Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:05, 6 August 2014

Salvio giuliano is suffering from physical health issues. This may affect their ability to work on Misplaced Pages. Consequently, they may not be able to respond to talk-page messages or e-mails in a timely manner. Your patience is greatly appreciated.

If you feel that I have reverted an edit or issued a warning in error, please click here and let me know. I am human, and I do make mistakes. Please don't interpret an error (even a really stupid one) on my part as a personal attack on you. It's not, I promise. I ask you to simply bring it to my attention; I am always open to civil discussion. Thank you. If you are here to inquire as to why I deleted an article you created, please read this page and, if it does not satisfy your curiosity, please drop me a line by clicking here. Admin policy. Fellow administrators, if you disagree with one of my admin actions, please feel free to revert it. I just kindly ask you to leave an informative edit summary as to why you think I made a mistake; alternatively, if you prefer, you can leave a note on my talk page. Finally, seeing as I am awfully forgetful lately, if you have asked me something either here or in private and I have not replied within a reasonable time, please do not hesitate to contact me again.

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 31 30 32 34 33 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 49 48 51 52 50 54 53 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Roma locuta, causa soluta

Rome has spoken, and the case has been solved. Who is Rome? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I wondered that. It could be Newyorkbrad, whose comment immediately preceded it and whose sagcacity is something of an institutional cliche. Of course, NYB was quoting Horace, so the "Roma" was a nice bit of wordplay if I'm correct. Interesting that two lawyers were quick to dismiss someone whom I have always thought to be a wikilawyer (I'm assuming Sandstein isn't actually a lawyer but might be wrong). In any event, the entire farrago is now resolved and it was a fair outcome. As I said in the discussion at ARE, a dose of common sense was needed and that is something that is often absent in the wacky world of Misplaced Pages process wonkery. Some people need to get a life. - Sitush (talk) 05:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep, our good NYB was indeed the person I was jokingly referring to – for the reasons that Sitush has correctly identified. Sit, would you like becoming my spokesman? More seriously, I have often said that even when enforcing ArbCom sanctions, admins should still user their common sense; the fact we have made a decision on a given issue ought not to rob them of that. Not all admins agree with me – some say that once we have restricted a user, then their hands are tied and they have to enforce our decision as literally as possible... Salvio 20:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

On this point, if you haven't already seen it, you all might be interested in my comments here, and especially the law-review piece I link to at the end. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I remember reading it once, when you mentioned it on the mailing list (or on Misplaced Pages, I don't remember), agreeing with you and loving the essay. I was actually trying to find it a couple of weeks ago, when a friend invited me to give a brief lecture to her students on the varying ways different systems have of interpreting legal texts, but obviously couldn't find it for my life... Heh, I have now downloaded a copy... Salvio 20:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

(watching) Interesting reading "here"! Could it be that the word "be" is missing in the sentence after the list? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing, Newyorkbrad. Looking at the cases, would police ever evaluate that the spirit of the sign is to protect the park and its users, so check if the "animal" does something negative to the park, like dirt or noise, and let "animals" pass which/who don't? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: Excellent! Of course, it is the very fact that legislators cannot reasonably foresee/account for every eventuality that often puts the burden of interpretation on the courts. In a situation such as the recent one involving Pigsonthewing/Nikkimaria etc, the legislators were, effectively, ArbCom and the courts are AE.

BTW, I have my own legal problems at User_talk:Jrh1980#Sourcing. Yet another new user who is going for the nuclear option in relation to caste subjects. I've lost count of the number of times I've been threatened with legal action here. - Sitush (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Soluta: we have some peace music on the Main page, good news from Ukraine for a change, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

As a non-native speaker of English, I would like to learn if "no violation" can have any other meaning than "no violation"?

It looks like the articles in Andy's BBC project get their infoboxes the normal way, by editors who collaborate and agree that articles of these topics should have infoboxes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk about the blind leading the blind... More seriously, an edit may not be a violation of an editor's restriction, and, at the same time, be a demonstration of his problematic approach to the issue at hand, which, in turn, makes it unwise to lift the restriction in question. In this case, Andy did not violate his topic ban, but his actions were a clear case of boundary testing, which is inappropriate. Salvio 13:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Testing? Testing what? - Andy made an edit helping a user and improving an article. He was asked to revert it. Would you do such a thing? - I consider the infobox war over. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Whether I'd self-revert, in a similar case, is neither here nor there, seeing as I'm not topic banned. Gerda, you need to understand that edits don't generally exist in a void: they have a context, which includes the editing history of the person making them, and that context cannot be overlooked. The context for Andy's edits concerning infoboxes is extremely problematic: he was so disruptive that he almost got banned over them.

The point is that if an editor has been banned from a topic area, it means that his participation there has been so disruptive that it has been deemed necessary to expel him from it. All edits by a restricted editor to the topic he was banned from are presumed to be disruptive. And it is a very strong presumption, because of the baggage which accompanies them, i.e. the context in which they are made.

