Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:39, 20 August 2014

If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page - it will be on my watchlist for at least a few days, so I will see your response If you leave me a message: I will answer on this talk page - please watchlist it so you'll know that I've answered. This will ensure that conversations remain together! Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Request for comment/Conduct rejected

Hi TransporterMan, thanks for leading me to the right place in this dispute. However, I posted on Request for comment but my request was immediately turned down. I looked for help on the help desk, but still don´t know what is wrong, it's about conduct. Also, the editor who discarded my request, on whose Userpage Talk I posted, is not responding. Why cannot I post on Request for comment? Thanks again for your time Iñaki LL (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

What you've been told at the Help Desk is that when that editor looked through your misfiled RFC/U draft, they did not feel that it stated a conduct request which would obtain any relief, but more closely stated a content dispute. As you stated it at DRN your request was about conduct and requested relief - giving warnings and blocks - which we do not do at DRN. As such, I referred you to conduct forums based on your choice and statement of what you wanted to do and have done. By doing so, however, I did not mean to suggest that you would either succeed or fail at those forums, only that if you wanted to raise conduct rather than content that was where to go since DRN does not handle conduct. It would appear that your request for an RFC/U was removed because it was not filed in the right place. You must precisely follow the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Guidance in order to file such a request. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. However, I am still lost, it is a conduct matter and the resource is on User conduct, I mean comments on user conduct. I am positive it is a problem of disruptive and obstructive editing. I explained that my aim was a warning or a temporary block from the article because that is what I think should apply, perhaps the resource should state what the aim is beforehand, and avoid the confusion. Anyway, frankly I am not sure if I am being required to have more specific evidence, like breaches of the rule 3 reverts, or state other aims, or try another resource like posting diffs in his Userpage talk as per dealing with disruptive editors. Sorry to burden my query on your shoulders but I am quite confused and it is taking quite a long time. Any input is appreciated. Iñaki LL (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The initial place to get administrative actions, like blocks, is at ANI or by request to an individual administrator. RFC/U is only to get the advice and evaluation of other ordinary editors — some of whom may or may not be admins — about a user's conduct, either as a optional-but-not-required preliminary to moving on to block or banning requests or simply in the hope of causing the user to see the error of their ways (though sometimes it happens that it boomerangs and it is the filing editor who learns that). Not being an expert in conduct matters and not being, myself, an administrator, I express no opinion about what the editor said at the help desk about your request, but would note that the editor who said it is neither an administrator nor an experienced user. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually what you are saying on RFC/U should work for me, but coming back with a like request only aims changed may not be welcome. I am interested in 3o-s, but that has been used by now at the request of the editor in question with no good outcome for him, but he would keep going with other objections. A mediator on conduct would be welcome, it's conduct. I was quite a long time ago in an ANI case with a very frustrating experience to be honest. I am positive on the conduct of the editor, but after that experience I am not sure what the ANI will come up with, so will try to avoid it. Should you know another conduct mediation resource, please let me know. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

If by "coming back with a like request" you mean coming back at RFC/U, you wouldn't be coming back with a like request because the first one was not filed in the right place. It was, for all practical intents and purposes, never made. When properly filed, the request's URL will be http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jotamar and that page has never existed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, that's what I wanted to know, thanks for your patience! Iñaki LL (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi TransporterMan, many thanks for your guidelines in this journey, re page Navarre. I opened a Request for comment, you can find in this link. It requires a comment of someone participating in the dispute (section Users certifying the basis for this dispute of the latter link), your input on your participation is much appreciated. Iñaki LL (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Once again your request has been closed by a third party because it was not filed at the right place. Read what I said above: "When properly filed, the request's URL will be http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jotamar and that page has never existed." That statement is still true. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in!

