Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:09, 22 August 2011

We want structures that serve people, not people serving structures. — Anonyme, mai '68

Welcome to my Meet-the-Pluie session - or more commonly, my talk page. A list of talk page archives is available.

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Finland and Spitfires Op-ed: Fifelfoo and hunting for plagiarism

Talkback

Calvin • 23:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

again Calvin • 23:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

And again.Calvin • 00:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

you know the drill. Calvin • 00:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the change I made on the free will page, because of the rules, but please note it makes no sense now! It already mentions soul in the sentence I put in, and then you introduce soul in the next sentence as if hasn't been mentioned. Please undo it again.--Syamsu (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Heads up

Special:Contributions/NoNatalina Very suspicious first edit and username. I'm watching the editor, but you may want to request a forced username change if you feel it's bordering on harassment. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 08:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Money No Enough and Xiaxue on peer review

Hello, Dave1185, and thanks for all your contributions to Singapore-related articles! You are invited to comment at Money No Enough's peer review and Xiaxue's peer review. I rewrote both articles and am aiming for both to attain GA status. Thank you. 谢谢. Terima kasih. Arigato. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is La goutte de pluie's personal agenda. Thank you. Salvio 21:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Your signature

Please consider adapting your signature so that it includes your user-name, in accord with the behavioural guideline, Misplaced Pages:Signatures - specifically that Signatures which include no reference to the user's username (for example by signing with a nickname, as in User:Nickname are strongly discouraged. Thanks.  Chzz  ►  12:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I've had this signature for 6 years (with different colours) and no one ever strongly objected...besides, the names are related. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 13:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a reasonable request in line with long-standing (and current) Misplaced Pages guidelines, so I would strongly second the request. At the very least, please get rid of the excessive formatting in your sig. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

If it helps, I third it. Just because something has been a certain way for a long time doesn't mean that it's right. As Strange Passerby says, it's a reasonable request and within guidelines. Worm · (talk) 13:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I've always had a weakness for literary signatures, I'm afraid; people can easily see the status bar. I would readily accept most other advice, but I do feel quite strongly about my signature! elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 13:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Its fine if you keep that signature, but may you put your username at the end just to say thats its you. I fourth the request and its reasonable. ~~Ebe123~~ _Contribs 14:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

May I say that not all browsers have status bars, the computer that I am currently using doesn't have one.

People, people. This is a simple request and user:La goutte de pluie should decide. ~~Ebe123~~ _Contribs 14:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

But many cannot. A screen reader will simply read out your signature as it stands, so less fortunate people will have no idea who made the comment. Rennell435 (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I eleventh this polite request. It would be helpful if you changed your signature to be similar to your username. - Metal.lunchbox (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that is similar is the gender (La and Elle). ~~Ebe123~~ _Contribs 17:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Tony Tan Keng Yam

• - http://www.temasekreview.com/2011/07/28/shocking-tony-tans-son-served-ns-as-a-scientist-and-not-a-combat-fit-mo/ -

This editorial and webaddress is not a reliable source in a BLP at wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it was one of the allegations that TodayOnline was referring to, and can be cited as such. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 21:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't add it again. Off2riorob (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I reinstated my edits except for the addition of that reference. I would appreciate if you raised it on the talk page. There is no blanket ban on using TR as a reference; I think here it is quite pertinent to cite it (explicitly as coming from Temasek Review, as Zhanzhao said, as we would cite activist orgs like MoveOn.org, Amnesty International and the like) in conjunction with the other sources. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 21:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't add it again. You need to start discussing your edits more on talk pages. Better still is if you just stop editing in your conflicted topic area. Off2riorob (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I did not know my revision there (except for the TR thing, which I still thought reasonable) would be controversial. The article has a suspicious edit history and at least one employee has already been confirmed to be an employee in Tony Tan's office. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 21:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Warning

Please don't do again what you did today on User talk:202.156.13.11. You were edit-warring, and in fact breaking 3RR, about a stale notice which (1) the blocked editor had removed from their own talkpage, which is their right, (2) which had no objective function any longer anyway (because the link to the current block list is no longer showing what you meant it to show last week). Moreover, it should have been clear to you by now from the discussion at ANI that you are an involved administrator in this affair. You should not have done that block last week in the first place; so you should of course also not compound your mistake now by raising a fuss about asserting your admin authority with regard to this notice. Finally, you did very wrong by semi-protecting the IP's talkpage. This IP was blocked this time in order to stop him from harassing you, so you are directly a party in this issue; by semiprotecting the page you have stopped him from trying to appeal his block. That's about as clear an example of an illegitimate involved admin action as I can think of.

