Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:24, 29 June 2006

Hello! Welcome to my talk page, feel free to leave a message for me at the bottom of this page, using a new heading for new topics. Please try and use descriptive headers, as it helps with my archiving (I reserve the right to change the header for this purpose). Messages in italic like this have been copied from other users talk pages to keep the full conversation thread together. I will usually reply on your talk page (exceptions include replies to possibly dynamic IPs, and when multiple people are involved in one conversation) to give you a new messages notification. Petros471

Archives

• Full archive index of old conversations. If you wish to re-start any conversation from in here please start a new heading on this page.
• Quick links: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

12 December 2024
News and notes: Arbitrator election concludes Arbitration report: Palestine-Israel articles 5 Disinformation report: Sex, power, and money revisited Op-ed: On the backrooms by Tamzin In focus: Are Misplaced Pages articles representative of Western or world knowledge? In the media: Like the BBC, often useful but not impartial Traffic report: Something Wicked for almost everybody Opinion: Worm That Turned's reconfirmation RfA debriefing
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

WIN (talk · contribs)

Re: Your WP:RFI report- I have warned WIN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), however I should probably note that the edits to the talk page don't count as vandalism. They could be seen as disruption though, just be careful not to blanket remove all comments from WIN- make sure that the comments add nothing to discussion about the article. Petros471 17:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Even after you kindly warned him that Misplaced Pages is not a place for debate and original research, he continues to leave long diatribes at Talk:Indo-Aryan migration. This is getting very tiring, I'd like to concentrate on other editing tasks instead of constantly having to revert his disruptions. Please consider further action against him. One look at his contribs should convince you he hasn't made a productive edit in months (if ever). CRCulver 06:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Given final warning. Petros471 09:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Even after you have given a final warning, he's just left an angry message on Talk:Indo-Aryan migration railing against mainstream scholars and bring up his own research. (I reverted.) CRCulver 07:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Just blocked for 24 hours. Petros471 08:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Edits by 81.19.57.170

Hi. Could you let me have a bit more background on your decision not to block this user. From your edit comment, I could perhaps be forgiven for thinking that you're saying that as long as they are making valid edits to some articles, that vandalism of others is OK, which I'm sure isn't what you meant. If blocking is not the appropriate route to deal with this kind of editor, your advice on what we can do instead would be appreciated (bearing in mind that they have so far not responded to multiple invitations to discuss their edits). Many thanks SP-KP 17:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• AIV diff

• 81.19.57.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

{{/Note}}.

Thanks - no problem, no great rush, at least two editors are keeping an eye on this IP's edits. SP-KP 21:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It was edits like this that made me think 'this is not simple vandalism'. Some of the other edits like , at a quick glance didn't look like vandalism either. On closer look I can see how they can be seen as unhelpful edits, but blocks in response to AIV reports are usually only for clear, obvious, 'right now' vandalism.

As to how to deal with editors like this... It can be tricky, and the response depends on the balance of good, bad and indifferent edits. If there are a significant number of good edits, might be best just to keep a good eye on the contribs and revert the bad ones. If you find yourself continually reverting the same bad ones then a block for disruption might be in order. That may or may not have the effect of getting them to discuss things. Petros471 15:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for the reply. Could you take a look at the recent edit history for Cypripedium calceolus? There, this user has made the same edit multiple times, and not responded to the invitation on the talk page to discuss. What do you reckon - does this merit a block for disruption? SP-KP 22:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Warned. I'll block if they do that edit again. Petros471 08:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

User:RevolverOcelotX

• 71.124.114.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• RevolverOcelotX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I warned RevolverOcelotX (talk · contribs) for removing previous warnings off his talk page. 71.124.114.26 18:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

71.124.114.26 (talk · contribs) has continually mass reinserted old comments and invalid warnings on my user talk page. He spammed my user talk page with old comments and invalid and irrelevant warnings AFTER the final warnings and in the process, 71.124.114.26 has clearly broken the 3RR. 71.124.114.26 (talk · contribs)'s talk page was protected because he kept blanking his own user talk page and broke the 3RR leading to it being protected. When warned about it, 71.124.114.26 made personal attacks towards myself and other editors. Now he has broke the 3RR AGAIN on my user talk page. --RevolverOcelotX 18:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless either of you can enlighten me otherwise, I can't see any recent vandalism to articles from either of you. The issue seems to be you giving each other warnings, then removing them and giving each other more for removing the warnings. I suggest both of you just stop it, and then I won't have to block either of you... I'll remove any warnings not given for article vandalism, and just check out if any new ones are valid. Petros471 18:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding vandalism, 71.124.114.26 has blanked other editor's comments on Talk:Bruce Lee, and made personal attacks towards myself and other editors. 71.124.114.26 has also repeatedly spammed my user talk page AFTER final warnings leading him to break the 3RR for the second time.