Thanks for checking in last month. Sorry I left so abruptly, especially when DRN issues were pending. I'm working on some "real life" projects, which will be done in a few weeks. After this, I'll be back on a more consistent basis. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 15:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you're well. Don't forget that you've signed up for the DRN coordinator position starting December 1 and probably need to be active at DRN for a month or so before that so you're up to speed and aware of current trends. I'll look forward to seeing you then, if not before. Best luck with your RW projects! Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

I hope I remember this advice (Responding to a failure to discuss) in the future. Lightbreather (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Trap Music

Hi I am user 129.178.88.81 I have now set up an account as advised by user Nograviti who helpfully tried to raise a dispute on my behalf. I noticed you closed it and said that the issue has not been discussed enough. User StaticVapor has ignored all requests from myself or others to explain why he doesnt feel sources provided are not good enough. At this point I am not sure how to proceed, as I contacted him this morning, he then made an edit to his talk page a few hours later and is not responding to polite requests to return to the discussion. Could you please speak to him a moderator?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UKBassHead (talk • contribs) 12:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

First, now you have an account, please sign all your talk page postings with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Next, if the other editor will not discuss, consider the advice I give here. In addition to that technique, there is probably enough discussion already to consider filing a Request for Comments, which does not require the extensive discussion needed for other forms of dispute resolution. Finally, if by "moderator" you mean administrator, I'm not one. I'm just a regular editor just like you who happens to volunteer to do dispute resolution work. I will drop a note on his talk page, however. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I have explained it numerous times, the sources they "cite" are either nonexistent, WP:OR or plain unreliable. I just got tired of the berating, refusal to understand original research and uncivilness of the two editors in question. There is also another editor that has been reverting and responding to them on the article talk page, so I am not sure why they are jumping all over me. STATic message me! 15:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Lithium ion battery - Line 158 edit

Hello TransporterMan, no problems :) I just felt mentioning Syzdek et al. directly in the text was weird, since there are hundreds of research groups that are working on the same thing. So just wanted the paragraph to convey that, or else a casual user might end up thinking that Syzdek et al, whoever they are, are the only experts on solid polymer electrolytes, which is obviously not the case. I let the reference to their paper stay, though :) Thanks for pointing out, I rarely edit Misplaced Pages articles so am not aware of the protocols and rules involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.153.11.70 (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

DRN

I cannot take this case do to a prior conflict with one of the parties. I'm hoping you or someone else can adopt it. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it, but it will be Monday or Tuesday before I get a chance. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Why did you close the discussion on ‎Talk:Russia#MISTAKE IN RANKING NOMINAL GDP.It's 9th on Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard?

I was wondering why you closed this discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3ADispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=618028084&oldid=618028009 The discussion only lasted from July 19 19:45 to July 22 18:01

--198.23.81.141 (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't close it, the case is still open. Why do you think that I did? All I did was to collapse your comment about another editor's behavior. Comments about conduct are not allowed at DRN and a warning had already been posted there saying not to do it. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hargeisa

Hi TransporterMan. Per your recommendation at DR, I have opened a new discussion here on the Hargeisa plane monument. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Pre order bonuses in list of Castlevania media

I have doubt that pre-order bonuses like Dracula X: Nocturne in the Moonlight and Akumajō Dracula: Yami no Juin – Fukushū no Jokyoku deserve to be in the List of Castlevania media since they were only available through pre-order. I don't know whether pre-order bonuses should be included in list of media based on a franchise. List of Final Fantasy media does not contain any pre-order bonuses. What is your opinion? KahnJohn27 (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

First let me say that I'm very much out of my element here: Though I've had computers for as far back as personal computers have been available, I've never been a gamer and I've not had much involvement with game-related articles here at Misplaced Pages which has moved past application of basic Misplaced Pages principles. That, therefore, is how I have to answer your question:

• First, remember that every article stands alone unless there is a policy or guideline requiring it to be or not be fashioned in a particular way. I am unaware of any rule affecting this question — though again let me say that I don't edit in this area, so I can't say for sure (though I would think it very unlikely that there is) — so on that level, it would be perfectly acceptable for pre-order bonuses (POB's) to be included in Final Fantasy and not in Castlevania.
• Second, the most basic principle on what goes into an article and what does not is verifiability. Though I've not dug into them deeply, the sources cited would appear to me to at least on first blush support the existence of these POB's, so that takes care of verifiability. (Whether the sources justify the
• Third, those entries have been on the list for several months without being challenged. That creates consensus-by-default for them being there. To remove them will take either (a) a demonstration that they somehow violate a Misplaced Pages rule or (b) the formation of a new consensus for their removal. That consensus could come as simply as removing them and no one objecting, of course, but if anyone does object then a fully-discussed consensus or a consensus-by-concession (i.e. the objecting parties give up) will have to be formed before they can be removed.
• Finally, what I think you really wanted: "Should" they be included. The argument in favor of their inclusion is that they are, in fact, "Castlevania media" and the lede of the list does not specifically exclude POB's or limit the list to only media which were available for general purchase. In light of that argument, about the only argument that I can think of for their exclusion would be that they were so insignificant that to include them gives them undue weight. Frankly, however, I don't think that argument is sufficient in light of the breadth of the article topic.

So, I think that they ought to remain in the list, but that's just my opinion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC) PS: Remember that the high road is always to first propose the change on the article talk page. Let it sit for a week or so and then if no one objects, change away. TM — 14:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually I think the real reason no one has objected to the presence of POBs is because just like me other users don't know whether POBs should be on the list or not. I am not saying that is necessarily the cause but it could be. Actually I think no one has objected to them because no one has noticed them or if they have they might be confused whether they should be there or not. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

In general, we don't judge editors' actions by their motivations, but only by their actions. Regardless of the reason for no objection, there weren't any objections. Unless there was a policy or guideline which made their inclusion improper (e.g. lack of a source or a reliable source, original research, copyvio, etc.), then we presume that they were inserted in good faith and that the Misplaced Pages community thought that they were acceptable when no one made a timely objection. It's kind of like the presumption in law that everyone knows all the law. If you let people get away with stuff if they claim that they didn't know the law or what was in that contract that they signed, then the whole legal system falls apart because you can't be sure that any law or any contract will be enforceable. We have to have both stability and flexibility here at Misplaced Pages and consensus-by-concession and consensus-by-silence provide part of that balance. And they cut both ways: maybe you're right that in reality no one reverted or objected because they weren't sure whether or not they ought to be there. If you're right, and that's all it is, if you take them out and no one objects and a reasonable amount of time passes, then we'll have consensus that they should not be there (to be sure of that, you would really need to propose both your removal and your reasons for the removal on the talk page first and give some time for responses; otherwise, the fact that you removed them because you didn't think that they ought to be there might later be forgotten). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I had already posted about this matter on the talk page of the list some days ago. It's been a week and still no one has even commented at all. I think I was right all along that no one had noticed the POBs. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Irene Caesar

Hi TransporterMan.

Thank you for your input regarding my edits on the Irene Caesar entry. Your concerns about defamation are serious, and they deserve to be treated as such. I won't pretend to be versed in all of Misplaced Pages's policies. You strike me as more knowledgeable in this area than I am, so let me solicit your input: what's an appropriate way to create an accurate entry -- warts and all -- about Ms. Caesar within the confines of Misplaced Pages policy? My intent was not to defame either Ms. Caesar or the organizations and individuals that she accuses of misdeeds. I cited statements she herself made in her blog, so I think (but again, I speak as someone of limited experience as a Wikipedian) she can't reasonably accuse us of defaming her. As far as the other parties she mentions, it seems to me that she's more at risk of defaming them than we are. Anyway, my main intent was to illustrate (using her own published statements as proof) her pattern of making unsubstantiated claims. In this context, can you suggest language that would be more appropriate for the entry? For example, might I say "Ms. Caesar has a pattern of making unsubstantiated claims..."?

On a broader basis, her own words suggest that she is a proponent of conspiracy theories and not simply an "apolitical" artist without an agenda. As Wikipedians we shouldn't use prosecutorial or partisan language, but I do think that as a notable figure meriting a Misplaced Pages page, she should be portrayed "encyclopediacally", the good the bad and the ugly so to speak. One of the difficulties is that her more-controversial beliefs have not been well documented in third party reliable sources; the main evidence stems from her own words in her blog and in interviews with sources that might not be considered reliable in Misplaced Pages. If you can help me navigate this catch-22, I'd be most grateful.

Thank you for your help with this matter.Scaleshombre (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

TransporterMan, Please don't take offense. I decided to follow Misplaced Pages's admonition to "Be Bold" and updated the section on Caesar's philosophy by citing some of her writing. I took care to avoid any references to specific third parties that could be potentially defamatory. I'm not going to try to conceal the fact that Caesar's views have got me "hot under the collar." I might not be the most dispassionate person in the world to edit her page, but in lieu of anyone else stepping forward to do so, I feel compelled to take on the task. I've tried my best to keep my emotions out of my edits to her page, and I believe I've worded it in such a way to honor Wiki policy on BLP. If I've fallen short of this goal, I will respect your decision to make more changes. But I do feel strongly that any individual who merits a Misplaced Pages page needs to be represented accurately, particularly if he or she has strong views that fall outside the mainstream.Scaleshombre (talk) 01:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Your new additions are a clear improvement over the ones I reverted and avoid the biggest problems I was concerned about (especially prohibited interpretation of primary and self-published sources). I'm not at all sure that they will completely meet BLP muster, especially BLPSELFPUB, but they're close enough to it that I'm out of my area of expertise. If the other editor reverts you, ask for the edits to be reviewed over at BLP noticeboard rather than just reverting back. Also consider following the advice I give here on dealing with an editor who will not engage in discussion. However, let me give you some general principles (though I'll be the first to admit that some of these are often overlooked once we get into detailed squabbles over edits).

• First, remember that Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox or a place to right great wrongs.
• Second, that if you are impassioned about a subject it may indicate that you have third-party relationships which constitute a conflict of interest; Misplaced Pages strongly recommends (but does not require) that you avoid editing articles about which you have a COI.
• Third, just because something is Indisputably True and Vitally Important does not mean that it can be included in Misplaced Pages. The standard is that everything in WP must to be supported by an inline citation to a reliable source, a "reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Articles should be primarily supported by such sources. Primary sources can, within very strong limits, be used for some details but articles cannot be based primarily upon primary sources. Self-published sources generally cannot be used except for some very limited purposes, one of which is to fill in non-controversial personal matters about living persons from self-published sources written by that person.

Why, you ask, can things which are Indisputably True and Vitally Important not be included without this bureaucratic barrier? Because unlike a commercial, paper encyclopedia we do not have a paid professional board of editors who judge what is true and not true and what should and should not be included. Instead, we only include things which other sources, those which have something significant at risk if they don't do it right and have a reputation for responsibly dealing with that risk, have determined are true and important.

• Fourth, it's very important to remember that we merely report what sources say. We don't synthesize or interpret it. A good understanding of the no original research policy is very important.
• Fifth, there are a few things which are taken very seriously. One is dealing with matters concerning living (and recently deceased) persons. You know enough about that already that I'd just refer you to the BLP policy for a general read. Another is copyright of text and images, but that's a discussion for another day.

I hope this helps. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, TransporterMan. I'm grateful for you taking the time to look over my edits and give me detailed feedback. Your input is very helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scaleshombre (talk • contribs) 18:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Scaleshombre (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

So far nobody's reverted me so that gives me hope. Meantime, let me pick your brain on a broader related issue. In recent years, Misplaced Pages has likely gained in importance as a "vetting" tool for employers, clients and others considering doing business with someone. Naturally, the one doing the vetting has the lion's share of responsibility in judging an entry's reliability and supplementing it with other research. That said, do we bear some degree of ethical obligation to researchers to ensure an entry presents, as far as possible, an accurate, well-rounded picture of the subject? In the case of Ms. Caesar, I was concerned that universities or other organizations looking to employ her and/or give her some sort of public platform would come away with the impression that nothing about her merits further scrutiny. What are your thoughts? Scaleshombre (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

We do have an obligation to present a balanced point of view, see NPOV, but that obligation does not set aside our other policies, such as those I've mentioned above. Indeed the first sentence on NPOV reads, "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." (Emphasis rearranged.) Again, we're not here to right great wrongs or be a who's who or serve any particular constituency: we're here to create an encyclopedia, nothing more, nothing less. If the need of an employer for vetting goes beyond the kind of information which might be found in a biographical article in, say, the Encyclopedia Britannica, then that need may well not be satisfied here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Teutonic Takeover of Danzig

I just saw you closed the WP:DRN case because nobody replied to my request. Contrary to your claim, the dispute is not resolved, I just waited for some neutral input instead of editwarring with someone who refuses to discuss. Unfortunately the whole procedure seems to be a complete waste of time. HerkusMonte (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)