Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:17, 3 May 2011

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Note to self

You cantankerous old fool, you risk getting into trouble whenever you forget this.

Don't do that: Edit articles!

Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Frietjes

Sigh. This deleted article has proven a headache. Not knowing where to mention the Guardian article, & to whom...if I didn't care about Misplaced Pages, I would have not started this quest. Thanks. -- llywrch (talk) 04:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Just cut-n-pasted my comment to Phantomsteve's page. Unfortunately, he left a note that he is on "Semi-Wikibreak". Maybe he'll respond & we can get this thing sorted out before the usual people point out the issue, & put Wikipedians on the defensive instead of allowing them to make an objective decision. -- llywrch (talk) 04:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I've started a DRV on this. Robman94 (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Pershing

Hello. I left a comment at Talk:John J. Pershing, explaining my edits. Perhaps I should have done that before reverting you, and if so, I apologize. In any case, it's there if you'd care to take a look, and/or comment. Regards. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I saw the comment earlier today, but didn't have time to respond then. I do have something to say, and I will o so a little later on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible false PD claim on image

Hi Ken, there was an un-answered question on your talk page that's now in the archives, so can I re-ask it here? I raised a question about the PD claim in this image. Your reply was "Since it's clearly a staged professionally-produced photograph, I think it would be extremely difficult to argue that it was PD based on the image alone, absent specific information about its provenance.". I agree with your assessment and my question is, what are we supposed to do about it? I'm not really familiar with all the reporting procedures here in Wikiland. Thanks, Rob. Robman94 (talk) 01:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to have missed that question earlier. The first part of the answer is that because the image is on the Commons, which doesn't allow fair use images, it should be nominated for deletion there, and I've just done that. The second part is that if you think the image is useful in the infobox of the article here, to re-upload it here under English Misplaced Pages's NFCC rules, for the purposes of visually identifying the band. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ken, I will load a copy here once the Commons version has been deleted (it won't let me load it while that one is there). Robman94 (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Really? Even if you give it another name and tell it to ignore all warnings regarding duplication on Commons? It's worth a try, because deletion on Commons could potentially take a couple of weeks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

"ignore all warnings" was the key! :) Robman94 (talk) 03:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Easter Island

Hello. Hope your weekend is going well. I'm writing to clarify what's happened with the external links section here. I noticed that Caylean (talk · contribs) had added links to a variety of our pages that were of low quality. It looks like a non-authoritative spam link. I removed most of them. I left one of my standard edit summaries stating "Add links to the Open Directory Project", basically telling the user to add the link to that website instead of here.

Well, you added the link back saying "a link was deleted, not added. Yeah, I deleted the low quality link. Then you removed the link to the Open Directory Project, a nice solution to our (excessive) external link issue saying something I don't understand "rem eadlink". No big deal here, just wanted to say what I noticed. Cheers, Dawnseeker2000 18:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, "eadlink" was supposed to be "deadlink", but the "d" key is malfunctioning on my computer, which is a pain. I removed the Open Directory link not because of any animus against Open Directory, but because it was no longer good. I didn't understand that your edit summary meant " add links to the Open Directory Project ." I interpreted it to mean " add links to the Open Directory Project", which I didn't understand since you deleted a link. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources

With regard to your message about and subsequent edits at Safe Passage (film), would draw your attention to Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources. Djflem (talk) 03:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Your comment is obscure to me. Rather than point me at a policy page, what don't you say what's on your mind? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Internet Movie Database is a tricky source, I'd guess, and though I mostly don't have problems w/ it , others might. Djflem (talk) 07:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Right, I understand that, which is why I'm pretty selective in my use of it, trying to use my judgment as best I can. Thanks for the lookout. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

archive fix requested

There is now a separate closed discussion passage at wp:AN that appears should be manually archived, i.e. put into place within now archived Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive223#Topic ban proposal re NRHP stubs. MizraBot II archived part but not all of the discussion. Isn't the accidental?

This material in 2 subheadings was part of the whole, larger Topic ban proposal re NRHP stubs discussion that had several subheadings, and received comments by myself, Dudemanfellabra, Orlady, Rdfox 76, Station1, and Sitush, before or after it was broken out (by my inserting a subheading to label it) out of a "Resolution" section. I fully understand what you and Jehochman, as closers of the "Topic ban proposal re NRHP stubs" discussion judged about this discussion, i.e. that it went into topics more suited for RFC/U than for AN. It seems it will just complicate future understanding if this passage is not archived with the rest, however. This passage was indeed part of what you and Jehochman reviewed in coming to your judgment, is it not?