71.124.114.26 (talk · contribs) has broken the 3RR twice on both his own user talk page and my user talk page. I filed a report for each 3RR violation here but nobody responded to either of them yet. I posted more details there. Could you take a look at them? Thanks. --RevolverOcelotX 19:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I could, but if I find you're the only person doing the other half of the reverting I'd have to block you for the same amount of time. Do you still want me to go ahead and investigate the 3RR report? Petros471 19:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because if you look at the page history, you would see that 71.124.114.26 (talk · contribs) has clearly broken the 3RR twice. 71.124.114.26 has started a revert war on both his and my talkpage and has clearly violated the 3RR. However, I haven't broken the 3RR on either his talk page or my talk page. --RevolverOcelotX 19:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that 71.124.114.26 has broken the 3RR. However, I have decided not to block either of you for now, as the edit warring has been over your talk pages only and you have both been disruptive. If either of you continue this disruptive behaviour I will block whoever starts it again. Petros471 19:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

RevolverOcelotX does this sort of thing constantly. He gets into revert wars with users, then sends out rapid fire templates on 3RR and vandalism and starts revert warring over the messages; that or he refactors or deletes discussion on user talk or article talk pages then revert wars and reports 3RR. He basically baits people with inflammatory messages (no real discussion, no compromise, just attacks) and then sits back and makes reports on them to get them blocked and out of the way of his versions. The latest example can be found if you glance through this user's history. He sent out templates, reverted the user's reversion of the templates, then reported him for 3RR. Sometimes he uses WP:AIV instead, even though it clearly isn't simple vandalism. YINever 04:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Is Doright's Behavior Here Out of Line?

Would you take a look at Talk:On the Jews and Their Lies and advise if this post is out of line? If so, how would you advise I proceed? --CTSWyneken 01:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

By 'this post' I'm assuming you mean the "Email list archives" one. Yes, that looks like it is crossing the line, at least the WP:CIVIL one, if not quite WP:NPA. I guess after seeing many, many, extreme violations of WP:NPA (example) I've become less sensitive to the slightly gentler violations. What I'd do in that situation though is not to focus on the attack part of the post, i.e. ignore the attack completely, and just reply to the conent issue (but don't simply ignore the post completely). In that case Doright quoted "Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise..." but if you read on it says "...so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so." So basically if the information is only available in it's original from as published by the researcher, you're probably right that it shouldn't go in the article. My point there isn't the actual issue, it's how you deal with it. Always give thoughtful replies, backed up by policy where needed (and remembering guidelines aren't quite as strict as policy, so make sure you know which it is). Getting into arguments about who is doing what wrong is rarely helpful (like the classic case sitting on my talk page at the moment of two people giving each other warnings about removing warnings, neither had actually committed any 'real' vandalism...)

Also as I think I mentioned before, if you think Doright is persistently being unreasonable, and you and others have tried to resolve this, a WP:RFC might be useful. Petros471 12:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Very good advice. The irony is I actually agree with Doright that it should be OK to quote this mailing list. (It is moderated, sponsored by one of the oldest online association of scholars and every list is moderated by a scholar vetted by the organization). SlimVirgin had questioned the validity of this as a source earlier, Doright reacted as if I were trying to supress it. I worked with three or four editors at WP:RS to craft a paragraph that said, in essence, what you said. There were some cautions other users wished to add, so I added them. After waiting a day or two after the last comment, I posted it to the page. Doright immediately changed it to a paragraph that gave an all clear to anything on H-Net, without discussion. After exchanging a few reverts, noticing no one seemed to care, I modified Doright's version to include the cautions and it all seemed to settle... until Slim came and moved it off the page to the talk page, insisting that mailing lists not be used at all, since they were self-published. That was when I put the note on the "On the Jews" page. My attempt was to get the guideline some attention. Which it did. So what is my thanks?

Could you provide me a few diffs to the kinds of personal attacks you would respond to as an admin with a warning and then a block? --CTSWyneken 13:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

<sarcasm> What you're expecting to be thanked for contributing your time for free, helping build a 💕 for the benefit of the world?</sarcasm> :O Yeah, it can be tough. I'm not sure exactly what to suggest. It seems like a lot of the problems aren't helped by there being so few of you editing this area. It's a controversial topic, but without having a large number of editors involved, it is hard for real consensus to build up if one or two of you disagree.

