Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:32, 23 December 2012

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. When you recently edited Robert Legato, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TED (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Your speedy

Please explain your speedy of my article, which has been sitting there happily for years. It's this kind of shoot-first-ask-questions-later which drives eds off the project. See my TP for ref. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

If only it was so easy to get rid of plagiarists. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

The Tom Cruise discussion was frustrating so it was nice to see it summed up for those who may not have been willing to read the entire thread. Insomesia (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC closing

Your recent closing at Talk:Illinois Family Institute#RfC Should SPLC "hate group" designation be in the lead? is not clear. First of all, when you say, "rational", do you mean, "rationale"? Secondly, you state, "The RfC specifically mentions the rational to be included..." It is not our job to guess what you mean, especially as it appeared that there was consensus that no such text existed except for the phrase, "SPLC 'hate group' designation". Exactly what is the text that you are saying must be included? Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Besides the misspelling, I thought the close was self-explanatory. As originally written, the RfC included the text some wished to exclude. Therefore, I read the comments by those !voting to include-without specifically stating to include the text-to be for including the explaining text. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I am entirely unaware of any "text some wished to exclude". Please explain what you are talking about. As an editor that did not place a !vote, I have reason to expect that an RfC statement stands on its own, and that I don't have to !vote based on what it might mean. What kind of RfC workmanship proposes specific text but does not state the specific text that is proposed? Have you read the section "Closing the RfC"? Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Pardon my misunderstanding. I assumed that since you participated in the RfC you had actually read it. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 02:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Saying in the previous edit comment, "remove stupid", and editing my post seems to be an ineffective way of building consensus. The bigger puzzle is why you have again avoided answering my questions, and continue to refuse to explain your closing. I read the RfC nomination multiple times, and made comments, but I did not !vote in the RfC. What exactly is the text that you are saying must be included? Unscintillating (talk) 04:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Please don't use non-breaking spaces for no reason as you have been doing. It makes it hard to read when in edit mode, which, coincidentally, is how I edit a page to reply to what you have written. I have once again removed them. If you are incapable of not using them, I would ask that you refrain from using my talk page. Also, the ! in !vote is a negation. So by saying you did not !vote, you're saying you did not not vote or that you actually voted. In reality, just because you didn't preface your comments with a bolded word didn't mean I didn't read and consider your points just as if you had used a bolded word to indicate your preference. So I did consider your !vote just as everyone else who participated in the discussion.

As closer of the RfC, I simply summarized the discussion. I have no authority to mandate that certain text be inserted into the article or not. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Uh, let me just jump in here and ask that the advice "please don't use nbsp" be retracted. If someone is using edit to read a talk page, or a diff, they can easily either scroll down to the rendered text or use preview to see the rendered text, and telling someone how to use talk pages short of "be civil" or "discuss the article, not the subject of the article" is in my opinion way way over the top. If someone wants to use upside down text, I have no problem with it whatsoever (but certainly do not recommend). Or foreign language upside down text, for that matter. Apteva (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Just curious

Have you seen The Jerk?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

No. My spidey sense tells me there's a hidden message in that question, but for the life of me I can't figure out what it is. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 04:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Your name is quite similar to the protagonist.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

MoS RfC

Hi Nathan, thank you for closing the recent RfC at the MoS, and I'm sorry your closure was reverted. Just letting you know as a matter of courtesy that, because Noetica has requested an admin closure, I've asked an admin either to endorse or overturn your closure here. All the best, SlimVirgin 17:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

There's also a discussion here about whether it was appropriate to overturn your closure. Don't feel you have to take part in it; I'm just letting you know because you've been mentioned. SlimVirgin 21:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Abortion voting request

Nathan, that discussion needs closing officially, or we will land up with the same bullshit as last time there was an abortion naming RFC where the closing admins aren't able to make a consensus close because there wasn't explicit enough support for closing it as a vote.