Which means that what to you may look like Andy improving an article, to others, such as me, it looks like him testing the boundaries of his restriction: he's banned from adding infoboxes and he's trying to see how far he can go without being blocked.

Also, while for you the infobox war is over, this opinion is not necessarily shared by everyone. Salvio 09:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The blind: Did you see an enjoyable ride on the Main page, by some editors you might assume are on different sides of a war? Same thing for Anna Kravtchenko, mentioned under peace music. The best thing you can do about the so-called war is ignore. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The blind leading the blind

Today is a birthday, did you know? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Did you see the infobox? I like it. Andris Nelsons might have one like that, but now I am restricted ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Look at this! Where do you see a battle? We so-called infobox warriors deal respectfully with each other, and have done so on Wagner's birthday last year. If you can show me a battle after December 2012 I will learn something new. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• A year ago: thoughts on time not wasted. Yesterday: "my friend" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The blind leading the blind is TFA ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Now please lead me: how can formatting a malformed infobox, clearly a benefit for the project, be interpreted as "testing the borders"? I agree with no foul. play on. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

YOUR REMARKS ON MY TALK PAGE

Dear Salvio,

The links that I have provided are informatory in nature. Though it is a practice to provide inbound links of Misplaced Pages only, but sometimes information is available at other sources as reference also.

It is true that links were provided, but, I have provided quality content in wikipedia.

I believe that you should avoid doing such actions. In future, if you do it again, I will follow each of your article to check each source of your information or otherwise. In this way, we can keep a check on each other.

Regards

https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Vishaldogra120

You are welcome to do it, but please be aware of WP:HOUND – whose violations might result in a block on your account. Salvio 10:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2014

• Book review: Knowledge or unreality?

• Recent research: Shifting values in the paid content debate

• News and notes: How many more hoaxes will Misplaced Pages find?

• Wikimedia in education: Success in Egypt and the Arab World

• Traffic report: Doom and gloom vs. the power of Reddit

• Featured content: Skeletons and Skeltons

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

French lawyers

Your mention of 'excès de pouvoir' led me to these pages that I thought might interest you: Prosper Weil and Gaston Jèze (technically the latter wasn't a lawyer, I don't think). Carcharoth (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Look, a couple of transalpine colleagues... Actually, I was surprised to see that we have no article about the concept, seeing as it is quite important in French law (by the way, as it happens, the Italians stole the idea, see eccesso di potere, but we don't have an article about it either). When I have a bit of spare time I might take a crack at writing one of those articles... Salvio 13:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

AFD + AFC

Salvio, you were the closer on Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Jay-P. Could you tell me if the current AFC article Draft:Jay-P is sufficiently different from the deleted version to survive CSD? The draft does include several sources discussing the subject, so it passes my smell test, but as I cannot see the previous version I don't want to move it into mainspace if its the same as what was already nuked. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Civility Bigotry case request

Hi, Salvio. I see from your comments on the case page that you think this case request is about "swearing". It is not. It is about comments that demean fellow editors with respect to their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.

Imagine you are walking home and you hear someone on the street swearing. It happens. I usually just avoid eye contact and move on. Now, since you have said you are Italian, imagine that same person using a racial slur for Italians. Maybe this time you would look over your shoulder or cross the street. Now imagine a whole group of people standing on a street corner, and every day when you walk by, they start shouting ethnic slurs for Italians. Maybe illegal in some areas, maybe not, unless it was accompanied by violence. Now, imagine if, the next time you walk by, they start combining slurs against Italians with swear words. Feeling intimidated yet? If this was my neighborhood, I would advise you next time to take a different route.

But the comment being objected to on the case request is not from an outside blog. The comment was made front and center on a high profile (Jimbo's) talk page, and in the context of a group of similar remarks by other users across several other high profile pages. So maybe this is a more accurate analogy:

Someone posts a sign with an anti-Italian slur outside your work cubicle. Every day when you go to work, you have to walk past the sign, and every day people post new signs with anti-Italian slogans. You ask them to take the signs down, but they stonewall. You complain to the management, but they just smile and nod to the people who are writing the signs. Then they pay someone to find out why there are not more Italians in the organization.

At this point, maybe it would help to look at the actual comment in question. No one has provided a diff yet that I can see; the diff is here. Here is the actual comment (my emphasis added):

The central assertion is that words do not matter, and that racial and ethnic slurs are completely acceptable. The message is delivered in the most racist, misogynistic, and homophobic language possible, and reinforced by an army of intimidating vulgarities, f-bombs, and personal characterizations. This type of bullying, exclusionary language has no place on Misplaced Pages and there should be no question at all about removing it. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests
• Misplaced Pages administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles
• Misplaced Pages administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks