| Revision as of 20:18, 2 March 2014 editEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,211 edits →Close of Anna Pou case move review: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:08, 2 March 2014 edit undoMatt Lewis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers9,196 edits →Your advice at ANI/EW: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 162: | Line 162: | ||
| EdJohnston, following the move review guidelines, I am first reaching out to you on your talk page to discuss your decision to close the review. I want to understand more about your decision. It seems objectionable that someone moved the article unilaterally from its longtime name: Anna Pou case to a completely unrelated name. It seems like an attempt to whitewash an important episode in American history. We cannot change the fact that these events occurred, even if they are uncomfortable to those involved. The fact that Dr. Pou was arrested and prosecuted and ultimately not indicted has led to legal changes in multiple states protecting doctors from prosecution in future disasters. She herself has become a passionate public speaker about her case. I don't quite understand your reasons for not allowing the name to be reverted to its longtime name, which was accurate. Let's try to find a solution that preserves history, not creating a revisionist and inaccurate one. Thank you] (]) 19:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | EdJohnston, following the move review guidelines, I am first reaching out to you on your talk page to discuss your decision to close the review. I want to understand more about your decision. It seems objectionable that someone moved the article unilaterally from its longtime name: Anna Pou case to a completely unrelated name. It seems like an attempt to whitewash an important episode in American history. We cannot change the fact that these events occurred, even if they are uncomfortable to those involved. The fact that Dr. Pou was arrested and prosecuted and ultimately not indicted has led to legal changes in multiple states protecting doctors from prosecution in future disasters. She herself has become a passionate public speaker about her case. I don't quite understand your reasons for not allowing the name to be reverted to its longtime name, which was accurate. Let's try to find a solution that preserves history, not creating a revisionist and inaccurate one. Thank you] (]) 19:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :The ] policy should be kept in mind. There is a concern in calling something the 'Anna Pou Case' where it appears that a case with that name was never formally opened. You have just added as the article's Reference 2 (taken from a CBS News website) a PDF that is an apparent draft document which is not signed by any court official. The only named case mentioned on the talk page is "William Armington, M.D. vs. Sherri Fink, et al, Civil Action 09-6785, Eastern District of Louisiana." Even ] did not call it the Anna Pou case. In terms of the numerical vote, I found that the majority of opinions were against moving the article back to the ]. ] (]) 20:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | :The ] policy should be kept in mind. There is a concern in calling something the 'Anna Pou Case' where it appears that a case with that name was never formally opened. You have just added as the article's Reference 2 (taken from a CBS News website) a PDF that is an apparent draft document which is not signed by any court official. The only named case mentioned on the talk page is "William Armington, M.D. vs. Sherri Fink, et al, Civil Action 09-6785, Eastern District of Louisiana." Even ] did not call it the Anna Pou case. In terms of the numerical vote, I found that the majority of opinions were against moving the article back to the ]. ] (]) 20:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | ||
| == Your advice at ANI/EW == | |||
| Thanks for the cool , I'll voluntarily take it if it is what's going. I've been giving this too much time than I've actually got anyway. I just want Misplaced Pages to represent what I see around me regarding the place I've lived all my life. I've been rusty anyway, so I should be back more of a 'settled' way (I always remember the deeper levels of policy even if I unfortunately have broken some of the more top layer aspects of it at times - but I do forget some 'technical' stuff, and it all looks very different these days too). ] (]) 21:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:08, 2 March 2014
"Cassandra" IP sock SPI, again
Hi Ed, I've had a go at tightening up a draft for an SPI for "Cassandra" here at my sandbox (the section at the top). Is this more along the right lines? Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- See Talk:Scottish Gaelic#Semiprotection. In my opinion an SPI filing is not really needed yet, since there is not much that can be done beyond semiprotection. Let me know if the problem exists elsewhere. It may not be worth the trouble to revert the editor's talk posts. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough; I'm happy with that as a shot across their bows may make them pay heed. Here's hoping. This article seems to be their primary focus since moving on from Scots language a few weeks ago. I'll keep you posted. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
duplicate posting deleted Startropic1 (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Quiet for over a week since your semiprotection at Scottish Gaelic, Cassandra's reappeared today. They've found an old talk thread at William Wallace to tag their favourite views to. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Good heavens, that's not User:Cassandra at the peak of her insanity, I hope..? Bishonen | talk 00:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC).