Abortion discussions are really, really difficult we don't need anything getting in the closing admins way of making a decent close. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

A question about your user title above (well, not yours actually)

I like the use of a different font on your usertitle above which I have decided to use myself. My question is, if I were to use a font other than one normally in a font collection, would the title default to a regular font or would it create an error on the screen for anyone who does not have the font? I am going to try this and wondered if you could click on my user talk page and tell me what you see as I am using a font that many will not have.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not even close to fluent in CSS, but I would guess that it would display in the default font. http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/fonts.html is the specification if you want some light reading. Otherwise, you can just try using a font that you know your browser doesn't support, like "NJ is wicked rad". -Nathan Johnson (talk) 04:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Using that font, it looks like it defaults back to Times Roman. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Query

Ah, I can see where that would be confusing. No, it was not a response to you. I indented against the OP, not you. Sorry for the confusion. I'd bump it out but -- honestly -- I just checked that thread for replies and I'm getting a headache from it. 68.200.150.22 (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Clarification on the never-ending RFC discussion

I have never reverted your RFC closure; nor did I ever post endorsing its undoing. I did post a summary saying other editors did not agree to it, which I think is obvious. I did not judge the appropriateness of such a disagreement. Just letting you know, since amid the massive amount of discussion on the issue, somebody has made wrong statements on this regard; they have corrected those statements, but it is easy to get lost in that tangled thread. For what it is worth, I think you are doing a good job clearing the backlog on AN closures. Non-admins are also allowed to close uncontested Afds; there are a few on the Afd page; typically they don't get listed on AN. 16:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Churn and change (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the note. I'm not really following the thread. On one level it's mildly amusing, but on another it's really sad. Once in awhile I'll look at Xfds, but I haven't closed one in a long time. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for taking the time to participate in my RfA. I hope that I will be able to improve based on the feedback I received and become a better editor. AutomaticStrikeout 02:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

MOS

The problem with topic banning me from the MOS is I have no interest in the MOS other than using it just like every other editor. It is not a place that I hang out. I went there to fix one problem and found a hundred. The incivility there appears to have started around 2007 and has escalated since then. Topic banning Pmanderson has had zero effect on improving the ratio of edits to discussion, which now stands at 10 posts to the talk page for every change to the MOS, and was at 2.07 for 2007. Topic banning me would have zero effect either on the incivility there or on my preferred place to make edits. It would, however, allow those who were engaging in incivility to say "good riddance to bad rubbish". If my behavior is incivil, that needs to be fixed no matter where I am editing. Apteva (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello. :) I did not say you were incivil. I said you contributed to a battleground behavior. Diff. I thought about bluelinking incivil and battleground, but you've been around long enough that you should know about them by now, or at least know how to find them. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha. But I am clearly not the problem there. And will voluntarily stay away. Apteva (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-gay hate groups

A couple of editors have opposed the copyright tag you added to List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-gay hate groups. Perhaps you need to explain the reasons a bit more thoroughly, at Talk:List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-gay hate groups. StAnselm (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

There is, in fact, an edit war going on over the tag. StAnselm (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request on Bradley Wiggins

Many thanks for that! --90.195.129.15 (talk) 10:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for clarification

An editor on Talk:Mohammad_Mosaddegh#Unilateral_removal_of_democratically-elected is using the ambiguity of your "closure statement" for this RFC ], as a "mandate" issued by you that there was a "consensus" for his proposal to remove the phrase "democratically-elected" from the article's lead, when his proposal was actually rejected 7 to 3 during the RFC discussions. The problem here is that your closing statement makes an assumption that this is an "either or choice" and that there are two contradictory positions by the academics on this issue, and that's just not the case here. Being "appointed as Prime Minster" and being "democratically-elected" do not actually contradict one another, and a Prime Minster in a constitutional monarchy is "appointed" by the the King/Queen, but only after elections. For there to be "two competing viewpoints" amongst scholars as you've suggested, and as outlined in NPOV, the editor who filled the RFS, would have had to first establish that a good number of scholars DIRECTLY DISPUTE that Mossadegh was "democratically elected" by explicitly saying he wasn't. Citing certain scholars stating the fact that Mossadegh was indirectly elected or appointed, does not serve that purpose, as they do not actually dispute that he was "democratically-elected". This editor, however, is using his own WP:OR interpretation and reading of what democratically-elected means, to dispute a well-sourced statement that's not otherwise disputed by many, if any, notable historians and scholars, and is supported by the vast majority of academic sources, and doing so is clearly against Misplaced Pages policy on original research. Furthermore, he is now using your closing statement as "proof" that he has a consensus for this. I'd appreciate it if you could make a clarification as to weather you're actually endorsing/mandating the removal of the sourced phrase "democratically-elected" as a "consensus" of the dozen editors who took part in the RFC discussion. Kurdo777 (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'd suggest posting a note on WP:NPOV/N if you haven't done so already. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, you're still being ambiguous with your latest comment. We all know about NPOV, that's obvious. But as I explained thoroughly above, this is not an NPOV issue, it's a OR issue. Your statement makes the assumption that there is a contradiction and therefore this is an NPOV issue, when the dispute itself is actually about the filler's assumption that there is a contradiction using his own interpretation of the sources, and your wording is being used by the filler to claim that you're taking his side and he somehow has a consensus. Kurdo777 (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I just re-read the RfC and the current discussion. Regarding the RfC, you state the discussion was split 7 to 3 against the proposal. Here is how I see how people commented:

