good sources. I think it would have been better to give the article some more time to develop. But then again, you're a more experienced user than me. —Reelcheeper (talk) 05:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

IT was deleted because the consensus at the debate Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Internet Movie Cars Database saw it as unsuitable.--Scott Mac 09:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Cirt

Please stop badgering Cirt on her talk page. I don't disagree with your position nor with your concerns and understand the background of the matter as better than most. Talking to Cirt is a very frustrating task even for the simplest questions. I advise you too drop it for now. Gripe on WR if you feels its appropriate but the more of thats done the harder it will be to ever get an actions on the issues. We dont need any one playing victim because a cabal of editors are targeting them. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I will raise my concerns with Cirt on his talk page, because that and not WR is the appropriate forum. I am not badgering him, I simply asked if he was sticking to his voluntary pledge. If he wants to say no that's fine.--Scott Mac 08:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

New article: The Mystery of a Hansom Cab

New article, created, at The Mystery of a Hansom Cab. Additional assistance in research would be appreciated, feel free to help out at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Scientology and involvement

You have been mentioned in a thread here and may wish to comment.  Roger 19:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Coatracks 'R' Us

You may wish to read this thread if you haven't already. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

/* Kate Hudson */

Kate Hudson - Hi Scott, would you have a look at unlocking this BLP, there is now a citation on the talkpage with the subject discussing her pregnancy , although its only the people, it is quoting her and seems to end any doubts as to if she is or isn't - although I wouldn't personally add it until the birth others would and I wouldn't object to a simple comment about it as she has commented herself. 11:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Scott. Off2riorob (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Vito Roberto Palazzolo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fircks (talk • contribs) 09:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Scott - I am Alexander Fircks who has been editing the page on Vito Roberto Palazzolo. I hope this is the right forum of approach, to you. Apropos the august Don Calo, Mafia Expert, I do not wish to start a wiki war, because that is innapropriate, but merely to give a fair view of Palazzolo's life and times. Which I know a lot about, because I wrote his website. Don Calo's stuff is very slanted, cheap journalism. All his sources are the likes of the Mail and Guardian, etc. Newspapers that couldn't give a damn about truth, as long as they sell papers. So Don Calo is defaming Palazzolo. Everything I claim is documented. What I am building is his case which illustrates, precisely, his defamation in Italy, primarily Palermo. And Don Calo, using unsubstantiated sources, merely adds fuel to the flames of his defamation. Which, given the damage it does, Palazzolo, is unforgivable and surely illegal. It's a great pity that the internet, being such a democratic medium, allows cheap shot journo's through the net. Because they make people's lifa a misery. Perhaps one day we can redress it, but for now all I can do is keep altering his defamatory page.

Your thoughts on a postcard...

Eric Illsley

Please could you quote, on the article talk page, the section of BLP that prohibits calling convicted fraudsters from England "English fraudsters"? DuncanHill (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

What type of question is that? There isn't bits in any policy dealing with specific cases.--Scott Mac 22:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not see anything in BLP to prohibit the use of the category for this subject. You have repeatedly failed to justify the removal in another case. Simply saying "BLP" doesn't cut it - it's not like calling "twixies" in a playground game. You need to shew how the policy supports your contention. DuncanHill (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The policy says that contentious material that is removed stays out until there's a consensus that it is safe to reinsert it. The discussion on the BLP noticeboard showed no such consensus, and a number of editors who believed that this was a breach of NPOV. Fact - he was convicted of fraud. Fraudster to some of us implies career criminality - and we err on the side of keeping material out where there's any risk of prejudicial ambiguity. Anyway, I've rehearsed these views in the more centralised venue of the BLPNB. Some shared them, some didn't (you evidently didn't) there was no consensus. If you want to try to get one, let's reopen a centralised thread somewhere. Otherwise we both just end up repeating ourselves over multiple venues.--Scott Mac 22:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You're the one with the history of distributing the discussion (and of blanking this page when a discussion elsewhere had a link put in to help people see what you had already said). DuncanHill (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry? I don't think my talk page is a very visible place for a centralised discussion, so I previously moved it to a noticeboard for wider input. There's no need to go about assuming bad faith, and making accusations.--Scott Mac 23:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Heroic Failure

Did you even read the discussion page, or are you just a knee-jerk kind of person? MajorCrespo (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I read it and responded (if you'd looked). No need for the attack.--Scott Mac 02:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

What attack? I didn't even use the word reactionary. MajorCrespo (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Admin help required?