- Bishonen, we should block all the Cassandras just in case! @Mutt, are you keeping a list of these IPs somewhere? It could be helpful. The dialog at Talk:William Wallace doesn't yet look bad enough to semi the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- The IPs are here Ed. Yes, for that post it would seem harsh to semi-protect. It is though typical of the way Cassandra posts, at least initially, in a thread. It seems fairly benign and reasonable but if familiar with Cassandra's favoured themes, it's not hard to spot that they're taking the opportunity to hang those themes in an existing discussion on another matter. In this example the insertion of their term "Scot-land", with a hyphen, and reference to lowland Scots as being English are two familiar POV riffs which stand out to me. They may or may not pick up and run with them but I recognise this as being Cassandra's focus, rather than the thread's actual discussion of the term "patriot". But to act because one strongly suspects what they are up to, hmmm... Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Just checked range contributions though and the sock seems to have been on one of their occasional common-or-garden vandalism sprees as well. This is the most blatant but the following one seems to be misinformation and this one possibly a joke with someone who attended the school or its predecessor (the sock has identified as being from Yorkshire). There's also an instance of blanking. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Per above, as suspected the "Scot-land" and "'English' Lowlands" themes were continued later at Talk:Robert the Bruce, in an unrelated and similarly old forum post started by themself. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Though this may be annoying I don't think it's abusive. The vandalistic edits by 92.12.105.138 don't look to be Cassandra. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- WP:NOTFORUM? I could elaborate as to what I think they are driving at re "Scot-land" and "English Lowlands" if that helps but it's oft-repeated OR of theirs, amongst several related OR themes, that they keep attempting to shoe-horn into any talk page or article that they feel they can. If it's the difference in character of the vandalistic edits (from the same IP range as Cassandra) that make it seem doubtful they are Cassandra, there have been plain vandalistic edits by IPs which identify in other edits as Cassandra: 1 2 and 3, or have made edits to other articles characteristic of those targeted by Cassandra (this IP also edited at Scotch (adjective) in a manner that was clearly Cassandra): 4. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with you about NOTFORUM but don't see any admin action that is worth taking. The 2009 vandal edit at Grassland by 92.5.13.102 is most likely by a different person than the 2013 edits that look to be Cassandra. IPs do change hands. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, no problem. Though the user's broken record POV-pushing is blatant and transparent if one knows their history but much less obvious if encountering for the first time (particularly with the IP- and article-hopping) I'm conscious that to revert many of their posts may seem harsh to other observers but a concerted programme of "revert, ignore", per your comment in an earlier thread, may be the only way to go about it. Thanks for the help. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- ...and they're really widening the scope of their target articles now: Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, no problem. Though the user's broken record POV-pushing is blatant and transparent if one knows their history but much less obvious if encountering for the first time (particularly with the IP- and article-hopping) I'm conscious that to revert many of their posts may seem harsh to other observers but a concerted programme of "revert, ignore", per your comment in an earlier thread, may be the only way to go about it. Thanks for the help. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with you about NOTFORUM but don't see any admin action that is worth taking. The 2009 vandal edit at Grassland by 92.5.13.102 is most likely by a different person than the 2013 edits that look to be Cassandra. IPs do change hands. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- WP:NOTFORUM? I could elaborate as to what I think they are driving at re "Scot-land" and "English Lowlands" if that helps but it's oft-repeated OR of theirs, amongst several related OR themes, that they keep attempting to shoe-horn into any talk page or article that they feel they can. If it's the difference in character of the vandalistic edits (from the same IP range as Cassandra) that make it seem doubtful they are Cassandra, there have been plain vandalistic edits by IPs which identify in other edits as Cassandra: 1 2 and 3, or have made edits to other articles characteristic of those targeted by Cassandra (this IP also edited at Scotch (adjective) in a manner that was clearly Cassandra): 4. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Though this may be annoying I don't think it's abusive. The vandalistic edits by 92.12.105.138 don't look to be Cassandra. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Per above, as suspected the "Scot-land" and "'English' Lowlands" themes were continued later at Talk:Robert the Bruce, in an unrelated and similarly old forum post started by themself. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Bishonen, we should block all the Cassandras just in case! @Mutt, are you keeping a list of these IPs somewhere? It could be helpful. The dialog at Talk:William Wallace doesn't yet look bad enough to semi the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
1848–49 massacres in Transylvania