• The following users commented either explicitly or implicitly for including the "appointed" wording: Binksternet, 88.104.208.74, IRWolfie, TheTimesAreAChanging, BoogaLouie, DanielKlotz. (6)
• The following users commented either explicitly or implicitly for including the "Democratically Elected" wording: Kurdo777, Alborz Fallah, BoogaLouie, Poyani, The Four Deuces. (5)
• The following users commented neither for nor against either wording: GraemeLeggett, Stumink. (2)

Could you elucidate how you see the split? -Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, you're missing the point. "Appointed" does not contradict "democratically-elected", this is what Binksternet is advancing based on his own original research and he certainly did not receive a consensus to that effect. So "appointed or democratically-elected" is just a smokescreen, Binksternet always wanted to remove "democratically-elected" and he has no consensus to do so. You're also excluding User:MishaAtreides from your calculations, but numbers don't matter here, what matter is that there was no consensus either way, and your not-so-clear closing statement has given the false impression to Binksternet that he now somehow has a consensus to remove a well-sourced statement based on his own interpretation of what is democratically-elected. I invite you to read User:Poyani's latest comment on Mossadegh's talk page , even if most editors had agreed that Mossadegh wasn't democratically elected, unless there are reliable sources that explicitly say "Mossadegh was not democratically elected", just as there are hundreds of sources that say explicitly "Mossadegh was democratically elected", the argument against Mossadegh being democratically elected has no merits as far as Misplaced Pages policy is concerned. You're an admin, I don't need to tell you about Misplaced Pages's relevant policies on original research and sourcing, you know very well that personal interpretation of sources is not allowed in Misplaced Pages, and considered original research. By saying "lets not use either", you're approving Binksternet's WP:OR-laden assumption that "appointed" is somehow contradictory to "democratically elected", and essentially endorsing original research over sourced content which is against Misplaced Pages policy. Kurdo777 (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

"Appointed" is a completely different process than "democratically elected". There is no original research here, it is like the difference between "hatched" and "born"... everyone knows the difference. A great many of our best sources say that Mosaddegh was appointed. That is why we cannot say he was democratically elected. Very simple. Binksternet (talk) 03:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You've been told numerous times that many heads of democratically-elected governments such as Great Britain or Australia are "Appointed", so there is no contradiction there. You either have to present reliable sources that explicitly say "Mossadegh's government was not democratically elected" or your have no argument, and your original research has no merit as far as Misplaced Pages policy goes. Kurdo777 (talk) 03:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

@Kurdo777: Firstly, sorry I missed someone's comment. I put together that list while I was writing the comment. But my point was that I think you were trying to say, by using the phrasing "7 to 3", that you thought there was consensus for your version. I reject that there was, or is, any consensus in this matter.

I don't think I ever said that "appointed" and "democratically-elected" were mutually exclusive. If I either said or implied they were, I'm sorry as that's not what I meant. I'm not an expert on this topic; in fact, I'm fairly uneducated about it. What I attempted to do was read the RfC discussion and find a consensus. What I found was that there was no consensus for either of the two phrases.

I am not advocating original research. You say there are hundreds of sources that say he was "democratically elected" (I have not attempted to verify any of them); fine. Binksternet says there are sources that say he was "appointed" (I have not attempted to verify any of them); fine. That has no bearing on the lack of consensus in the RfC. This is a content dispute that has raged on for several years. I offered in good faith (as one user) a temporary solution that I thought everyone might find reasonable. It appears you have rejected it. That's okay, but it doesn't offer a way forward. Everyone in this dispute seems entrenched in their views. The RfC did not appear to provide a solution. I think the next step would be mediation, if all parties are agreeable to it.

