Misplaced Pages

Template:Archive box collapsible

The Signpost: 18 March 2015

• From the editor: A salute to Pine

• News and notes: SUL finalization imminent; executive office shake-ups at the Foundation

• In the media: NYPD editing articles regarding allegations of police brutality and misconduct

• Op-ed: Does the Wikimedia fundraising survey address community concerns?

• Featured content: A woman who loved kings

• Traffic report: It's not cricket

Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/Rembrandt s-p, based on a Titian, among others

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Rembrandt, Self Portrait at the Age of 34.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust 22:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes: it is allowable and beneficial

It reeks of a violation of WP:OWN, and it is wrong. I won't get into a petty revert war with you, but you are wrong on this. — Ched :  ?  23:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Utter nonsense on all counts. Alerting people to a consensus to avoid an edit war, and asking them to discuss on a talk page is absolutely fuck all to do with ownership. Your opinion is noted, dismissed and ignored as being utterly flawed. - SchroCat (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Though I don't agree with the language of the notice, I do agree that the action is not a violation of WP:OWN. Anyway, your work on the article's much appreciated, and I've used bits of it to expand Jill Esmond. Alakzi (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Alakzi: there is nothing remotely "OWN-y" about it at all, and I fail to see how such a conclusion could be drawn. Thank you also for your comments about the article, they are much appreciated, and it's great to see Esmond being given a more suitable article too. - SchroCat (talk) 10:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

"they're worse than the vandals"

No matter what you think of somebody's edits or admin actions, there is absolutely no excuse for comments like this. Please comment on content, not on contributors, and imagine how you would feel if somebody spoke to you like that if they felt you had made a mistake. If this conduct persists, regardless of it origin, I will request a second arbitration case on infoboxes in order to examine the conduct of all parties and with a view to asking ArbCom to authorise discretionary sanctions to curb the disruptive conduct. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure you will. Interesting how much more militant the "pro" lobby has been recently; it's almost as if they've been gearing up for something. As to my comment, there is nothing to discuss here: bad decisions by those with the tools are harmful, as your comment in the same thead at least partly acknowledges. HJ Mitchell, I also look forward to you discussing with Ched (in the thread above) his personal attacks in the shape of unwarranted and untrue ownership allegations. Sauce for the goose, and all that... – SchroCat (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, he shouldn't have protected the page. He should have left it to another admin. But the only harm done is the appearance of impropriety—the end result is the same. Anyway, you're entirely capable of expressing your opinion on the protection without making comments like that about the admin responsible, so try to think of a time when you've cocked up and would have appreciated being cut a little slack. And accusing you of ownership is not really a personal attack. It's a characterisation of your edits; you might feel it a mischaracterisation, but that doesn't make it an attack. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

"Accusing other editors of owning the article may appear aggressive, and could be perceived as a personal attack." That's from WP:OWN. If I was a cynical or suspicious editor.... – SchroCat (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

HJ, it still looks wrong you being involved in this, you stated that you're a friend of Andy's and his pro infobox agenda. Now I always had you down as one of the good admins HJ, but you getting involved with this is rather suspicious to me. Since when has there been a problem with a hidden message in an article page? This to me seems like the first step towards enforcing one. Given the circumstances in which an admin blocked the article in his preferred version when being involved in an editing dispute I see nothing wrong with what Schro said, in fact admins who are able to force something using their tools are more dangerous than vandals on here in my book, especially when they have an agenda because of personal allegiances. I think this hidden message dispute is a front for launching a new RFC and trying to force an infobox. I don't blame Schro for being defensive here. And you betcha Andy's network are all alerted by email to the cause. We're in for a joyful couple of weeks of constructive and vitally important infobox discussion, hip hip hooray!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

After two years of relative peace and good harmony on the IB issue, it looks like the whole lot is gearing up for a big ol' fubar again – and an organised one at that, sadly. – SchroCat (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah look, no "neutral" action taken against personal attacks by one side, but warnings dished out the other way. No surprises to anyone, sadly - SchroCat (talk) 09:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Shah Rukh Khan

Any chance you and page stalkers could give this a read and post some feedback on the talk page. It gets over one million hits a year and I really think it would be good to get up to FA status. It needs to be treated as fairly as other articles, I think we can get it up to FA status with some decent input.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Another list of Somerset scheduled monuments at FLC

As you have previously commented on one or more of nominations of the lists of scheduled monuments in Somerset, I wondered if you would be kind enough to take a look at the List of scheduled monuments in West Somerset which is now nominated at Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/List of scheduled monuments in West Somerset/archive1?— Rod 21:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

HJ Mitchell, Your block is a disgrace and you are, once again, acting in an utterly non-neutral manner. There was a loose consensus to add a comment on the talk page as is evidently seen in the thread that discussed the wording. To somehow claim that I was "deliberately re-igniting an edit war" is utter, unwarranted tosh, given that consensus. That addition was made in good faith given the talk page thread. Once the comment I added was removed by Dreadstar I made no effort to re-add it, and have not edit warred in any way shape or form. This is not a request to be unblocked: it is a statement that your actions are misguided and inappropriate.

All I will add is that WP:BP states that "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, not to punish users", and I fail to see any justification for a block in a situation where I have acted by consensus and have not partaken in an edit war. - SchroCat (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I obviously disagree, but I don't think we're going to eye to eye today. Please see WP:A/R/C; I've requested an arbitration case and listed you (And all other participants in the edit war) as a party and unblocked you so that you can participate there should you wish. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)