Thanks for you protected John Hunyadi and Magyarization articles. Could you protect the above article too? SPs of User:Iaaasi from Craiova are very active with regard of this article. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- User:Norden1990 you don't like the historical facts, so you prefer to hide them (by reverting me), on the reason that this ip is from Craiova 86.127.24.200 (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Semiprotected the massacres article, 86.127, feel free to work for consensus for your changes and consider creating an account. Without a fixed user talk page, nobody can leave you messages. More background is at WP:SCRUTINY. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe you could also semiprotect Hungarian Turanism, where a sock of User:Stubes99 tries to add unsourced information (it is a blatant sock, a CU could easily confirm that the techincal data correspond). 79.117.167.69 (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Semiprotected the massacres article, 86.127, feel free to work for consensus for your changes and consider creating an account. Without a fixed user talk page, nobody can leave you messages. More background is at WP:SCRUTINY. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Move under open AfD
Hello EdJohnston! Please note this. I've requested move protection for the article until the AfD is closed.--Jetstreamer 00:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ethiopian Airlines ET702 hijacking is now move protected two weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- I think the article can now be moved. The outcome of the AfD was to keep it.--Jetstreamer 11:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Slavery in Iran
What Hoary (is clear that is an anti-Iranian) has written about Slavery in Iran is nonsense words (e.x. The figure that has been added does not have any resource and is not clear that this is belong to which country and so on). The previous version of Slavery in Iran is correct version. So I have not removed the materials of the page. Just I returned the correct version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1241edit (talk • contribs) 17:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Feel free to persuade others that you are correct. If you continue to revert without persuading the others you'll probably be blocked. It's in your interest to try some diplomacy. If you are blocked then you'll have no further opportunity to make your case here, and no one will even hear your arguments. EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Peregrine981 on Open Europe
Peregrine981 apealed to you to block my account on Open Europe claiming there had been no discussion of my edits. On the contrary, there is a whole discussion thread. Peregrine981 I believe has abused his position as an editor by constantly reversing edits, removing balancing references and relying on citations from one blog post in march 2010 to paint a picture of an organisation that does not fit with the truth. Open Europe is a well regarded critic of the European Comission, havng an Editor who works for the European Commission involved in editing wars and abusing his position to block those who do not agree with him is an abuse of wikipedia - thanks. AyreSmith1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayresmith1 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Your account has been indefinitely blocked by a checkuser. Your complaint here didn't give me very much to go on since it has no links to anything I might recall. By searching around I found this ANI report. I also see that I semiprotected Open Europe on 31 January, most likely because of the ANI complaint about socking. Since a checkuser was involved I assume that you have in fact been socking so I don't have much motivation to look further into the substantive issues about Open Europe. EdJohnston (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
HouseOfArtaxiad
Is this editor still banned from Armenian and Azerbaijani articles? Since the 25 January 2014, he has clearly edited in articles concerning Armenia, Armenians, etc. Per this request by HouseOfArtaxiad, his request was denied. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Left a note for the editor at User talk:HouseOfArtaxiad#Your topic ban from AA2. It seems that a block may be necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ed, you might want to look at the edits of this IP. They appear to mirror HouseOfArtaxiad's. Both appear to edit war in tandem for a particular POV.
- Nazim Bey,, edit-warring.
- Battle of Bitlis,
- List of massacres in Turkey,
- Kahramanmaras,
- Just a little to much of a coincidence. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Don't know if 216.125.48.225 (talk · contribs) is the same person as HOA, but his edits at Nazım Bey justify a block in their own right and an AA2 warning. Others have already given him vandalism warnings. EdJohnston (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I filed a sockpuppet investigation request here: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/HouseOfArtaxiad, to see if the IP has anything to do with HouseOfArtaxiad. Grandmaster 09:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Those aren't Armenia-Azerbaijan articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HouseOfArtaxiad (talk • contribs)
- If you read the bottom of the WP:ARBAA2 page, it states:
- "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted." Would you say that a massacre of Armenians, such as those directed by Nazım Bey, is not related to Armenia? How about List of massacres in Turkey, when the victims are stated to be Armenian? EdJohnston (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Infraction
Srnec user has violated the rule of three reversals twice ( and ). He took advantage of the system rules. He got it from blocking me so I could not report him and now his offense has expired, they tell me. I can not believe that this could be possible and I think that deserves a penalty.--EeuHP (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Please review this User Page, and suggest improvements to it.