@Binksternet and Kurdo777: I would appreciate it if discussion on this User Talk page concerned to closing of the RfC and not the content dispute which should continue to be on the article talk pages. These are two separate issues. I do not care about whether he was "appointed", "democratically-elected", or "hatched-in-office". What I do care about is that Misplaced Pages policies are followed in all our articles, and that processes (like RfCs and talk page discussions) are carried out in a respectful and proper manner. Sorry for the wall of text, I would have shortened it if I had the time. :) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 04:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a very simple issue. Binksternet continues to claim that you've closed the RFC to his preference, and given him a mandate to remove "democratically elected government" from 40+ pages as the result of the RFC, using your "suggestion" as some sort of a license to remove sourced material, saying the issue has been "settled" by you. A simple clarification from you in the closing comment, that the RFC was inconclusive and produced no consensus, and that and you have issued no such verdict to remove sourced material, will be sufficient enough. As it is, as Poyani has pointed out to you below, you're essentially saying that there was no consensus, but one side (Binksternet) gets what he wanted!!?! (the removal of democratically elected) This just doesn't make any sense. When there is no consensus, status quo should stay until there is a consensus. Binksternet clearly had no consensus to remove "democratically elected" (a true statement backed by 4000+ academic sources) from 40+ pages. Kurdo777 (talk)

Man making process - Rashtriya Swayamsevak Snagh

Hello, I went through the link and that is the book from where I have quoted and mentioned it as the source. What needs to be done, please explain. Thanks.Rockthemind (talk) 03:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello. :) First, you should be able to edit that page. Second, why is this message from a different account than the one that posted the edit request? Third, the text that was suggested was much, much, much too similar to the text from the book. Please see Misplaced Pages:Close paraphrasing. We cannot simply copy directly from other sources into Misplaced Pages. That violates their copyright, and is illegal. More importantly from my perspective, is that it is also Misplaced Pages:Plagiarism. Hopefully after reading those two pages you'll be able to fix and add the information yourself. If not, come back and ask and I'll try to explain further. Cheers. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 04:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Apologies

I was in a bit of a rush with all the new user vandals with no talk pages it hadn't occurred to me I wasn't on their talk pages. Gateman1997 (talk) 05:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Removing AfD template

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Bristol Regional Women's Center. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it. Snotbot  t • c »  05:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Was Mosaddegh democratically elected, or appointed prime minister?

I have to say, your decision in closing this RFC is just mind boggling. The question was whether we should keep "democratically elected" in the text or remove it as per Binksternet's request. 7 people requested that we keep it as is and 3 that we remove it. Your decision was that since we have no consensus, we should remove it? That is absurd! FYI - "democratically elected" is a subset of "appointed". All scholars on the subject-matter agree, without any deviation, that Mossadeq was democratically elected, by being appointed by Parliament. There is not a single source which deviates from this. Even the US government (which perpetrated the coup) openly admits that Mossadeq was democratically elected. Binksternet is just trying to push his own POV using an absurd argument which questions the very basis of democratic process in much of the democratic world. Poyani (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

