Misplaced Pages

User talk:JzG

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Unomi (talk | contribs) at 20:08, 11 April 2010 (→added new convenience link: alt suggestion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:08, 11 April 2010 by Unomi (talk | contribs) (→added new convenience link: alt suggestion)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


Archives
Index no archives yet (create)
Gastrich, PRT, October 2005, December 2005, January 2006, January 2006a, February 2006, February 2006a, March 2006, April 2006, May 2006, June 2006, July 2006, September 2006, October 2006, November 2006, December 2006, January 2007, February 2007, March 2007, April 2007, May 2007, June 2007, July 2007, August 2007, October 2007, December 2007, January 2008, February 2008, March 2008, April 2008, May 2008, June 2008, July 2008, August 2008, September 2008, October 2008, November 2008, December 2008, January 2009, February 2009, March 2009, April 2009, May 2009, June 2009, July 2009

Case request

Hi... See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Lar and Carch's reply to my comment. I would urge you to bring the case to that enforcement page. I may be missing something but it seems fairly cut and dried by the standards of that page and I expect your proposed resolution at AN would be adopted. Best. ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could raise the CC related material at that page anyway? ++Lar: t/c 19:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

U.World

Thanks JzG, Yes would you please move the article to my space. --U.World (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

JDB

Mr. Bell, your access to this page should be restored. Please be aware that we can and will deal only with two specific types of request here:

Issues of past conduct will be handled only by the Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee. I have already asked that they review the conduct of all parties, myself included.

Any legal complaints, including (specifically) complaints of libel will be handled only by the Wikimedia Foundation's legal advisers, whose contact details I believe you have but are available at http://wikimediafoundation.org/Contact_us - we have an absolute prohibition on legal threats so please respect this restriction.

You also have an email address and ticket reference. The same applies there. We will deal with present and ongoing misconduct, and provable factual errors. I'm afraid we have to be firm on this as otherwise any attempt at resolution will rapidly become bogged down. Those of us who man the OTRS queues are committed to fixing problems here-and-now, we cannot, for a lot of reasons, get into long term issues. I hope you can understand why that is. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

An uncivil policy

Jim Bell, a potentially invaluable contributor to Misplaced Pages with unique insights, was indefinitely banned after a grand total of 67 edits over less than a month, for "Incivility, personal attacks and general disruption". He was primarily interested in expressing his own point of view about his own article, which sounds a lot like one long personal attack.

It is clear that some of his edits diverged from Misplaced Pages editorial guidelines, but what happened to WP:BITE? Where is WP:AGF (or WP:BLP, or WP:NPA) when editors at ANI talk about him as if he were a terrorist? Every common vandal who replaces the text of an article with the word "penis" gets blocked three or four times before the blocks go up to months or a year. Someone could have tried to work with him to make things right.

Now I should point out that other less famous but more wealthy citizens receive a very different reception - for example, I've just come from debating at length against the deletion of Inge Lynn Collins Bongo. Sources such as a U.S. Senate committeee majority and minority report were cited, but administrators claim that these cannot be mentioned, because explaining what these sources say would make it an "attack article". (see Talk:Jimbo Wales#At the margins) It looks like there is one law for the rich and one law for the poor on Misplaced Pages, like anywhere else.

I also am rather disgusted by the notice that Bell has used "sockpuppets". His "sockpuppets" are just a list of IP addresses he edited from after his account was blocked. That's "evading a block", yes, but it has nothing to do with the multi-voting and multi-RRs and faked discussions that are implied when people speak of "sockpuppets" in the traditional Usenet sense of the term.

