Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:53, 18 June 2011

Archives

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

Elysian Real Estate

The article was working fine, since i add up a couple of pictures in it, it started showing warning. i have reversed the older version that was working fine, with just adding an info box. Hopes this helps. should i remove the tags now or i need to do more things. Please Help as i am new to Misplaced Pages and working really hard to pick the wikipedia tone.

Corvette "no move" decision questioned

Please see the questions I posed about your startling decision here. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said there, I, on the other hand, would like to applaud your move. It took guts—as evidenced by the decision being questioned already—but I think it was well thought-out and the right decision, even though I happen to support putting the disambiguation page at Corvette. Misplaced Pages needs more admins like you—particularily looking at the backlog at WP:RM... Thanks. –CWenger (^ • @) 18:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to say that I admire your actions, and particularly your well-crafted closing summary. Thank you. Shem (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder that the questions I posed about your startling decision at Talk:Corvette remain unanswered here. Also, this is from WP:ADMINACCT:

Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, and unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Misplaced Pages-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.

Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I gave a fairly clear reason for my closing in the closing statement, and I don't really have much to add to that now. You are of course free to disagree, but I don't think you should expect everybody to be now somehow obliged to keep discussing this with you for as long as you are dissatisfied with it. Frankly, my opinion is that you are taking this whole matter far, far too seriously, and the best advice I can give you is to take at least one or two steps back from the issue. There are naming disputes that are worth fighting over (where crucial issues of neutrality or other core values of the project are concerned), but I really don't see how this case is among them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't care about the name of this particular article. I'm not fighting for this naming dispute. I'm fighting for predictability and consistency in article naming in general, which requires following consensus on how articles are named in general. This particular case is an example of that not happening. That's what I'm fighting against. Your decision and refusal to address the follow-up questions I posed further exacerbates the situation, making other articles less predictable and consistent than necessary. There is more at stake in when closing admins make decisions like this than you apparently realize. Please answer the questions. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Born! Leave the Bear alone! Xyl 54 (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Mail

File:Agnes at AMI 2004.jpg

Hi Fut.Perf., you commented in this file that the consent letter was pending. I actually didn't say that. I wrote that it had been sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. I don't want to sound like I'm complaining to you, but I just don't understand what other steps that I have missed here. I had asked the copyright owner to send the declaration of consent exactly like what had been specified in this guideline Misplaced Pages:Declaration of consent for all enquiries; and the copyright owner had also sent it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (one of the destination emails stated in the guideline). Could you please explain to me if I have missed any steps here. Awriterwrites (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No, that's fine, don't worry. Seems you did everything right. The tag I placed only meant that receipt of the mail will have to be confirmed by a member of the e-mail response team, which will normally happen within the next few days. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes must burn in Hell

Fut. Perf, will you write some essay on this subject? If you dont want to, i want to ask you to do it my self, and to use your images and thesis, as i find it very useful and good regarding several wiki problems. Essay is needed, as it should explain that some things should and must be excluded from infobox if it will do only problem. Please, respond to me, as i am waiting your response. Thanks. --WhiteWriter 18:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

BRIC was again moved back to BRICS

I don't know how this was possible. You moved BRICS back to BRIC after our discussion in the talk page. Now a user was able to move it back. I thought this was not possible due to restrictions. Can you please fix this? Thank you. AlexCovarrubias 00:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For grasping the nettle at Talk:Corvette and closing this (decidedly awkward!) Request Move. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

.

. (I was, I admit, pleased with the result, but I hadn't appreciated before how tricky a task it was; hence the trinket! Xyl 54 (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC))

A barnstar for the lamest and most contrived WP:RM decision I've ever seen? Interesting. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Sigma article

Hiya Future Perfect at Sunrise, I was just curious, do you still think that there's a good reason to keep Sigma semi-protected? Regards,
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, we could try unprotecting it and its friends. The vandal has been quiet for a while. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

2011 PAG

The Medal table was created so expansion could start immediately on that article. I need to get around to doing that. Also there is information on that page which is not present on the main article. Finally for the image please read the talk page for the rationale. Thanks! Intoronto1125TalkContributions 05:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The redirect can be undone with one mouseclick, once there is something to report on. Until then, I really don't see how the page is useful. By the way, please also see my warning on Commons. Fut.Perf. ☼

I wasn't aware of the licensing issue. It is the uploader's fault. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 06:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Given that you uploaded the image on Commons immediately (less than an hour if I remember correctly) after it was uploaded on Flickr, and the Flickr user deleted it immediately (a few minutes) after you were warned about it here, and given that you have a prior history of copyright violations on Commons, I find it more than likely that you were in fact the Flickr uploader yourself, engaging in Flickr washing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? I don't have a flickr account, and neither is my name "JohnB1952". Also, if you go through my "violations" they are from the web and not flikr. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 12:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Logo tagging

File:Friends_titles.jpg is also tagged with a logo license. It probably just needed the screenshot license added to it, why don't you restore it so that I can fix it.--Crossmr (talk) 06:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikihounding

I've started 2 discussions lately about Delta.