@Poyani: As noted above, I counted 6 users who either explicitly or implicitly supported using the "appointed" wording. As I noted above, the two wordings are not mutually exclusive. "My decision" was simply a suggestion that might foster a compromise between the two viewpoints and is not binding in any way whatsoever. I do not see how you come to a "7 to 3" decision, and as above, request you provide your viewpoint on how the discussion was split. Thanks. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I just went back and recounted. There were 7 users who agreed with the notion that Mossadeq's government was democratically elected. They were Kurdo77, myself, TFD, Alborz Fallah, BooieLouie, Misha, Daniel Klotz. We argued that Mossadeq was both democratically elected and appointed (as I argued above). There were 4 users who wanted the words "democratically elected" left out of the article. They were Binksternet, IRWolfie, 88.104.208.74 and TheTimesAreAChangin. In any event, I appreciate you clarifying that the closing remarks were indeed your suggestion for a compromise. Unfortunately, given that as a requirement, the users closing RFCs are not involved in the actual argument, some important items are lost in translation. The fact that Mossadeq was democratically elected is extremely important. His overthrow is usually considered the CIA's first successful attempt at overthrowing a democratic government via a coup. Mossadeq's administration is also considered to be the only democratic one in Iranian history. This is why so much has been written about Mossadeq while next to no research is done on any of his predecessors and successors. The fact that Mossadeq was leading a democratic government is the only reason he was notable. Binksternet is using your suggestion as a way of forcefully deleting the words "democratically elected" from the Mossadeq and related articles. He has been on a one-made mission for over a year to get this done, and he seems to think that your closing remarks allow him to delete it, even in violation of all other guidelines such as consensus and the 3R rule. Poyani (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The RfC was not about whether Mossadeq was "democratically elected" or "not democratically elected". It was about whether his rise to Prime Minister should be described as "democratically elected" or "appointed". There was no consensus on whether to describe it as "democratically elected" or "appointed". There was no consensus in the discussion. There is nothing that can be done now to change the result of that RfC. I'm not quite sure what you're asking I do. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I will have to agree with what Poyani says.I find that Binksternet is on a mission to get something that is verified by many scholars on the subject deleted and that is exactly what he has done with your help. He has been to many pages with reference to Iran and deleted anything on it that has democratically elected in it,even sources.It would be nice if you could please review your RFC ruling. Thanks.Kabulbuddha (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not this xyrs behavior thus far requires a block. The comments thus far at ANI seem to support that. If you (or anyone else) think there are behavioral problems that require sanction, you should start a WP:RFC/U. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Your suggestion has been taken by Binksternet and used as an excuse to edit and remove sourced material on lots of pages related to the Iranian elections as can be seen here Binksternet User contributionsMaybe you can point out to said user that it was just a suggestion and not an enforcement because he seems to think otherwise.I count 40 pages he has edited with your suggestion as the reason.I was not suggesting a block for him at all,I was pointing out that I agreed with Poyani. Thanks.Kabulbuddha (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Kabulbuddha has been blocked indefinitely for being a sockpuppet of banned editor Zdragon12. Binksternet (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, but you need to revisit the Iran issues

Hi Nathan, I'm sure you meant well, but you closing of the RFC has had some unforseen consequences. A single user has searched for all pages about a democratically-elected government in 1953 Iran.

To my knowledge, no one disputed that the GOVERNMENT was democratically-elected. The RFC was about whether the Prime Minster was best described as "elected" or "appointed".

I don't know if you can do anything at this point to help stop the edit war (40+ pages edited to remove references to "democratically-elected" or "voting" or "elections" in 1953 Iran.

I know you meant well, and I never would have predicted such widespread disputes based on a simple rfc closure.

Did you mean for your words to affect 40+ different pages in this way? If not, you might perhaps clarify your statements. --HectorMoffet (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

"The RFC was about whether the Prime Minster was best described as "elected" or "appointed"." Correct. There was no consensus on which wording to use, so I suggested using neither as a compromise. The RfC was on one article, though it seemed to be advertised on others as well. I certainly had no idea that a no consensus RfC would trigger this sort of reaction from anybody. I sent a note to the user, but I'm not sure what else I can do. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes Binksternet has edited 40 pages to remove any suggestion about democratically elected.Kabulbuddha (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Kabulbuddha has been blocked indefinitely for being a sockpuppet of banned editor Zdragon12. Binksternet (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

2nd runner up at mister world

Hello nathan Johnson. Mr World Organisation confirms that Mohammed Al Maiman was 2 nd runner up at mister world contest by winning the public vote. The prooves are here. http://misterworld.perumale.com/search?updated-min=2010-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2011-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=10 http://listas.20minutos.es/lista/official-public-vote-of-mister-world-2010-345560/ http://homactu.com/archives/21631 http://www.emarrakech.info/3EME-EDITION-DE-L-ELECTION-MISS-FRANCO-MAROC-2010-12-REGARDS-DE-BRAISE-AU-PALACE_a38577.html http://www.misterworld.sitew.com/#Mister_World.A and there is no where in the official website of mister world that shows that mister nigeria was 2 nd runner up. Could you please rectify this article, thank you a lot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.88.36.38 (talk) 07:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what this is about. Which article are you talking about? -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