User:HRA1924 in connection with the IAC controversy and the IP block. Thanks.
PS: we have attempted to use email many times to the OTRS email ID with dismal results. We had not escalated matters to the Office or General Counsel as we want to exhaust all opportunities which Misplaced Pages theoretically offers to outsiders. Ours is a matter with serious potential legal issues, and we would have appreciated if competent community editors with a strong legal background had also been involved. It seems to us that everybody hopes we should take our "hot potato" to the WMF Legal section. HRA1924 (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello from Wiki New England gathering, I believe
Hi. At the New England gathering last month at MIT, as a sign-in sheet was circulated, I was the person who remarked "One of you is on my watchlist." That was in reference to you, or so I believed after scanning the list of those who had signed in ahead of me.
I mention that now, as I stop watching--something I was doing for a technical reason rather than because we on many of the same pages. Feel free to delete. --P64 (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
ANI
ANI that might concern you - see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tendentious_IDHT_even_after_mediation. - Sitush (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- It does concern me. I can't complain about how this turned out. Will the guy stop after a mere indefinite block? I'm afraid that the crusade will continue by other means. It's fun to get lectured about Misplaced Pages policy by somebody who won't even accept the Misplaced Pages terms of use. EdJohnston (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Help
Hi, I have a complaint about User:Cavid_Süleymanlı, he keeps not following talk page instructions and violating wikipedia's policies and adding what he thinks best. Could u please deal with him? - Nicat49 (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Need some details. Is this a complaint about formatting of sports articles? What articles? EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Abbas Babaei Article
I have been an observer of the Abbas Babaei article and have been following the recent conflict. I wanted to point out to you that this conflict seems to be getting no where. The IP address does not seem to not be cooperating and has explicitly said "I have no intention of co-operating with you" and "When the article is unblocked I will make my edits." the IP goes on to make another comment "And I ask you: did you ever see Abbas Babaei fly an F-14? If so, exactly when? Do you have any empirical proof he was an F-14 pilot?".
It seems to me that such comments make no effort to resolve the dispute?
Of course Hooperag is not totally innocent either... as they should have been more cooperative in the beginning and not have plagiarized from that website. However after the edit war they seem to have offered a fairly reasonable proposal to solve the problem. I recommend you as a Misplaced Pages administrator take some action with your mature judgment so this conflict can finally be resolved. I feel Hooperag's proposal is decent and you change the article to incorporate hooperag's suggestion and then keep the article protected for a few weeks until things cool down, and then depending on what you think, block the IP address and temporarily block Hooperag.