• 1 on Rd232's talk page and I clearly stated my reasons for doing so. I discovered and issue, and took it there as it was more minor and he seemed to be handling all things Delta at the time. June 9.
• 1 on AN/I, and I clearly stated my reasons for starting it, after I ran the idea by Jayron who suggested I post it. Today.

I don't think I've started any other discussions about Delta, so I'm not sure how that could be construed as forum shopping. I have participated in other discussions about Delta, but those were started by other users, and I'm well within my rights to post my opinions in those discussions. Last I checked, forum shopping was taking the same issue to several places to try and get the result you want. I've never done that. 2 discussions 8 days apart on two separate incidents is hardly forum shopping.

As to badgering admins for not sanctioning Delta hard enough, I don't see where I've done that either. I posted a single message on fastily's talk page to state my disagreement. I did so clearly, and frankly I'm not sure that I understand his reasoning. Perhaps I could have worded it different, but in reality I'm seeking clarification because I don't really get what he got from that shot discussion, especially with hammersoft admitting that he could see problems with what he wrote. Apparently I'm not the only one who disagreed with his assessment Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Delta_blocked_.28again.29.

The only other admin I've talked to has been Rd232, and nowhere have I badgered him. We had a long discussion about counting edits as a side discussion to the last big thread on AN, and well I asked CBM about his block here , not to badger him but because the block was brought up in the discussion. There were questions about the block itself. During the big AN thread people had made assumptions about the block that later proved to be false when CBM confirmed that he hadn't been aware of all the editing violations when he warned/blocked him. In the last month I've talked to no other admins directly outside of any existing Delta discussion, and inside those discussions, I've never too my knowledge directly accused any admin of not sanctioning Delta hard enough in our recent discussions.

These are all the discussions I've had directly with admins:

• User_talk:Rd232/archive9#Last_editing_restrictions_block
• User_talk:Rd232/archive9#Edit_Summaries
• ]

Let me know where I've badgered anyone about how they sanctioned Delta and I'll happily apologize. It's my understanding that badgering would imply that I continually harassed someone about it.

As far as my edit count goes, I haven't been editing heavily the last month, so with 2 large Delta threads, it's no surprise that those chew up a lot of edits.--Crossmr (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and honestly I don't generally follow Delta's edits. it's only because of all the noise surrounding him lately that I picked up on several of the issues. I hadn't even checked anything in the last week until I saw the AN/I thread and gave it a once over and caught that he'd been reverting a lot on a couple articles and one excessively so.--Crossmr (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:FilipAndTal.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:FilipAndTal.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. damiens.rf 20:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Seeking some advice/guidance

Hi FPaS, I need to ask for your advice/guidance if possible, which is connected to and . As I am currently under an interaction ban with WP:EEML editors, any edits which so much as reintroduce into the article anything that was removed, could be construed as an interaction, and hence be sanctionable. As I have been just come back from a 4 day block for my edits to Russophobia, I of course would like to avoid any situations which can be used for battleground furtherment in this area. The article as it stands is a POV-ridden mess, and is full of original research, synthesis, and lack of context.

For example, the article as it stands now (and as it did in July 2010), states in the lead:

According to Lilia Shevtsova, Senior Associate at the Russian Domestic Politics and Political Institutions Program Chair of the Carnegie Moscow Center, anti-Estonian sentiment is intentionally escalated by Kremlin in its "search for enemies".

As you can see from this edit from August 2010, I moved the statement to a relevant section, and expanded it to read:

Within this context, according to Lilia Shevtsova, Senior Associate at the Russian Domestic Politics and Political Institutions Program Chair of the Carnegie Moscow Center, anti-Estonian sentiment was intentionally escalated by Kremlin in its "search for enemies", however she also notes that even Russian democrats took Estonia's removal of the statue immediately before one of the most respected and cherished dates in the Russian calendar, to be an affront to the Russian national honour,.

The move of this information back to the lead, along with removal of context, presents a serious POV problem with the article, but due to interaction bans, if I so much as touch it, it will essentially regarded as a revert, and hence I can be sanctioned. It also should be noted that the current version does not comply with WP:LEAD in that it introduces material which is not discussed later in the article. But mostly the lack of context is a big problem.

If you review my edits to the article from August 2010, you will notice that they are good faith, constructive edits, and go some way to help to fix the article in its then, and now current, state.

As a neutral and uninvolved administrator, could you please provide your opinion on how to approach issues such as this. Cheers, --Russavia 00:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I have also requested advice/guidance from Jehochman here as I think it would be beneficial to seek advice from a couple of different quarters to see what different admins might suggest. And as both of you are neutral and uninvolved, I would value any input. --Russavia 08:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)