i am talking about the article Mister World 2010. could you please rectify it and put mister france as 2 nd runner up. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.88.36.38 (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how they award the runners-up, but considering that has four citation (one of which is to the mrworld.tv official site), I won't be changing it. None of your links convince me that they are more reliable than the official site. See WP:IRS. Thanks. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

but the link of the mrworld.tv official site doesn't work. could you put the 2 sources. exemple 2nd runner up nigeria with the links and france with with the links. because most website and magazine considers france as 2 nd runner up. thank you--2.89.170.202 (talk) 04:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I updated the link to http://www.mrworld.tv/shownews/Mr-World-2010-Final/51.html I don't edit that type of article usually and only did so in this case as a response to your edit request. There doesn't appear to be that many users involved in this area. Perhaps you could try the relatively new User talk:Brenhunk. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 05:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet again

Please see my comment here. Despite your request, and a clear statement from a scholar saying that Binksternet was engaging in original research and misinterpreting his position on this issue, Binksternet has once again started mass-reverting these pages to remove "democratically-elected" and replace it with his own OR. Kurdo777 (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I see a user who is discussing on the talk page and making edits that are entirely reasonable given those discussions. The user does not edit war or engage in incivility. You simply disagree with the edits. Either prove that xe is wrong to xyrs satisfaction, or come to some sort of compromise. On that front, I asked previously if you would be interested in mediation and you did not answer. User:Binksternet has stated that xe would agree to mediation. So I ask again, would you agree to a non-binding mediation? -Nathan Johnson (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm just baffled with your apparent indifference to an obvious violation of the most basic fundamental Misplaced Pages policy out there, original research. WP:OR or personal interpretation of sources, is neither considered "reasonable". nor tolerated in Misplaced Pages. Mediation can be helpful provided, that the mediator actually upholds Misplaced Pages's core policies, and has some degree of familiarity with this subject. The road Binksternet has taken though, with his total disregard for WP:OR, will sooner or later result in a user-conduct RFC, followed by an arbitration case and sanctions as we all know that the arbitrators are always very serious about such violations of WP:OR. Kurdo777 (talk) 05:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

If there's an RFC/U or Arbcom case, please let me know. Though mind WP:BOOMERANG. I think your behavior has been the worst out of everyone involved. Cheers. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I will definitely name you as a party to the dispute. Your lack of clear understanding of basic Misplaced Pages polices on original research and sourcing is the sole reason we have this mess. If you're rehearsing to one day be nominated to become an administrator by closing RFCs on voluntarily basis, you need to first make sure that you have a clear understanding of the core Misplaced Pages policies that you're suppose to uphold as a closer, before getting involved in complex topics like this that you have no expertise on (your own words). Cheers. Kurdo777 (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

If you think any other uninvolved user would have closed the RfC differently, then I would encourage you to find them and ask them to come to this page and discuss it with me. Clearly your attempts have been ineffectual, perhaps because you are heavily involved in the dispute. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

RE: Autopsy images of Ngatikaura Ngati

Thanks very much for taking the time to review and close the RFC. Unfortunately, I'm unconvinced that everything's been evaluated in the usual fashion and so am requesting the close to be reviewed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Autopsy_images_of_Ngatikaura_Ngati#RFC_on_image_inclusion. Sorry to be a pain. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 07:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Your reasons for questioning the close would have carried more weight if you had discussed them with me first. But whatevs. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. You're right; perhaps I should have done so. That's what I'd have done if it'd been AfD. Sorry. However, if you wish to elaborate and explain your assessment and reasoning here (or elsewhere) that would be most helpful. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

From my understanding, your disagreement stems from three points:

1. I am not an admin. There is no requirement that closers of RfCs be admins. This has been brought up many, many times before with the result being the same. Admins have no special powers in determining consensus at RfCs. The only reason that non-admins are restricted from closing some discussions is that the result requires the use of admin functions such as deletion.
2. You are concerned (possibly from above) that I may not have weighted arguments correctly and would like to see my user talk archives. That seems odd to me since archives are not required, but you can request temporary undeletion to satisfy your curiosity. I don't think you'll find anything interesting in them though. Anything in there is at least a year and a half old.
3. I don't remember what I was going to say here. :) I think I combined undeletion and weighting. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi again and thanks for replying.