Looking back at my block log and searching for 'personal attacks' as the reason, I came up with some examples: . As you can tell it didn't take too much effort to work out that most of those were totally unacceptable without a second glace. Some that were a closer call can be seen on User talk:Andrew Homer, especially the section "Request for comment" onwards. Petros471 14:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This template must be substituted, see Template:Smile for instructions The irony is it might be possible to work with this guy, if he'd not stamp his feet every time he doesn't get his way.

I'll try next to go to semi-ignore mode.

I appreciate the links. Since I'm trying to develop into an admin, it would be good to discover where to set my threshhold. --CTSWyneken 14:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Any comments on this salvo, in which my intergity is questioned and my

reply? --CTS Wyneken 11:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Note: I have received and read your message, however I need more time to reply and/or action your request. Thank you for your patience :) Petros471 11:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! SlimVirgin has intervened, so action is not likely needed. I would appreciate your evaluation of my response, for self-improvement purposes, but it can wait. --CTS Wyneken 13:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ice Hockey

I'm afraid that the ice hockey project are resorting to personal attacks and trying to ram raid a decision to keep all youth teams with their own page. Where's the sense in that sort of decision? They have provided NO evidence that these teams have any notability (beyons they are the biggest youth team in a town with a population of 100,000!!!). This is totally illogical. They are working against the basic principles of WP and are acting VERY unencyclopedically. What do you suggest? Robertsteadman 05:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not quite sure it's reached the level of personal attacks yet. To try getting other 'outside' opinions in, you could try an article WP:RFC or a third opinion request. As to them acting against the principles of Misplaced Pages, well that's debatable (both ways). If their information is verifiable and not original research then it can still be argued both ways about whether or not it falls under WP:NOT. Your opinion on the matter is one way, theirs is the other. Petros471 08:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Petros, I'm almost sorry you've gotten involved in this mess, but I do appreciate that you have come in to offer a neutral opinion on the matter. I am certantly willing to reiterate my/our arguments surrounding the notability of these teams if you or any other admins have concerns, if it will help end this debate. However, regarding the merge proposal specifically, I have suggested that I will remove the merge tags on Thunder Bay Northern Hawks tonight if no other users express concerns with this action. I did wish to make sure that you voiced your opinion on this decision before I do so, and I hope that Dmighton and myself were able to address your concerns that led you to support a merge: . As the two articles we pointed out show, there is verifiable information available that allows us to build these pages into quality articles. All we ask is that we be given the time to do so. Resolute 14:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, but I've said all I want for now. I still think merging is a good idea, but it's not that big a deal. Petros471 15:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I do wish you'd drop in again as the 3 or 4 supporting maintaining youth teams being notable are trying to railroad their view by closing the merge disciussion. I think, as there is no obvious concensus, that an RFC should happen. What do you think? Robertsteadman 15:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know how a discussion of this nature can be 'closed'. The merge tag can be removed I suppose, but not the discussion if it's ongoing. If you go ahead with an RFC just let other editors responding to that add their views and see what happens. Petros471 15:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Concerning 147.10.134.148

I blocked 147.10.134.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as it was a continuation of edits made yesterday, clearly the same person. BV is a suitable final warning. Petros471 12:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that the frequency of the vandalism didn't merit a block right now (and I wouldn't have started with a BV from the beginning, as I think the edits pointed to a, let's say childish mind anyway); they lose patience rather quickly, and IMHO and from my experiences herearound, sometimes even just reverting them should be enough with 1 or 2 warnings intermixed. I won't contest your block, mind. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar 12:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I sometimes think blocking is more of an art than a science. The bv (not placed by me) was the second warning, but like you said maybe using a few more of the test series might have been better. Petros471 12:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Glen Chapple

I noticed you reverted on Glen Chapple, rolling back 195.93.21.36 (talk · contribs)'s edits, and then left a warning on their talk page and blocked them (but they were in violation of NPA, so fair enough). However, as far as I can tell, the information reverted at was accurate ( confirms at least part of it), reasonably balanced, and not obvious vandalism. I'm just curious as to why rollback was used, when it comes down to it. --Sam Pointon 16:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I was puzzled when I saw this, as I don't remember that article at all... On digging I see I saw this edit (as part my usual pattern of checking recent edits with 'rollback' showing next to them after I've blocked someone), which resulted in a red link. The block had nothing to do with those edits (it was for the personal attacks). I think I then assumed (wrongly) that the only edits the IP had done to the article was that sort of change. I see I was totally wrong, and of course should have checked. Feel free to revert me/add whatever information is relevant, I had no indention of substantially changing that article. Petros471 16:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Good luck