I'm trying my best to keep the disruption from these IP socks in check. You're not helping things by giving them ammunition for further complaints like this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

PS. note that I have undone the protection, and also made a note of this at ANI. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you! --Marcofran (talk) 11:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Zeebrugee and Afghanistan Op-ed: WereSpielChequers examines RfA

Block evasion by 24.163.39.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

You recently blocked this user for 2 weeks, but he is already using another IP address, 174.99.120.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Yworo (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/La goutte de pluie

The topic ban proposal has been closed as no consensus, while the 1RR+semiprotection has passed. As of right now the passed proposal does not extend to Singapore presidential election, 2011, Tony Tan Keng Yam, Tan Jee Say, Tan Kin Lian or Tan Cheng Bock; if I were you I would not make any remotely controversial edits or reverts at those articles otherwise the sanctions may have to be extended. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

A RFC/U case involving you has been opened OpenInfoForAll (talk) 05:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing

Hi, you should know that only asking another editor who is very likely to have the same opinion as you to give an opinion in an AfD which you initiated can be construed as canvassing, which is not allowed. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 15:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You are also reminded that it is a requirement to notify the article creator if you nominate an article for AFD. Considering you complained the last time one of your images was nominated at FFD and you were not notified, this omission is pretty glaring. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not at all canvassing -- I only messaged two people, and I simply asked for your opinions — since you are familiar with issues like these, that's all. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 17:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Delayed Responses

Since I have been away for the last two weeks I'm just dropping you a note to let you know I have now responded to your comment on my talk page - in case you have stopped watching for the reply. Spartaz 20:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Recall - second request

• I would like to initiate a new recall petition regarding your administrative tools. I believe you have lost the trust of the community to act as an impartial administrator, and indeed even your actions as a regular editor show you are no longer familiar with our policies to the level that a prospective administrator would be required to be. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Users endorsing this recall petition

1. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
2. Due to the community's loss of confidence in La goutte de pluie's competence in using her admin privileges and her understanding of Misplaced Pages's core content policies, this is the best way forward. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 03:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
3. I am getting tired of this. Zhanzhao (talk) 05:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Responses and discussion

• Please be advised that failing this, and if the RFC/U fails to reach a suitable resolution in time (give it a week), I will be kicking this up to ArbCom. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
• You are mistaken, my real passion is aggressively fighting COI. It is irrelevant to me whether Tempwikisc is pro-government or anti-government; in fact being the Western NYU professor he is, he probably shares similar views about Singaporean democracy to mine. That is not the issue; is that he had the audacity to create an autobiography and start an article about his own book to further his own career. That is a pretty audacious act that deserves to every stop pulled out to discourage such deplorable actions against the integrity of the project. This is similar to my reaction when I discovered COI agents / employees would have the audacity to edit articles on behalf of an employer. If Chiam See Tong had created an article about himself, or had Nicole Seah or one of her employees had done so, I would have similarly moved to oppose their contributions. The key thing is balancing COI, and discouraging future COI. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 07:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
• Elle, I see that you are indeed open to recall. Have you managed to draft recall criteria? It seems pointless asking you to submit to a voluntary process of your choosing, if you haven't chosen which version you'd like. Worm · (talk) 06:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyone is free to present a good-faith request for recall; in addition, anyone may participate with good faith in the discussion, but I will respect the requests of six neutral members of the community not currently involved in a dispute with me (i.e. that have no interest in the outcome of the decision) if they ask me to be recalled. They should not be canvassed. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 07:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

That is silly, because no one "not currently involved in a dispute" with you wouldn't ask to recall you. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 07:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

They are free to start requests, naturally. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 07:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Strange Passerby, you may consider it silly, but as a voluntary process, Elle can set down what she likes. I do not her request unreasonable. Though, Elle, you ask that they are not "canvassed", as your talk page is not a very high profile page, can I ask if your stance on canvassing is in line with the community's standard? IE, if a neutral notification was placed on a more high profile page (such as your RfC, or the ANI sub page) would you count that as canvassing? Worm · (talk) 08:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course that's not canvassing. My definition is in line with the community standard. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 08:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Elle. I've recently read through the entire ANI noticeboard subpage, with a view to closing the motions. (I then slept on it, and Atama closed them exactly as I would!) As far as I know, I'm what you should consider "neutral" towards you. I would support a recall request. I'm afraid that whilst you have done fantastic work as an editor, I do not have confidence that you separate your Admin responsibilities and editorial opinion. Worm · (talk) 08:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I respect your vote. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 08:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

"Neutral" editors endorsing recall request

Elle has requested that 6 editors who "have no interest in the outcome of the decision" endorse any recall. The following editors endorse a recall request.

1. Worm · (talk) 08:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
2. FASTILY 09:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)