Could it simply be fixed by your archiving it into place with the rest, please? Note: SarekOfVulcan was requested by another editor to fix this archiving at User talk:SarekOfVulcan#Topic ban proposal re NRHP stubs, and refers there to some other edit by you to fix some other display issue within the archive I guess. If it is not accidental by MizraBot II to have separated it, or if it is your judgment that it should not be archived with the rest, then that raises complications for future referencing in RFC/U or other proceedings (that you and Jehochman as closers, and others, suggest may be needed). --doncram 18:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I made no editorial jugment regarding the archiving of the thread, and I have no idea of what criteria the bot uses to archive by. All I know is that the bot's attempt to archive left this mess, which I cleaned up. Later, I imposed an editorial judgment regarding the remaining parts of the thread and hatted it, but that's entirely seperate from the archiving. I have no plans to archive the thread further. That two sub-threads were left out is because someone moved them out from inside the previous discussion. That was not me, and you should contact whoever did it to find out what their reasons were. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I've reconsidered. Since my hatting of the remaining discussion has not been undone in the last 12 hours or so, I'll take it that there's general agreement that it was appropriate, so I'll manually archive it with the other sections. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That was me -- I hatted the discussion directly related to my topic ban proposal, but felt it inappropriate to hat the sections of the discussion relating to my and Orlady's behavior without being sure that you and Jehochman had meant to address them as well. If I had known it was going to break the bot, I would have left it alone.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly it was that broke the bot. I started to investigate and then thought it was easier just to undo it and redo it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Two more things then. I see you revised the Archive, but placed the material below your and Jehochman's final comments, in fact beyond the whole "discussion bottom". Note, some/many of the comments now cut off were made while the section was titled "Resolution"; I inserted the "wikihounding" label at some later time and then continued commenting within that (and maybe there were others' comments too, i am not now checking). The current archive presentation suggests incorrectly that you and Jehochman did not see / were not aware of that discussion. By the way, in Edit view of the Archive, I can see that there is a hidden comment "original location of wikihounding/false proposals sections", at the location where they were. I think the item should be restored to that point, or it confuses matters unnecessarily.

Second, I don't happen to like it being collapsed, either. Collapsing is suited to stopping discussion, which is what you wanted, okay, because you view it offtrack from the AN proposal. But it does not need to be collapsed in the archive, because it is less readable and cannot be pointed to directly. The archiving of the whole discussion accomplishes the ending of discussion already. Is it your judgment, or whose, that the discussion should be collapsed within the archive? I think it was your judgment or someone's that the stray, non-archived portion left behind by MizraBot should be closed, but that is not the same as your judging the material needs to be collapsed in the archive. (Or was it consciously collapsed by someone before MizraBot archived the rest? I currently think it was just an accident that MizraBot didn't archive it all together, but please let me know / show diff if you or someone actually collapsed it first.) So, besides your moving it to the right location, I also think it should be uncollapsed, as it is clearly closed but it needs to be referenced and readable within future discussions. If you would see your way to doing that, too, i'd appreciate it. But if you do not agree to do that, on this second point, I would just like to be able to know it is your personal judgment (or whose) that it must be hidden (why?) and to point to that. It would be simplest of all in future discussions if it could just be pointed to. (It was all together and MizraBot messed up, right? This is not my fault nor anyone else's.)

Anyhow, please implement the move to the correct location, and I will accept your judgment either way, but hope you could state why, on the second point of uncollapsing. I am guessing that I should not make these edits myself, but I want to know who is responsible for it being hidden, if someone is deeming that it must be hidden. I don't think there is anything terrible there that must be hidden. If you think it must be hidden, please say so. Maybe also i am overestimating the difficulties that will be caused in the future, but it seems better to be able to provide a wikilink to a specific section in an archive, which I think is now not possible with it collapsed. Thanks. --doncram 23:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarek broke those sections out, for reasons he stated above, and no other editor reverted him, as he invited them to do, so I'm not going to override that de facto consensus at this point. As for the hatting of the discussion, that was my editorial decision, again unreverted by other editors, and I see no reason for undoing it at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, now I see, it was [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AAdministrators'_noticeboard&action=historysubmit&diff=426943827&oldid=426939116 this edit by SarekOfVulcan summarized as "Topic ban proposal re NRHP stubs: closing most of discussion, moving part outside tags because it's not clear the closing rationale addressed them", which split that material away. I see he put in a hidden comment of "following two sections originally appeared above "NRHP stub resolution" section, moved because not directly addressed by closing rationale. If this is a mistake, feel free to restore them to their original location". That is not adequate notice, given quick archiving. Your suggestion that this was a consensus because "no other editor reverted him, as he invited them to do", seems wrong; I for one do not agree.

It leaves 2 AN threads of exactly the same name, probably to be archived in two places, for no good reason AFAIC. I think it was a too quick sequence of your and Jehochman judging it should be over, then SarekOfVulcan splitting and moving material (with no notice that I am aware of besides the hidden comment), and then archiving that happened.

In fact it appears to me like inappropriate petty gaming by SarekOfVulcan....I guess to suggest dismissal/minimization, or to confuse future discussion. He should not be the one splitting/moving critical comments about him from me, from within the critical proposal about me that he opened. I don't dispute your and Jehochman's judgment that it should be closed, but SarekOfVulcan should not be the one closing the discussion, overall, once it had turned to include more critical statements about him, the proposer. --doncram 11:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)