Hello, it looks as if Trifunovic is up to his old tricks again as an IP: .

In light of , I wonder if you might still have an interest in maintaining the talk page consensus that brought about the redirect? And whether you might see his renewed reverts as cause for admin action to prevent repetition? Thanks. Writegeist (talk) 06:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, when I posted the above I was unaware that at the same time Franamax was already undoing the IP's revert. Writegeist (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I'm open to another opinion, for sure. It does look like either DT or his lawyer or whoever it was. Will propaply need sprot if it continues, as reason didn't stop them last time. Franamax (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

S-protection looks good. But since I redirected it before, and argued for it, I'm not going to s-protect to defend my own redirect. But if any admin is reading this and wants to help out .... There's a clear talkpage consensus for the redirect, it has been stable as such for months, and we've got IPs and SPAs undoing without discussion.--Scott Mac 01:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

"we are trying to avoid labeling people as "fraudsters" "

Good luck with that :/

• Category:Fraudsters by nationality

Might I suggest a group nomination for renaming at CFD? --Mais oui! (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't want it renamed. "Fraudster" is fine for a career criminal or con-man. Someone with a conviction for fiddling expenses should not be described as such. With BLP we should use the least ambiguous categories possible.--Scott Mac 17:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

So, somebody convicted of fraud is not a "fraudster" ?!? That is a novel concept for me, and the general public at large I would have thought.

If a stole a Mars bar, I would be a thief, n'est ce pas?

Perhaps you ought to write to the Oxford Dictionary, and ask them to correct their standard reference work? --Mais oui! (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Not for your life you wouldn't be a thief, you would after some small time - become only a person that had stolen something in the past. Off2riorob (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Being a convicted fraudster is now, without a shadow of a doubt, the most notable aspect of the life and work of Jim Devine. It is highly unlikely that he will be remembered for anything else at all. Misplaced Pages can try to obscure cold, hard facts to its heart's content. But the real world carries on regardless. --Mais oui! (talk) 05:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

He is not a notable historic fraudster - he is nothing more than an an expenses fiddler. Off2riorob (talk) 05:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Mais oui! Since when did we use categories to highlight notability. In any case, he's notable for a fraud conviction, certainly. The question is whether that puts him in the same category as Frank Abagnale what was a career fraudster? (And when I say "same category" I mean factual description not moral repulsiveness.)--Scott Mac 11:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how temper tantrums and offensive (and totally inaccurate) edit summaries are going to resolve this dispute. Are you really saying that we are going to have to wait until he is dead before we can add his article to Category:Scottish fraudsters? Bonkers. Plain bonkers. --Mais oui! (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Two things a) we can add him to a "fraudster" category when he is unequivocally a career fraudster. For now a "persons convicted of" is a more accurate category. b) There is no need to subdivide the small "British politicians convicted of fraud" into the constituent nations. It only helps to subdivide categories when they are large. Not for your POV nationalistic reasons.--Scott Mac 14:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The "Fraudster" category has never been for "unequivocally (...) career fraudsters", and I honestly do not understand how anyone could think that it is. DuncanHill (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

A number of editors have shared the concern that it may be read that way. So, we should use the less ambiguous and more factual "convicted of fraud". What can possibly be the objection to using the most accurate, least ambiguous, description?--Scott Mac 15:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

he is certainly Category:Scottish people convicted of fraud. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of possible interest

Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Rewording G10 – You can generally say things much more clearly than I. Care to take a look? NW (Talk) 01:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Article dr Darko Trifunovic

Dear Mr.Scott, Many thanks indeed for your notice. I was confused why my article is constantly removed. My consideration is why this article is re directed to another page? Why I am not in position to fulfill the date under the article name? Can you please explain me the reasons for this if you aloud me "strange" situation in Wikipadia?DusanTR (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Vito Roberto Palazzolo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fircks (talk • contribs) 09:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Scott - I am Alexander Fircks who has been editing the page on Vito Roberto Palazzolo. I hope this is the right forum of approach, to you. Apropos the august Don Calo, Mafia Expert, I do not wish to start a wiki war, because that is innapropriate, but merely to give a fair view of Palazzolo's life and times. Which I know a lot about, because I wrote his website. Don Calo's stuff is very slanted, cheap journalism. Excuse the heated language, but he is denigrating a living man.