Misplaced Pages is shrinking, and there's a reason - because pompous, rude policy templates, automated notices, threats, and overwrought disciplinary procedures have been allowed to drive away interested newbies. Bell is the third or fourth such trampled newbie I've encountered in the past week - any one of which, properly greeted, would likely have been more productive for the project than I am. Wnt (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Please actually take time to read up on all relevant material. He was not blocked for expressing his view on his article. He was blocked for insulting everyone that tried to help him.— Dædαlus 01:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
How many insults can you make in 67 edits? And isn't a permanent ban kind of ... insulting? Wnt (talk) 02:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
"How many insults can you make in 67 edits?", in response, you obviously didn't read his WP:TLDR rants. Bell was shown plenty of WP:AGF by several editors. He didn't end up banned because of his misunderstood overtures for peace and love. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
What kind of civility are you showing when you use some cute acronym to make fun of the fact that you're not reading what an editor says? I have to wonder whether Jim Bell was really being any more offensive than the people he was responding to. Wnt (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I read them when he was posting them, and was one of the editors who tried to offer helpful advice and pointers to appropriate policy pages to help clear up his misunderstandings concerning our editing policies. I was remarking on the fact that maybe you hadn't read them because of their length. As for the 67 edits, he also IP socked quit a few more after his block. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 04:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Plenty. His posts were tl;dr, but that doesn't mean we didn't read them. If you're not going to help, then why bother contributing. The only thing you've done since you've got here is throw around baseless accusations. If you aren't going to take the time to read through all relevant material, don't bother commenting.— Dædαlus 04:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
As I said above, my main objection is that when I read his block log, the first block is an indefinite ban still ongoing. I don't think a user under 100 edits should ever get an indefinite ban - they should get a series of brief bans to give them time to stand back and reconsider. And I haven't even accused anyone of anything. I just wish WP:BITE had some teeth. Wnt (talk) 04:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Guys, can we move this conversation somewhere else? I doubt this is improving his mood. --NeilN 04:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually you did, you accused us of biting a newbie when all we had been was nice to him. We weren't rude, we weren't uncivil. We calmly tried to explain policy to him, and all we got were cries of abuse.— Dædαlus 04:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Here, since you refuse to read before commenting, I've found some insults for you, in his last contribution to this page, no less:
  • Read the damn article, 'Jim Bell', if you numbskulls want to understand WHY
  • In fact, I want most of you to (first) stop interfering and abuse, and (second) go away
As a note, none of us who have tried to help this user were ever abusive to them.
For the below, he continuously refers to 'the abuse by Dodo' and 'the abuse by others'. He has also, numerous times called us meatpuppets, just because we tried to explain to him why his edits were reverted(they violated BLP as they were negative material without a source, and calling the material 'negative' is light for what it was)
  • Also, Falcon falsely accused me of falsely accusing Dodo of being a puppet. Actually, the reality (remember reality, guys?) is that Dodo was the first 'control freak' to even show up,
  • At that time, I hadn't even heard the term, 'sock puppet': I believe that I first read of it from somebody else's message. So, as I (now) understand your word-usage, Dodo wasn't the 'sock puppet': Hypothetically, someone else would have been called 'sock puppet', one who (seemed to) follow Dodo's footsteps. But I now understand that there's another term, 'meat puppet', a term that I haven't seen explicitly defined, but appears to be a person who (sorta secretly) is brought in to back up the opinions of another person. Somewhat like happened after I began to criticize Dodo for repeatedly reverting my edits without allowing any consensus to develop! Such a coincidence!
Calling us meatpuppets because he was violating BLP and was surprised when people started reverting him. We have tried to explain numerous times that he doesn't get his way before consensus is achieved, not after.
  • Falcon was especially clueless when he said, "Gogo Dodo had an issue with one of your edits, clearly. Well, then, explain that calmly and politely and ask their views on why it wasn't useful to Misplaced Pages. If you had done that, you would not have found yourself blocked (banning is entirely separate to blocking)".
Do I really need to explain this one? He calls another editor clueless.
  • I take strong exception to 'falcon's' abusive article. But weeks ago, I realized that the rest of the control freaks won't do anthing about this: The way they didn't do anything about Dodo, or Daedalus, etc. At least, 'falcon' admitted, right off the bat, that he didn't know 'anything' about me! Big mistake. If WP worked in anything like a logical fashion, 'falcon' would have been ejected, permanently, for knowingly and intentionally commenting in an area he knew nothing about, to a person he admitted he knew nothing about, based on a history (4 weeks, approx) that he also knows nothing about.