1. It could be perceived that I object to a non-admin closure of the discussion because I requested it be reviewed by "an uninvolved admin with significant expertise in such areas". I've now amended that to include "or editor" but the key point is with significant expertise in such areas. Non-admin closures by users in good standing (as I guess you are) with an ability to determine rough consensus are beneficial to the project and I have no objection to fairly closed discussions by non-admins. Conversely, admins can close discussions poorly or even just viewing things differently without any inherent bias (I recall an AfD where two admins conflicted with the tools to keep/delete, resulting in nested closures of opposing outcomes). My understanding is that admins can reopen AfD NACs and I guess I'd assumed that's the case with RfC too. Perhaps not, in which case any (uninvolved?) editor could possibly reopen your close. I'm relatively unfamiliar with RfC closes, so please excuse my ignorance.
2. Yes, I'm genuinely concerned that the arguments have not been weighted correctly, but the case of your user talk archives is a side issue (included as a point of information indicating that it's not easy for me to tell whether previous NACs have resulted in significant legitimate queries from participants). I'm happy to ignore your talk archives for the moment. As for the weighting, it would be most helpful if you'd please be willing to take the time to review the discussions again and perhaps:
   1. Enhance your closing comments with further explanation, e.g. you seem to imply that those !voting for inclusion are simply ignor legal policy, which I hope you'll agree was and is not the case: a fair use rationale was presented and elaborated upon. For example (and to pick just one possibly overlooked comment) what value did you give to one opposing !voter's comment that he realize acutely that existing policy does not support position?
   2. Re-close in an alternative manner.
   3. Simply reopen the discussion (probably hatting your reasoning) in order that someone else can have a go.
3. I don't like it. Others don't either. But the argument that it has some encyclopedic value carries considerable weight, don't you think? This argument should not be dismissed by lumping in with WP:NOTCENSORED.

Thanks for your time. -- Trevj (talk) 07:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

A further note, just in case it's of interest. The first time NFCC#8 seems to have been specifically mentioned was by me on 7 October, after the 10a issue and a comment by Bilby. I've re-read things and still fail to understand how you summarised the includes as WP:NOTCENSORED and the excludes as WP:NFCC. I hope that you can find the time to respond fully to the points raised. In any case, a note confirming that you intend to do so (or otherwise) would be helpful. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll elaborate here on some of the policies/guidelines that you used to argue for inclusion of an image in an article: the idea that WP:DUE has any relevancy here is ludicrous; WP:IUP, seriously?; WP:CON, that's what you all were trying to determine; WP:NFCI, possibly useful, except that nobody else thought the images were iconic or historical and subject to commentary. It looked like you were throwing out an alphabet soup of Misplaced Pages policy and hoping one stuck. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 04:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and I look forward to reading your further comments. My alphabet soup was merely a selection of policies which support the common sense view (one of many things referred to in WP:CONSENSUS) for inclusion of the (an?) image in the encyclopedia article about the images . -- Trevj (talk) 07:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry but I feel I may have misinterpreted your last comment above, due to misreading the colon for a full stop and believing I should await further comments. Am I right in now understanding that you don't intend to further enhance your actual closing comments on the article talk page? Have you also dismissed the option of reopening for someone else to close, or closing in a different manner? Do you intend to discuss this matter any further in the near future, or not? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Minor fix needed

Hello. You have a new message at Talk:Lance Armstrong's talk page. 88.88.165.22 (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. 88.88.165.22 (talk) 23:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Traumatic brain injury

Hi. Are aware of the ongoing discussion here? Axl ¤ 00:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Replied there. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Armstrong Career Achievements

Notice you unflagged the page for deletion, can understand why, but also feel that with his palmares reduced so extensively, and now easily included in the main article, it doesnt really warrant a seperate article. How many other athletes with such short palmares have seperate achievements pages. What is the correct procedure for discussing and flagging for removal or merging? On one hand removing the article could be deemed controversial, then again, his palmares is fairly short now and his career achievements are now less than many many other riders so its not. Whats the procedure? what is AFD (TW)? Is this not something that can be decided on the articles talk page with consensus? Dimspace (talk) 13:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