I wish both parties had acted more cooperative and not have created this dispute in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.39.77.59 (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Please use Talk:Abbas Babaei to reach consensus about what should be in the article. Anyone who won't follow a proper consensus can be sanctioned. You don't seem to have commented yet on the talk page yourself. Your participation might help motivate the others to discuss properly. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Block evasion - 108.48.144.42 --> 108.48.85.180_108.48.85.180-2014-02-27T21:01:00.000Z">
Hi Ed, just a heads-up that the kid who was abusing their thesaurus via 108.48.144.42, and who was blocked for one month, has evaded their block and is doing the same stuff from 108.48.85.180. I've issued a fresh warning, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention so you can keep an eye on it. To refresh your memory, the kid uses too many words to say things, which results in sloppy, unencyclopedic language. Here's an example "official love interest, true love, and girlfriend", "shared a romantic kiss". They were doing other pernicious stuff too like removing references from articles, changing Pocahontas' birthdate, etc. I've reverted most of their edits on the basis of block evasion. Though they do make improvements to some articles, like by correcting bad grammar and misspellings, this other crap they do devalues their contribution. It looks like good hand/bad hand vandalism. Here's the ANI. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)_108.48.85.180"> _108.48.85.180">
- Blocked the new IP for evasion. Thanks for your report. EdJohnston (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Edit warring Haller's Blue Army
| This should continue on the article talk. See WP:DR for how to settle content disputes. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I have made grammatical and contextual improvements to the overall article. But, Faustian has an issue with just one paragraph. Instead of dealing with this on section he continually reverts all my edits, even though they were done section by section individually. I have asked to notice this fact but he did not take that in to consideration, instead he jumped at the opportunity to call my editing disruptive. --COD T 3 (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
You are starting to act like a jerk, to win your argument you keep accusing people of the worst things, so here is proof; that's the source I used to back up my claim. --COD T 3 (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
University Rochester Press, 2003 Direct quote from the book: "He stood out for his antisemitism even in an era when genteel disdain for things Jewish pervaded the clublike atmosphere of the foreign service. Upon their arrival in Warsaw, the Yankee diplomats found their prejudices confirmed by an almost physical repugnance towards the city's exotic Orthodox Jewry...to Gibson and his colleagues, the Jews represented antagonists and also a source of sport, and ridicule of Jewish traits, customs, and appearance became the favorite expression of camaderie within the legation." Page 67. The guy just flat-out lies about what is in sources. This should not be tolerated.Faustian (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
|
Comedienne
Is there somewhere else in the article Comedian where the information in Etymology can be placed? You recently closed that can. I will not open it again by posting on the Talk page; leaving this in your very capable hands. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 06:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- See this edit by User:PraetorianFury which adds a section called 'Etymology'. It is up to editor consensus whether this material belongs there; the RfC did not address that. All the RfC settled was whether to include 'comedienne' in the first sentence. Several commenters believed that 'comedienne' could be mentioned later in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
note
After Qwyrxian said that I explained things on his talk page and he said I don't know about the other times this has happened to, so I can't comment on them, so he is admittably saying he can't judge if I can edit Misplaced Pages or not. He also said a good portion of what you changed on Joel Osteen was for the positive, so it seems like you can be a good contributor. So no, it is a lie to say I was "in trouble" because nothing happened. There was a misunderstanding and it was taken to the talk page and resolved. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
talk page move
Hi, EdJohnston. Thank you for your moving Li Xiang (disambiguation) to Li Xiang. Please also move Talk:Li Xiang (disambiguation) to Talk:Li Xiang. Thanks! --Neo-Jay (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Done. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you! --Neo-Jay (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Close of Anna Pou case move review
EdJohnston, following the move review guidelines, I am first reaching out to you on your talk page to discuss your decision to close the review. I want to understand more about your decision. It seems objectionable that someone moved the article unilaterally from its longtime name: Anna Pou case to a completely unrelated name. It seems like an attempt to whitewash an important episode in American history. We cannot change the fact that these events occurred, even if they are uncomfortable to those involved. The fact that Dr. Pou was arrested and prosecuted and ultimately not indicted has led to legal changes in multiple states protecting doctors from prosecution in future disasters. She herself has become a passionate public speaker about her case. I don't quite understand your reasons for not allowing the name to be reverted to its longtime name, which was accurate. Let's try to find a solution that preserves history, not creating a revisionist and inaccurate one. Thank youAccuracyObsessed (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- The WP:BLP policy should be kept in mind. There is a concern in calling something the 'Anna Pou Case' where it appears that a case with that name was never formally opened. You have just added as the article's Reference 2 (taken from a CBS News website) a PDF that is an apparent draft document which is not signed by any court official. The only named case mentioned on the talk page is "William Armington, M.D. vs. Sherri Fink, et al, Civil Action 09-6785, Eastern District of Louisiana." Even 60 Minutes did not call it the Anna Pou case. In terms of the numerical vote, I found that the majority of opinions were against moving the article back to the Anna Pou Case. EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Your advice at ANI/EW
Thanks for the cool advice, I'll voluntarily take it if it is what's going. I've been giving this too much time than I've actually got anyway. I just want Misplaced Pages to represent what I see around me regarding the place I've lived all my life. I've been rusty anyway, so I should be back more of a 'settled' way (I always remember the deeper levels of policy even if I unfortunately have broken some of the more top layer aspects of it at times - but I do forget some 'technical' stuff, and it all looks very different these days too). Matt Lewis (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)