This one's great. Here he suggests that a user be indefblocked for commenting on an article he wasn't familiar with. Right.
So again, instead of commenting here, telling us we bit this user, when we did no such thing, and then claiming they never attacked anyone(when they quite clearly did), read all relevant material. Read all of his posts, then come back and comment only after you have done so. The above came from a single diff. His last contribution to this page.— Dædαlus 05:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know which person bit the newbie, or whether it is bad Misplaced Pages policy or procedure in general; only that he was bitten. I have not named any specific wrongdoer(s) because I don't understand exactly what happened. I just know that what happened can't be right. Wnt (talk) 04:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Are you asserting that the guy who invented "assassination politics" and who spent 10 yrs in federal prison upon a conviction for intimidating and stalking the family members of federal agents couldn't possibly be at fault in this situation? Even if his initial contact on WP was a BITE, he had plenty of helping hands offered afterward, which he declined to accept. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 05:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Here's a tip, stop claiming that any of us bit this person. None of us did. Were were civil with him, when all he did is cry abuse and cry for bans of anyone that tried to help him. Don't say that any of us bit him, unless you can back it up with a diff, but I'm quite sure you will never find such a diff, as it never happened.— Dædαlus 05:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I haven't seen an edit war on Misplaced Pages that doesn't involve comparable amounts of abuse. I'm sorry, but "numskulls", "clueless" and such are not even the harshest words I've seen uttered in anger around here. I do recognize that most of you (and in particular those currently replying here) spoke civilly, though there were some who did not - e.g. from the final ANI we have things like "Nobody's gonna bother even reading the above as it comes across as a rant." and "Then there is a very long rant about how he is being harassed and there is a conspiracy against him by some unknown group or individual, which to be frank I gave up reading because I've read this sort of drivel on hundreds, if not thousands, of long winded posts from people who don't understand how Misplaced Pages works" I think that the main "bite" was that Bell was hit with an indefinite ban for incivility when people are talking to him like that in the ANI itself!
For the record, I should add that I do recognize that we cannot add unsourced material about living persons based only on the assumption that the user is actually the subject of the article; nor can we cite a telephone call or an e-mail. I am also highly suspicious that Bell's "discovery" of isotopic differences in the infrared spectrum amounts to anything more than his (mis)reading of some sources - I doubt he measured the absorption personally. I recognize that even if he cited these sources in their appropriate article, he could not have added the "original research" connecting them under Misplaced Pages policy. However, had he started a website in his own name, he could have cited that as a primary source and used it, per BLP, to cite a statement about what he was saying. This is not that far from his original intent.
Though it is irrelevant at this point I'll also mention that I wish I had convenient online access to but I suspect that they would show that while there are differences in frequency of absorption that the overall effect on infrared would be similar. But I can't say that without looking. And doing isotopic separation on carbon monoxide can't be cheap enough to be practical. I think that prison has deprived him of a chance to make the intellectual advances his mind is designed to accomplish, producing such disorientation until he can accumulate more data.
That said, I find that the more I read the more sympathy I find I have for his raw and innocent outrage at the rapid and total reverting of content that occurs around here with no attempt made to salvage the point. The blizzard of policies with which newbies are hit is indeed confusing, especially when OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is used to tell them that they can't complain if they're the only one targeted. I just ran into a different newbie trample at User:VictimsWife in which an editor tried to add content that was objected to for encyclopedic reasons - in her case I was around and was able to rephrase and cite some parts of her content that I found before they were deleted, in such a way that they then were left intact, but in the meanwhile we lost another contributor. Wnt (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I don't agree with "...had he started a website in his own name, he could have cited that as a primary source and used it, per BLP, to cite a statement about what he was saying". BLP is not a license to turn your article into a WP:SOAPBOX which would happen to thousands of articles if we followed your interpretation unquestioningly. BLP is balanced by WP:SELFPUB and WP:REDFLAG and, to a certain extent, WP:SPIP. --NeilN 10:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