All his sources are the likes of the Mail and Guardian, etc. Newspapers that couldn't give a damn about truth, as long as they sell papers. So Don Calo is defaming Palazzolo. Everything I claim is documented. What I am building is his case which illustrates, precisely, his defamation in Italy, primarily Palermo. And Don Calo, using unsubstantiated sources, merely adds fuel to the flames of his defamation. Which, given the damage it does, Palazzolo, is unforgivable and surely illegal. It's a great pity that the internet, being such a democratic medium, allows cheap shot journo's through the net. Because they make people's lifa a misery. Perhaps one day we can redress it, but for now all I can do is keep altering his defamatory page.

Excuse my first post, which I didn't sign. Fircks (talk) 09:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Vito Roberto Palazzolo

Scott, I started a discussion at COIN in which I mention you.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

ANI thread concerning you.

Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Category:British politicians convicted of fraud. You are welcome to participate in any debate there. DuncanHill (talk) 10:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Confused

Per your comments at User talk:Cpl123#February 2011: I'm not sure what you're saying. The words you find "unfriendly" and wrong (?) aren't mine. They're part of a template. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Then don't use the template. When a new comer starts to do thinks that appear disruptive, it is best to assume they don't know better and gently explain things to them, than to hit them with a threatening template as if it were common vandalism. Threatening a block was entirely inappropriate.--Scott Mac 16:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Crop picture

Hi Scott MacDonald -

I'd like to crop picture Royal engagement official.jpg to show just the heads of Prince William and Kate Middleton to use in the infobox on the page Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton. I'm requesting permission as it is an official image and you uploaded it. Please get back to me.

RCSprinter123 (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you can't do that. The image is copyrighted, and being used under "fair use". That allows it to be used in the article where we are discussing the image itself - but it can't be used as a general illustration of the subject - so it can't be used in the infobox.--Scott Mac 21:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just though it would be better than the current pictures at the top. Thanx anyway. RCSprinter123 (talk) 10:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Barry Chamish PC

Please reconsider use of Pending Changes on Barry Chamish, given the ongoing RfC on use of PC, and the notice regarding its use, and...well, the fact that there is no consensus for using it, beyond a trial period of 2 months which was from June 2010. Please see WP:PCRFC and feel free to comment there.  Chzz  ►  23:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems a reasonable precaution given the problems with that BLP. What's the downside?--Scott Mac 00:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There's no consensus for its continued use, and that is the purpose of the ongoing RfC. But, I only asked for reconsideration; it is perfectly within the policy...well, sort-of. The policy makes no sense, currently (the 'Interim period' in the poll had a 'hard stop date' of December 31st)...but all of this is exactly what the RfC is discussing. I merely asked some people who'd used it in the past few days to reconsider - and preferably, to participate in the RfC so we can clarify things. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  01:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, my take on it is that the tool may help with this particular article. The article has been a long term BLP problem, which our current monitoring systems have failed to help. The tool is there and increases the chances of preventing fresh BLP violations to go unchallenged. I'm perfectly willing to reconsider using it, if there's some downside I've missed, which would mean this article might be better without it. I was involved for a long time in the policy discussions, but I've rather given up on that. They are, in any case, not relevant to using common sense wrt this article. I suggest if you are asking people to reconsider you might provide a reason that isn't policy-wonking. I've used the tool on a small number of articles over the last few months, and the sky hasn't fallen in yet - that rather encourages me to use it a little more liberally going forward.--Scott Mac 01:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Without wonking: sure; a large portion of the community object to the way PC has been introduced - and that approval of a limited trial for 2 months last June has resulted in continued use. The current situation is very unclear, and it is hard to move on from this position. WMF have stated they won't develop it unless we reach a consensus to keep using it. Whilst it is still in use - without agreement - a large number of people will object on that grounds. That isn't woking; that is stating why, if we keep using it, we're actually in danger of losing it, instead of discussing things, agreeing a remit for usage (whether a trial, or whatever else). Chzz  ►  06:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

