Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:43, 25 November 2011

A barnstar for you!

		The Portal Barnstar
		I, Sp33dyphil, hereby award MarcusBritish for their good work on the Napoleonic Wars portal. Sp33dyphil © • © 07:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Phil, much appreciated! Ma®©usBritish  07:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

No problems. Please set aside some minutes to display your appreciation for others' volunteering effort on Misplaced Pages for me. Sp33dyphil © • © 09:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, I have my own criteria for issuing Barnstars, and such, every so often. I like to use them sparingly to encourage future efforts, as well as to appraise outstanding contribs, where necessary. Ma®©usBritish  11:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Chevrons

		The WikiChevrons
		I don't give these out very often, but I've been consistently impressed by your contributions to MilHist over the last few months. The thoughtful input you provide, both in internal discussions and in your advice to newbies, is truly impressive. I hope you enjoy what you do on Misplaced Pages, because your contributions are greatly appreciated. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you HJ Mitchell, I appreciate that very much! Ma®©usBritish  19:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for Julie Zetlin edits

Hi, there-

Thanks for re-working the references for the entry on rhythmic gymnast Julie Zetin. I have taken a look at the code and will work to make my future reflists more efficient.

Best-

Seandalytx (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

No probs, thanks, Ma®©usBritish  06:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

le souper

no worries dude Tom B (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 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 and Ian Rose look at Australian air power Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Case

Hi MarcusBritish, I am sorry I offend you and I apologise for my out-of-line comments. FYI, one Admin said "the CU data has me thinking twice about this case" and another Admin said "All the non-stale accounts look Unrelated." in . I am very grateful for your expertise, help and assistance. I know things will not be these same between you and I but I wanted to thank you for your guidance. Thank you very much. Domenico.y (talk) 02:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

I already saw the investigation - but admins have their opinions, and I have mine, which means I don't necessarily share their thoughts or come to the same conclusions. Also, I wasn't offended. Takes a lot more than that to offend me. I simply found it an over-reactive remark that was not appropriate to the situation. You go out your way to defend yourself and the articles you are involved with too much sometimes, and it can often come across more as a guilty conscience than a sincere defence. You need to sit back and go with the flow sometimes. That investigation, for example, had already reached a conclusion, but you still went and posted a huge list of remarks and stressed points which didn't need posting, because the matter was already dropped and case closed. It simply raises fresh suspicions, against you, when you do that too often. More self-control, less self-pity, is all I can recommend. You don't need to explain, apologise or defend every action on wiki unless there is need to do so. Even then, it should be more to the point. Aim to resolve the matter, not clear your conscience or blame others. The "bullying" thing with JasperDeng and ConcernedVancouverite has long worn thin, and has also gone.. stale, i.e. wiki and "old news" don't mix. Read Misplaced Pages:Don't spite your face if you want to understand your position more. Ma®©usBritish  03:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

List assessment criteria

Any update on the status of the MilHist List assessment criteria? Any chance I could get a preliminary version? Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it has been implemented. See Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#Implementation of "list" flag and List-Class for the details on how it has been added and can be applied to list articles. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish  18:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Dom

Hi MarcusBritish,

I know you are trying to help. I don't think Being Born Again Couture Fashion Show can be rescued and I am fine with that. I have my article on "77-Pieces" to do. I am not OliviaBlond and we don't "share accounts" - she is in Sydney, Australia and I am in the USA. Check the IP address please. I really don't like being called a "dummy".

Thank you.