(OD)He was talking like that before the ANI thread was even created. The incivility Bell met on ANI only happened after people grew tired of him calling everyone who tried to explain policy to him a meatpuppet. Again, instead of accusing us of things, like biting this user, which we haven't done, why don't you read all relevant material. Why don't you read Dodo's reply to him, on this very page, which not only explained policy, but did so extraordinarily politely after Bell was abusive to him on his talk page.— Dædαlus 06:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about this other case, or even if it has any similarities to this one. But if that newbie was trampled, it doesn't mean it also happened in this case. As for the bewildering preponderance of things you need to learn to edit, I've been on WP for 2 years, and I don't think there is much more to learn now than when I started. Bell seems like a very intelligent guy, I'm sure if inclined he could have picked it up as well, probably faster than I did. He was not so inclined. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 06:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
@Wnt, with respect, you have no real idea of the background on either of these cases. This much is obvious from your input.
I am not prepared to discuss the details of the Bell case on-wiki because I can't without violating privacy (of several people) and causing even more drama, I referred it to the Arbitration Committee some time ago for review and I still think that was the right thing to do. This much I will say: in my opinion his comments were overboard but for understandable reasons; however, having exchanged a fair number of emails with him I do not think that any amount of kindness and patience would result in his becoming a productive member of the community, I think he is temperamentally unsuited to the Misplaced Pages environment. And yes that is a shame because he has, as you say, a unique perspective. If you want to track down some other OTRS volunteers whose opinion you respect and ask them to verify what I say then you are free to do so, you can also email the Arbitration Committee to express your views on this, I am sure they will give you some sort of reply.
As to Inge Lynn Collins Bongo, I have no real opinion on whether a neutral, sourced, compliant biography could be written, but I do know that this wasn't one which is why Coren deleted it. I will note in passing that when someone is emailing you in obvious distress, telling them to wait a week while we examine our navels is not a very satisfactory response, but discussion does not belong here and is indeed underway elsewhere. Guy (Help!) 08:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your response - I understand that you and other OTRS people may have your own history with him, and I can sympathize: the thing is, I don't really think of that as part of Misplaced Pages. If I can't know the full story about something then I don't even want to pay attention to it. And while everyone says that they made so much effort to help this person, so far I haven't seen any sign that someone even tried to rephrase his contributions to pass WP guidelines the way I did (to a limited extent) with VictimsWife . So I don't feel like people really tried hard enough. I don't see what the harm would be in unbanning him every three to six months and seeing what happens, even if it does mean that four or five nasty comments slip into our bottomless talk archives each time. Wnt (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
OTRS volunteers are tasked with helping people, and I am doing my best to help Mr. Bell. I can't say he's the most co-operative customer I've ever had, but neither is he the worst, and I can see his perspective quite easily even while simultaneously seeing the problems pointed out by others here. I actually don't think it would be in his best interests to be unblocked (a view with which I know he strongly disagrees) because I am pretty confident that the result would be a flame war which would end with no chance of him ever being unblocked. At least this way once the article is fixed it might be safe to unblock him. I've asked ArbCom to review all conduct, including mine, and I've also noticed that there is some discussion on the Foundation wiki about a proposal which is informed by this case and other recent incidents. I strongly encourage anyone reading this to review the article in detail and make or propose improvements. That is, I think, the most important thing here. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