A large number of people object to FR, yes. Well, we've been discussing it for years and there's little chance of that changing. Hard to move from this position? I'd say impossible - indeed probably not worth trying. The WMF have demonstrated that this is low priority for them either way - so I'd not lose any sleep over a threat not to develop it any further - I doubt you'd notice any difference between that and their enthusiastic endorsement. For now, I'll use what I can to limit BLP damage, and encourage others to do likewise. Policy is sometimes best developed by changing facts on the ground - the wording of some page can catch up later (or not).--Scott Mac 09:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha, you're absolutely right about the difficulty in detecting WMF enthusiasm! And I do understand your view. I agree about policy developing organically, and hope that might be one result from the RfC. Where it looks like we disagree is, in how to move forward - and whether or not it is necessary to take a couple of steps back (removing it) before we can stride onwards. Again, this is something I hope the RfC will reach consensus upon. Thank you for discussing it, best regards,  Chzz  ►  18:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Organic growth never came for RFC clusterfucks. Steps back? Ha. There's nowhere to step back to. We've taken a tiny step forward by getting this mainly useless tool after years of promising. Now we have it, I intend to use it where it helps and would encourage others to do likewise.--Scott Mac 18:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Chzz, I must confess that I am very confused. There was an agreement to not continue to add Pending Changes to more articles in some straw poll or another. However, a better version of pending changes was promised to go live in November 2010 (to my best recollection). Did anything like that ever happen? NW (Talk) 18:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to answer that briefly, but bear in mind my answer is therefore simplification:

June 2010, agreed 2-month trial. At end, when it was not removed, a poll was inconclusive (badly drawn-up; badly conducted). A 2nd poll (led by Jimbo) showed 60% support for "temporary continuation" while WMF fixed some bugs, with a "drop-dead date" of end Dec. if the fixes didn't happen. Some fixes happened, some didn't. Here we are. Now, we have an RFC to try and work out what is happening.

We're all a bit confused, NW. Best,  Chzz  ►  18:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Kay Sloan Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kay Sloan

Dear Scott,

could you restore a copy of Kay Sloan to my user page so that I might work on it some more to see if I can find more sources or indications of notability. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC))

This is your last warning; the next time you vandalize Misplaced Pages, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.23.20 (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List of YouTube personalities#RfC: The criteria for inclusion on List of YouTube personalities

Hi Scott MacDonald. Because you participated in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (4th nomination), your input is sought at Talk:List of YouTube personalities#RfC: The criteria for inclusion on List of YouTube personalities. There are disputes over who should be and who shouldn't be included in the list. Cunard (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

L._Craig_Martindale

You might be interested in this refund request. I'm usually the first to argue that expired PRODs should be restored without question but this one has too many BLP issues. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Alexandra Wallace (student) article

I think there was some kind of misunderstanding regarding the deletion of this article. If you took the time to take a look at the 4 references, this is a noteworthy individual, and there is considerable verifiable coverage by quality news sources. UCRGrad (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No misunderstanding at all. A young individual posted a stupid racist rant. That's today's story, tomorrow she's probably apologise and be forgotten. There's no need for us to immortalise her as there's no evidence she's noteworthy whatsoever. If anything needs covered, it can go on some list of youtube humiliations that we have somewhere. Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper and we don't give biographies to people only momentarily "famous" for their humiliation.--Scott Mac 09:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPA

It's obvious that we disagree on how Misplaced Pages should handle BLPs, but could you hold off on the accusations and the ad hominem arguments? For the record, the only interactions I've had with BLPs have been advocating for the deletion of WP:BLP1E cases and deletion of a dedicated criticism page, so your accusations that I'm some sort of gossip-monger are just foolish, petty, and childish. SDY (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of using any ad hominem arguments. I merely pointed out the nonsense of your rhetoric. However, you seem wish to respond by accusing people of trolling and labelling them "foolish and childish", so I rather think you might do well to go back to your little glass house and stop throwing stones at adults.--Scott Mac 16:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Tu quoque aside, This:

"So, the odd bit of collateral damage is fine then. I mean as long as the sky don't fall on your head. Can't have anything like concern for the odd person or two get in the way of our anonymous little hobby can we?"

is a blatant personal attack. That it's clearly designed to provoke a response rather than add to the discussion and is why I used the term "troll." Your dismissive and uncivil edit summary removing this was also uncalled for and inappropriate. Your response to User:Bus stop was equally uncalled for. Honestly, I don't care, go ahead and remove this too, but really, if you're going to claim to be the adult, at least act like one. SDY (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You call people who are civilly disagreeing with you "troll" and then jump here with sanctimonious twaddle about personal attacks? Civility may not be my strong point, but (and I confess this may just be my opinion) being blunt is preferable to being a self-righteous hypocrite. Now, away and play elsewhere.--Scott Mac 23:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

If you call that "civilly disagreeing" you should really have an RFC/U. Being "blunt" does not include personal attacks and obvious incivility. This is a big deal, and honestly depressing behavior for a veteran administrator. I'm not "playing", and as long as you continue your incivil and insulting behavior I'm going to continue replying. SDY (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)