Domenico.y (talk) 00:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

No one called you "a dummy", I said 'plays "the dummy"' – i.e. you're putting on an act. Clearly I've hit the bullseye, as you've moved quickly to try and conceal my concern. No matter, it's in the history now for other editors and admins to consider. I work for the better of wiki, where disruptive behaviour is concerned. Ma®©usBritish  00:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you check the IP addresses then? That will prove I am not OliviaBlond. Domenico.y (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

Again, I did not at any point say you were OliviaBlond! I said, and I quote: "I see mentions of sock puppetry, and meat puppetry – however, I'm going to slip in a new line of thought here: Domenico.y is a shared account being used by several people". Where in there is OliviaBlond mentioned... please, do tell! If you're going to defend a point, at least defend a genuine one! I said "shared account" – which means, and you know damn well what it means, "an account used by more than one person" – I didn't name anyone, so you have no cause to put OliviaBlond in there. Ma®©usBritish  01:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Addlepated

Thanks--that one was new to me! Drmies (talk) 05:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, such a colourful word, especially when used alliteratively! Ma®©usBritish  07:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

FP Review

Hi, I'm just checking some remaining items and the final result should be ready by tomorrow. OhanaUnited 04:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

After my evaluation on the portal, I have promoted it to feature status. OhanaUnited 12:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Nincompoops

First of all, many thanks for your thoroughly evenhanded observations and help in regards to Dom, Olivia, Davina, BBA, iClothing, and any other fruit in that basket I'm forgetting. You've given them way more time than they merited, but I think that's what they required. And sometimes you say rather clever stuff that makes a little beer shoot from my nose.

Right now, it looks like the central figure in this might have thrown in the towel, along with some nincompoop confirmation along the lines of "I can't control what's here, so just delete it." So maybe the end is near indeed. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 02:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've been watching Dom's contribs this week and noticed his lack of edits. Personally, I think he/they thought I was some kind of naive idiot who would buy every tale they told and defend every move they made. Quite foolish of them not only to under-estimate me, but to sow seeds of deception and attempt to manipulate things via socks, etc. I guess I played "AGF" to its full extent, and this is the thanks I get. Not that I'm bothered.. he had his chance.. but once people dig their own graves, they have to lie in them, I don't do second chances. Clearly he got the message from my last rebuke and "Delete" vote – lost the only crutch he thought he had to support him. "Davina R" account is the predecessor to "Domenico.y". He's only using it to mask his behaviour, in case he wants to return. If I was an admin, I'd look for a reason to block one or both for socking. Needless to say, I only lost faith in him, not myself, and I expect those AFDs will carry through soon and free up some of the resources they wasted. I don't know why "Rescue" are bothering with them, for all the good it's done. Hopefully, as you say, this will be an end to the matter. Sorry to waste your beer – I can't resist sarcasm and frankness, instead of getting angry, even if it does come close to PA – a curse of being British, we're so self-deprecating that we don't hesitate to make our opinions known to others! Cheers, Ma®©usBritish  02:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI etc

But I've spent too much time, yours and mine, on this. I'm not here to pick a fight with you. I appreciate your use of 'addlepated' in the subsequent discussion. But I also think you were wrong, and you were barking up the wrong tree. Aligning yourself with some conspiracy theory about editors and weak-balled administrators is not a productive way in this particular case, no matter what you might think of Hamster or anyone else, and I think your comments didn't improve the level of discussion. If you want to think of me (without saying so) as Malleus's bitch or something like that, you are free to do so. I just think it's a really strange conclusion to draw. And yes, I know you never drew it explicitly. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

• Curious, how could you know "what to expect of me" when our paths have never crossed previously, to the best of my knowledge, to allow you to determine my reaction? Why so surprised anyway, I don't recall condemning you?
• My "sympathy" for BK is nothing to do with the actual unblocking action, but that he acted in response to faux-good faith from WH, and as a result has been scorned. Like lending cash to someone who you believe is going to spend it wisely and repay you.. but they use it maliciously and there is no return.
• WH may not be TT yet, but he's getting there. I see no reason to give him a runway. Unblocking him will only give him that chance.
• I reiterate that I did not support ORob's "conclusions" that several people were scratching each other's backs. Only that I support his right to present that observation. How else do you suppose to determine meatpuppets if not by hinting at.. close associations? I don't like ORob, for reasons unimportant here, but I think PoD was out of line. He clearly holds a grudge from conflicts based on his interests in BNP members.
• The tree was not mine - it had already barked up. Then pissed on by a bad dog. I made sure an axe wasn't taken to it also.
• I don't know of Malleus, or his colleagues, so I don't judge shared-opinions. I object to the spin employed by PoD. I have never implied that MF has "bitches", nor have I ever directly, indirectly or rhetorically hinted at the possibility - because I don't know any of you.
• I know you don't intend to fight. That would be impossible. Because, for the most part, I don't know who or what you are talking about!