A comment from Jim Bell:

It sounds to me like one MAJOR improvement you (WP) need is a declaration that BLP policy is not "optional": It is utterly mandatory, and --->anybody<--- who becomes aware of a BLP violation MUST act immediately to repair it. It is not a matter about which one can 'volunteer' to do (or fail to 'volunteer'). Anybody who fails to do so needs to be blocked for a month or two, and anybody who tries to cover it up (as NeilN did on WP:BLPN a few weeks ago; including reverting material which violates BLP) needs to be blocked for at least 1 year. Once the first dozen Administrators get blocked, I think the word will get around.
BTW, make the policy RETROACTIVE.

Posted by request. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, I "covered it up" by explaining my rationale here: Talk:Jim_Bell#Edits_not_neutral. Keystroke came up with alternate wording and Ravensfire later agreed completely with one of my points. Again, Bell is trying to block anyone who doesn't agree with his point of view - subjects of BLP articles don't get to solely decide what is a BLP violation. --NeilN 22:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't BLP already non-negotiable? —Jeremy 22:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but if a subject doesn't like something in their article (which is sourced), is that a BLP violation? --NeilN 23:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
No, it isn't, and his suggestion about how to handle it is nothing but disruptive.— Dædαlus 23:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Recent conversations have left me very perplexed what the BLP policy really is. Originally I thought it was very simple: any good source you can find, you describe, trying to cover all sides fairly. But in a variety of long discussions including some at Talk:Jimbo Wales I've been presented with a very different view of WP:BLP where editors look at all the sources and judge which allegations are confirmed or unreliable, and where even articles that are well sourced but entirely negative get deleted. See WP:ATTACK versus WP:BLP#Attack pages. The result, as I commented above and at User talk:Coren#Inge Lynn Collins Bongo, is that I don't see any large difference between a largely negative page that was speedy-deleted and the largely negative Jim Bell page. So while I wanted to keep both pages, I feel as if the policy as presently enforced would support the outright deletion of both. So how do I improve the Jim Bell article? I just don't know. Wnt (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Do you really not see the difference between an article which only serves to disparage its subject and an article which neutrally describes a subject's controversial activities? Are, for example, Kenneth Lay, Jeffrey Skilling and Manuel Noriega attack articles? --NeilN 02:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, in the case of Inge Lynn Collins Bongo, Jimbo himself not merely supported deletion, but said there was no way to make it neutral without extra off-line or French language research, despite at least five reliable sources to quote, because they were all about controversies. So I really don't know where the line is supposed to be now. Wnt (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, because they were tabloid stories about not much or primary sources which were then interpreted by Misplaced Pages editors in a way not fully supported by the source. Jim Bell, by contrast, seems to me to have actively courted publicity and set himself up as a figure in the public eye. Nothing wrong with that, you just have to be prepared for the fact that not everything everybody says about you will be flattering. Guy (Help!) 17:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
One lesson from this might be that even if someone is acting irate, their critical concerns about an article should be investigated regardless of their demeanor, even if they are to be banned. Keystroke (talk) 04:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Transcluded from user talk:James dalton bell in case of comments by article subject. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

unblock-en-l

You should start getting the unblock-en-l feed now. Thank you, — xaosflux 11:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Ah, cool. I worked out what I did wrong last time - I have two addresses which both deliver to the same inbox (one filtered, one not). Guy (Help!) 11:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Bongo

Hey, thanks for the note. I didn't write any of the text, but was rather removing that which was clearly not properly supported. I am glad to see the article was deleted, though. I think that Senate document was a perfectly good source, but deletion was probably the correct resolution. Yworo (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Silvio Ionescu