You used WP:PROD, which can only be used for uncontentious deletions. Basically, if anyone opposes deletion, it cannot be PRODded and must be sent to Articles for Deletion so that it's deletion can be discussed. If you need help on what to add where to send an article to WP:AFD, let me know and I can do it for you. :) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Got it, think ive marked it properly. Many thanks. Dimspace (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

AN

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Armbrust 16:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

closure of rfc

Regarding your closure of Wikipedia_talk:MOS#Three_corrections, there was an ongoing discussion between me and Coxhead in one of the sections. I think we were making some headway. Is there any problem if I continue that specific discussion elsewhere in the page? --Enric Naval (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

With comments like "Good job sending a biased question to drag someone official into your squabble", "come back when you actually know something about the topic", and "That ignorant response", that section looked liked it was going nowhere fast. But to answer your question, I don't have any problem if you wish to continue the discussion elsewhere on the page. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Your closing of Simple English at Village Pump(Proposals)

Hello,

I understand that it was a novice mistake on my part to midway change the question 2 weeks into the RfC. But I do not think that it did change the consensus of the community either way. In my opinion, even the votes which came before the change of question (which I did because I realised the other 2 questions were not going to pass; so there was no use keeping them ) were hinting and pointing towards YES to question 3. After the change, there was a definite yes consensus. So how does that come across as a no consensus?

I request you to please reopen this discussion, and add another RfC if necessary , since my opinion stands that the community displayed a consensus in favour of this proposal. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

(P.S. The user Inamos is the same as me, and I would prefer a talkback on my page)

The problem, in my view, was the change in tone after the switching of the question. (I am merely writing what I presumed happened based on my reading at the time, not by going through the diffs to find out) With the original wording, those responding seemed less than enthused about the change. After the switch, it seemed as if nobody thought it was a big deal. Your RfC laid out a problem, addressed in your first question; is Misplaced Pages too complicated? Then attempted to answer that question with question 2, what should be done?, and 3, how do we highlight Simple Misplaced Pages? These were the original questions as posed on 12 November. On 1 December, you struck questions 1, 2, and your proposed solution to 3, and added an alternate solution to question 3, top-sorting Simple English in the languages box. Again, this is how it appears to have happened based on simply reading the discussion, not on the actual sequence of events. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The sequence is correct but with one difference. The alternate answer to question 3 was already there. I just changed the indentation to increase the clarity to those who might read it again. So what I did was to remove 2 questions and one alternate proposal for the third. That made it a lot clearer for people to vote, as I found people opposing the first two questions but supporting the third. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

As I said in the summary, there is no way to predict how this sequence of events may have influenced those who did not comment because of the way the first half of the discussion was going because they did not wish to pile-on to a proposal that was obviously going to fail. Anyone only doing a cursory viewing of the RfC after Dec 1st may have only browsed the bolded words and noticed it was about evenly split, and again decided not to comment. Those voting after the 1st to support may have been unduly influenced by the several first opposes which in actuality were not opposes to what they were supporting.

I think the best way forward is to start a new RfC at VPP with just the proposal to sort Simple English to the top of the Interwikis with a brief reasoning and let it run for a full 30 days. It will probably pass with ease, but again, we just don't know. Another 30 days isn't that long to wait just to make sure we get it right. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

If based on the account of events that I mentioned, you still believe that it must be closed as a no consensus, I shall restart the proposal. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Btw someone called "Order of Myris" just left me an "Order of Myris barnstar". Which I found weird because it was the only contrib by that account. is there any way for me to find out who that anonymous (and generous) editor was? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree with Inamos. I was surprised to see it'd been closed that way, as to me there was quite a clear consensus for that item. I totally disagree that it's difficult to determine, and would echo Inamos' request that you reopen the discussion and leave it for someone else to close. Respectfully, Osiris (talk) 05:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm out of town with limited Internet access for the next two weeks. Feel free to ask for a review of the closure on WP:AN/RFC (or another appropriate venue). I have no problems if someone else "overturns" the close. :) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U for Apteva: move to close

I am notifying all participants in Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Apteva that Dicklyon has moved to close the RFC/U, with a summary on the talkpage. Editors may now support or oppose the motion, or add comments:

• Link to the move to close

Please consider adding your signature, so that the matter can be resolved.

Best wishes,

Noetica 04:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)