So there you have it. Care to differ? Cheers, Ma®©usBritish  00:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• • There's three ironic things here, really. Firstly, I'm one of those admins that doesn't assume good faith all the time, and I've been Wiki-slapped before for blocking people who whined about it afterwards. Secondly, I work with vulnerable kids, and I use Misplaced Pages a lot to help their learning. If I thought any of them would be offended by the word "fuck" I wouldn't be doing this. Thirdly, there's no "faux good faith" here. I was quite clear with WH - if he fucked us around again, I'd block him myself. Black Kite (t) 01:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed, I don't AGF myself all the time, it's a naive concept per se to AGF when it's clear someone is taking the piss. Kids aren't vulnerable to bad language, only to its effects. I simply don't see the need for it on Wiki - to me it's contrary to "Wiki is not a forum" where idle-talk and swearing should be thrown around daily. But I see overly exposing kids to bad language as shoving cigarettes and alcohol down their necks. Most bad language derives from sexual context, but also when kids hear it, they want to use it. It simply doesn't set a good example, imo. And if you don't feel Wiki is the type of place to set a good example, then Wiki ceases to be an educational website, and might as well just be a forum for common chat, trolling and aggravated abuse. Teachers don't want swearing in the classroom, and I don't see the need for it on Wiki. I'm not anti-swearing, by any means.. but there's a time and a place. He uses it to offend and attack, not to "make a point", and it's not a habit. Typing is not spontaneous behaviour when there's the ability to review/edit. As I said above.. give him an inch and he'll take a mile, and he'll take you down with him. People like that don't take prisoners, and have no sense of loyalty. They should be conscripted. As I also said, I sympathise with you for this last reason - you're giving him credit, but he's not thankful. Don't believe otherwise. If it comes to the crunch, he won't back you. He'll use you as a shield, but there's no respect in his words for anyone on Wiki. Not a soul. You sound like you want to give him enough rope to hang himself with. Why prolong the agony and make others endure his abuse? Ma®©usBritish  01:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'd agree with you, except for the fact that while he was editing quietly away as TPO, none of this was a problem ... except when - eventually - he got into an argument - I blocked him myself for swearing at people when that happened. But if he hadn't stuck his head above the parapet with the rather daft WP:Run to Mommy stuff, no-one would still have been any the wiser about who he was (well apart from those who did know, which includes me after I poked through his contribs when I blocked him). Given that, he is capable of editing productively and non-confrontationally, and he's proved it. Hence why I - and Jehochman - thought it was optimal to give him one more chance. We're really not naive. Black Kite (t) 02:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you're not. But everyone is fallible, and it's easy to "believe in someone" in the hopes that your faith will be rewarded and rise you up above the countless vindictive remarks about them. Can't blame you for that, and it's a hard position to defend. Ma®©usBritish  02:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see your point, don't get me wrong. However, I believed the fact that WH would have been intensely scrutinised from here onwards would have made a difference; whereas, of course, before no-one actually knew who TPO was. Black Kite (t) 02:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Being Born Again Couture Fashion Show (2nd nomination). I've seen you around in various places, where usually I find you a decent reader. Here, you are not a careful reader of your own remarks. But now I'm really wasting electrons. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, now I recall. Damn my memory. Age... Bah! Decent reader? You mean writer? Ma®©usBritish  02:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

No, decent reader is what I meant. As for writer, I just read the rest of that thread, where you're trying to get a rise out of Parrot of Doom. Apparently, you buy into this nonsense of a geolocatable group of editors who are a net negative to the project? "I said his observations were just, not his conclusion"? Rob had no observations except for some tripe about geolocation (I'm being serious: he has no powers of observation, only knee-jerk reactions to perceived errors). Is it his observation that all those editors associated with MF (whatever that means) are useless, or is that his conclusion? or, which part of Rob's semi-literate and all-nonsensical tirade do you agree with--do you have any idea how many GAs and FAs that group of editors is responsible for? And go ahead and geolocate--for what purpose? To identify useless editors? You'll find yourself a lot closer to MF and others than me: my Birmingham is in Alabama.