Thanks, that beats waiting a week, ta. Off2riorob (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure it does...except that it's a little outside process.
Guy - regarding your closure...can you provide diffs to support We do not need articles written by people whose sole professed purpose on Misplaced Pages is to document a purported scandal involving a living individual ? I'm not saying I think the article was good (it wasn't; that's why I deleted Silviu Ionescu from main space) or even that it met notability guidelines, but...whatever happened to WP:AGF, WP:SOFIXIT, and just plain communicating with the editor in question? If s/he really was singularly bent on defaming the subject, it would become clear pretty quickly. But what if the editor thinks they are writing an article that meets community guidelines and just doesn't know any better? Is summary deletion without a single lick of discussion toward the creator and primary editor of the article going to improve anything?
I don't feel strongly enough about this to go to DRV (not even close, really), because to me this isn't a content issue and I actually agree the content itself was unacceptable. I'm here because I think the process that was followed could have been more editor-friendly. We admins are sometimes accused of being a capricious lot; this sort of non-engagement doesn't help, in my opinion.  Frank  |  talk  15:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
First up, WP:BLP applies everywhere not just in article space, and so by extension does WP:CSD#G10 - if it was a G10 in mainspace then it's a G10 full stop. Second, Ronald2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) shows everything you need to know, especially the first edit. Guy (Help!) 16:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
No disagreement on applicability of BLP; G10 is a grey area. There have been discussions more than once on this point; see, for example, Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Marknutley/The Gore Effect. Regarding the user, just because their first project is to write an article on a particular person doesn't mean that is their sole purpose, and at any rate, being a single-purpose account isn't in itself against any policy I know of. It depends on whether the purpose itself is within policy. Defaming a living individual certainly wouldn't qualify; writing a balanced article about said individual - even if it on the whole doesn't make the individual look very good - would qualify. Again, I am quite against the content as it was written, but I'm talking about process here. I don't automatically draw the conclusion that this article can't exist; only that it shouldn't as it was written. Userfying it and engaging the editor in question seems to be the right way to go, especially given the amount of work that was apparently already put into it.  Frank  |  talk  16:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I checked the contributions, they were to multiple articles but all with the same purpose. I think the user is outraged by this real-world event but has not understood policies, that's why I have not blocked them. I agree that it is quite possible that a neutral and compliant article on this person could be written, but this was not it and was not even a good starting point. My view on process, which I know is not universally shared (ahem) begins with "f" and ends with "uck process" - I have spent enough time on OTRS queues to know that waiting a week while we examine our navels is not a good result for the article subject. I will happily ] any such material for long-term users who want to write a neutral biography. Guy (Help!) 16:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough explanation. I do disagree in this particular case but I also understand there are times when process can be accelerated to good result. I will now go examine my navel and wait for someone to ask for that refund, which (if anyone is reading) I will also provide on request.  Frank  |  talk  17:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I respect your opinion even while I differ with it. Thank you for being uncommonly civil about this, and rest assured that if you choose to rebuild a compliant article I will do what I can to manage the subject's expectations. Guy (Help!) 08:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well now, it looks like the refund has been requested. Do you want to handle this? I'm kind of thinking it's your albatross now :-)  Frank  |  talk  15:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he needs a refund, he has already got a copy saved and has added the exact copy to the mainspace once today and also removed it, he does need to read the BLP policy and perhaps others, also some simple copyright reading would be good as the first newspaper article I looked at had the picture he uploaded to the wikipedia as a copyright violation that has since also been deleted. Off2riorob (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
"Handle" doesn't necessarily mean restore the article; in fact I deleted the re-creation as well. Someone needs to ascertain true intentions (and perhaps hand-hold through the WP:BLP, WP:N, and WP:FIRST discussions), and I'm sorta nominating Guy.... :-)
Albatross? Do you get wafers with it? Guy (Help!) 16:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
ec. Sorry if I wasn't clear Frank, I saw you deleted the new one, hand holding, Guy? He needs to read a couple of policies and understand he is attempting to create a BLP about a single crime, if he wants to create an article about a hit and run crime then he needs other issues explained, the specific crime is not notable. He is on a lose lose path, what he wants to do is not what policy allows. is it? IMO. I recommend he gets a blog. Off2riorob (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, it's all well and good for us regulars to discuss this here, but in the meantime an editor has in apparent good faith requested info on how to proceed. We have wafers (Guy), "get a blog" (Rob) and "hand holding may be required" (Frank). But...which are we implementing?  Frank  |  talk  16:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Please delete the account Ronald2010 also thank you. Ronald2010 (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Frank, I appreciate your thoughtfulness. Ronald2010 (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is the case not Notable?

Just to question the level of notability of the case: How exactly would you quantify notability?