Hello. I am just posting to say good luck to you in the upcoming Esperanza elections, and I shall enjoy campaigning against you - you are a worthy opponent, as it were! All the best, and may the best man/woman/thing win! Kingfisherswift 16:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Your Wikismile

Hey, thanks for that! :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Seeking a mediator

Hiya, there's an (informal) mediation going on, that's in need of a mediator. There's no connection with DG, this is something completely different. I trust you though, and wanted to see if you'd be interested in helping out. Think you'd like to give it a go? --Elonka 04:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Good to know someone trusts me :) I can have a go, unless you've already got someone (like ^demon above?), though I still can't claim to be an expert at it! Petros471 08:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah no, the Demon one is a "formal" mediation, relating to how to format articles about the TV show "Lost" (That one is actually my first participation in a formal mediation, so I'm looking forward to observing the process). There's another informal one though in the "Mediation Cabal" category, which means that it's more of an informal chat where various unofficial parties/mediators are welcome to come in and participate. It had been going on for a couple weeks but seemed to have kind of stalled recently, and the starting mediator was busy with other projects and hadn't been able to participate. However, just as I was writing this message to you, the mediator did surface and post a lengthy report, which I'm very glad of! So, if you'd like to pop in and offer an opinion, you're still welcome, or you can monitor, or not, as you like. The page is here, though most of the discussion is actually at the associated talk page. I realize that there's a lot there (including an archive page, this has been dragging on so long), so you might just want to review the last few days' of posting, or, check the first paragraph of each major section for a quick overview. Up to you! :) --Elonka 19:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for letting me know. I'll probably leave that one then- as it's so long, it would be much better for the person already familiar with the situation to continue. I've got plenty of other things to be doing instead :) Petros471 20:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: AFD closing

Yeah, I was trying to finish 6/21 up. I think we were working from opposite ends, I noticed you'd closed one I was about to get to. Anyway, there are only 2 left now... wasn't planning on moving to 6/22 till tonight if then. --W.marsh 18:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: Mistaken revert?

Did you mean to do this? Petros471 19:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No I didn't mean to do that, oops. Extremely sorry. Benjaminstewart05:-) 20:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

We all do that sometimes... Petros471 20:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I'm not having the most accurate day today, I am being a bit dosey. Benjaminstewart05:-) 20:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

JMW814

i dont know if my last question showed up, so ill put it twice. thanks for helping me put userboxes on my page. i tried organizing them (unsuccessfully, as you can see on my page) by topic. how do i organize my userboxes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JMW814 (talk • contribs) .

Your last post can be found in my archive (my talk page gets pretty busy, so things get moved off the main one into my archives for future reference). I managed to get the headings to clear the userboxes using {{-}} (a template, which I subst:). If you want a fancier layout your best bet is running across someone with a userpage like you want and either copying the code or asking them how they did it. Oh, and please remember to sign your talk page posts by typing ~~~~ or by clicking the signature button above the edit window. Cheers, Petros471 20:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrackspurt

Hi yeah I did merge Wrackspurt to Minor Harry Potter beasts however I think someone else then deleted the entry, I have re added it and left a comment in the edit summary that it is the result of an AfD. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 00:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the smile, Petros471! It really brightened my day. :) -- Natalya 11:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

DJ Batwave

• DJ BatWave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have disturbing comments on my talk page from a certain User:DJ BatWave. I am deeply offended. I don't think this is allowed on Misplaced Pages. WillC 14:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted it off your talk page, and warned DJ Batwave. You're quite right, that sort of thing is not allowed on Misplaced Pages. He'll be blocked if he does it again. Petros471 14:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Friendly Tip for AfD Merge Closings

sortop si yag. Probably want to use {{afd-mergeto}}, not the vanilla one. — Mike • 14:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) Yesterday I closed loads of afd's as merge, and after seeing a few of them changed like you have I got the message ;) Petros471 14:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

And just to prove no-one reads big boxes on the top of talk pages I replied here... Petros471 14:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Quick Favor -- Speedy-Delete and Page Move?

Hey, since you might still be online, quick favor of you. Can you assist me with this? I was tidying up some spacing and bad numbering on some nominations that ended up confusing the process, and just need someone to clear out the "correct spacing, second nom" entry so that I can move the "bad spacing, second nom" entry into its place. — Mike • 15:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and all the redirects are fixed, so the ones that are currently pointing to the "correct spacing, second nom" entry do not need to be fixed or anything like that -- they should be pointing to the entry that will be moved (by you or another admin) into that place shortly. — Mike • 15:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)