No, I'm really dismayed by your role in that shoutfest at ANI, and the only thing you have done is antagonize people. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

People = 1 person. Ma®©usBritish  02:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Clearly I'm a member of that clan as well; my IP geolocates to Birmingham (the UK one) as well ... Black Kite (t) 02:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Rob's observation: MF and several people have a geolocation matching the same city, and chat. That lead to his conclusion: They're all on the same team, a kabal, gang of buddies, whatever. Just because he mashed it into once jumble, doesn't make it any less a 2-part line of reasoning. He's performed synthesis, really - whether his conclusion is wrong or right doesn't matter. His observation was not unjustified, even if his accusation was. "Parrot", apt name if ever I saw one, for all he does is rant the same old shit non-stop, "of Doom", meaning we're all doomed to be bored to death by his prattling, is a facetious ignoramus. He thinks just because he has the nerve to write a few articles about extremist British MPs and Muslim fanatics he's "almighty" and superior to everyone. I don't care if he felt antagonised. He can kiss my backside until Judgement Day, because he asked for it, no doubting that. But seeing as he found me "laughable", he can't now complain to having been offended. That would be ironic! I've faced down worse than him on YouTube a thousand times without breaking sweat. Ma®©usBritish  02:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

So now members of a WikiProject are a "kabal ". It just gets better and better, you couldn't make it up. Well obviously you and your mate Rob could, as you just did. Malleus Fatuorum 03:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Well done, you intentionally took that completely out of context, given that I was remarking upon his conclusion, not mine. I have no conclusions. Except that you're a prat if you think I remotely care what you believe. Interesting though, how you're all here within minutes of each other – those ORob named, that is. I'll let that speak for itself. Ma®©usBritish  03:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be wise, as you're clearly unable to speak for yourself unless your foot is in your mouth. Malleus Fatuorum 03:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Go play with your "friends", monotonous Malleus. Well past anti-riot curfew. You seem to spout more crap than the average manky Manc so I wouldn't be surprised if you and Pretty Polly are regular bedfellows. Perhaps ORob is right, and that you do cajole people into following your unadorned ambitions. Now make like Oasis, and split. Ma®©usBritish  03:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Another COI concern

Hi, I recently had the opportunity to appreciate your attempt to respect the presumption of good faith. I stumbled upon another similar issue. Albertogonpar, who created es:Ana Locking, answered me here, in the context of a copyvio issue I raised about the English article, he has no COI with the brand. Nevertheless, he uploaded on Commons as "own work" a picture of Ms Gonzalez, which is the same used on the official web site of the brand. On the Spanish wiki, he wrote he was the author of this page, which is very similar to this page. Finally, he says on his English talk page he is the owner of the copyrights to the videos of Ana Locking on Youtube. I was contemplating confronting him with my concerns. Do you think it is fair and appropriate? Is it, according to you, indirectly infringing his right to anonymacy? Thanks, — Racconish 21:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

hmm, tricky that one, especially as the use of Spanish, which I don't know, makes it harder to consider copyvio easily - though looking at the comparison tool, there is a potential concern. I found this which perhaps settles the dubious tagging at Ana González (fashion designer). Not sure why this editor is claiming ownership to photos and videos, if he has no COI. Might be worth asking him how "he" took those to claim authorship, as the photo is clearly a pro shot, and the Youtube vids are also pro. Note the name/age on YouTube channel match BLP - how can he own those and have her name/age on YT (although it could be one of those unoffic-fan channels that uses details of the person represented)? Not sure why there is a Sockpuppet case against him, I see no other socks listed on the SPI page. Might be worth backing off for a week or two and just seeing what he does, where, etc, than pressuring him - people make their own mistakes if you give them time, whereas if you stay on their back they invent all sorts of things and try to hide anything they shouldn't be doing deeper. I haven't seen any fancy tales or excuses from him to suggest intentional deceit, so play it say, give him AGF for a short while and see how things develop. If he is using OTRS channels it may yet get approved so might as well give them time also. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish  22:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. A question about YT is a good idea. OTRS channels coherent with this (e.g. and ). Quacking enough already? — Racconish 09:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

ALBERTO GONPER

Brand Manager de la firma Ana Locking.

Experto en branding, marketing y comunicación de moda.

— That's a definite COI - marketing, PR, etc. I suggest you raise that first example link with him, and then challenge the "just a fan" claim politely, asking if he'd like to reconsider his answer, perhaps link to the policy regarding "declaration of COI", rather than the "avoid editing if there's a COI", see what response you get. Wiki does after all allow editors to edit articles even if there is a COI, if just recommends editors don't. However declaring a COI is the best way to getting editors willing to help maintain the neutrality of articles, rather than bashing the editor for bad practice. This should be explained to him, as an "unaware newbie" (virtually AGF) rather than a "should know better" which only comes from experience and understanding - so communicate your concerns with him as best you can, rather than a repeat of what happened with Domenico and the hounding he finally received due to his persistent deceptions. Ma®©usBritish  09:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fair. Thanks, — Racconish 10:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

WebHamster

It may seem that some "F-bombs" and so forth merit fruity responses, but I disagree. I've therefore brought the matter up here. But you'd be welcome to retract (and possibly even apologize for) some of your comments; doing so would be quick and honorable and appreciated. -- Hoary (talk) 03:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Apologise! Hahaha! You're funny! That was a good one! LMAO! Gotta write that one down...

Honour is between gentlemen. Webhamster is not a gentleman. Nice to see you siding with him though. But hey, while you busy browning your nose, you forgot a few quotes. I'll gladly supply them, though. Ma®©usBritish  03:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Marcus, your comments at User talk:Roger Davies were seriously out of line. Further comments in that vein will result in a block. And before you accuse me also of being a member of a "clique"...I speak for no one but myself when I say that your commentary is far below the level I would expect from a mature and educated contributor. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh please shut up with the flattery nonsense. That type of remark comes from people who look down their nose at others and thinks themselves superior. Roger Davies isn't complaining, and it's his talk page, and furthermore he's an ArbCom member who responded by my email suggesting that WH's talkpage should be blocked for implying someone is a sex offender. I don't see you getting all strumpy with him over that. You really are out of line, threatening a block against someone voicing the concerns of the wider community (60–65% consensus to block WH indef) which took EIGHT years. How many warnings have you issued him in those years for his persistent attacks? Any? Few? None? So you really think I'm in the slightest bit worried that you can contend my comments which clearly aim at disallowing disruptive members to have free access (who admit to socking during their block) and support to further their abuse? Go look at the wider picture, instead of your myopic view of things, before you make a fool of yourself. You're holding back Wiki by supporting one long-term deviant, without considering the wider community. We're making a bloody encyclopedia. Not a forum for misfits, and it's not all about you, me, him, admins or who thinks what about who. I'm pro-reform, I speak my mind. You obviously don't know what you support.. rewriting "run to mommy" pages, supporting sockmasters with venomous comments, is hardly encyclopedic advancement. It looks worse for you than it does for me. Can't hide behind your mop. You speak for yourself, I'm in a 60–65% majority, remember. And by supporting WH's "run to mommy" redirect you became indirectly involved, so there are potential COI concerns clouding your judgement – perhaps you are embittered that I opposed your proposal to rewrite the page and this is your attempt to get your own back? I don't AGF where GF is clearly not the case, I challenge the motives of aggressors, because AGF doesn't get things done 100% of the time. WH is looking for gullible editors to fight his battles for him to keep his own nose clean during his appeal. I'm really surprised that you fell into his trap. Maybe not in his "clique" but his gang are going to look favourably upon you now. Ma®©usBritish  04:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)