I.e. I look at another article I used to touch on . Both are notable for only one single specific incident (A hit-and-run vs a murder), and both involved a few countries (The hit an run involved a Romanian who hit a Malaysian working in Singapore, the murder case similarly crossed international boundaries due to the nationalities of the victim and prosecuted).

Do a search on "Silviu Ionescu" compared to "Meredith Kercher" on Google (web) and Google (news), a comparison of both searches show more results and entries for "Silviu Ionescu" than "Meredith Kercher".

The fact that in the case of Ionescu, it actually triggered diplomatic response and action from the countries involved is possibly a contributing factor., but that should not take anything away from it.

So back to the test for Notability:

From the Google news result, the test for significant coverage is passed.
Again from the Google news results (which quotes multiple news sources), and also official responses from both foreign offices, the test reliability is passed. Ditto for the test for sources.

It is inevitable that the article will veer close to BLP issues, considering that the article is after all about a person who rose to notoriety because of the hit-and-run. The best we can do is craft an article that as reliable and well documented as possible, creating an article based on info as is, without biased writing.

I see from post above that Ronald2010 was already working on an article on his own user subpage for it, but it was deleted. Is it possible to revert it? Someone already mentioned that there were links and references provided, so at least someone else who wants to try to craft a better page need not start all the way from scratch. Or if it is really bad, at least we know what to avoid. We could always tag the subpage article as a Draft/WIP/neutrality-questionable content in the meantime.Zhanzhao (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Zhanzhao, I am the original writer of that deleted article on Silviu Ionescu (Ronald2010). Thank you for the input above. I am now discussing this issue with | Frank Perhaps we can do all the discussion in one place so that it is easier for me to reply. Thank you !
By the way, I would like to add my appreciation to you for asking if the article in my own user subpage was deleted and to restore it. Well, I have a copy. There was a discussion between Frank and the whoever on that day both my articles in the main space and my user space were deleted. If I get the picture correctly, Frank deleted the main space article and moved it to my user space. Someone even deleted that, this was why I was very enraged. I don't need to restore that article because I have a copy, and I did a test by putting it back, it worked. Someone therefore accusing me of "re-creating" it and warn to block me. Which was not the case, I did a test and make sure that it is ok, then I took it off immediately. I am still very unhappy about the way my articles were deleted. As Frank said, the process could had been more 'editor-friendly'. Whoever is trigger happy, please reflect on yourself. 121.7.53.23 (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent deletions

You recently deleted Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) and Natasha Black. I'll admit, neither was a very good article. But Natasha Black had been nominated at AFD just today, and only one other editor voted on the deletion. Shouldn't such a process be allowed to run its full seven days? As for Moshe Bar, the article was barely a mention, but the scientist seems to rate some notice, based on his running a fairly high profile laboratory at Mass General / Harvard Med. Google scholar shows his articles are fairly heavily cited. As the DB had been removed on his page (by me), isn't an AFD in order? (The deletion was not non-controversial, as at least one other editor agreed that the content deserved an airing.) WikiDan61ReadMe!! 22:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Moshe Bar was a malformed disambiguation ("The purpose of this article is to distinguish..." and so on), I am trying to find out from the creator (who has contacted OTRS via email) what the purpose of this is; as an associate professor I do not think they are even trying to have a separate article, there's no indication they even want one, I think for some reason that the associate professor simply wants to distinguish himself from the other Moshe Bar. I'll get back to you when I've got a response as to why this is.
For Natasha Black the hint is in the first !vote: I removed some negative unsourced material that was added twice by the creator. I think you can understand the impact of an attack vector hanging around for a week while we decide to delete it, on someone who has been the victim of a negative bio. As always there is no prejudice to re-creation of a neutral version and I will WP:REFUND the contents for anyone who wants to create a compliant version and for whom the old text would form a useful basis. In many cases it's better to WP:FORGET but I don't mind letting another user in good standing make the call.
I hope this addresses your concerns? Guy (Help!) 08:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
When first written, Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) was a very short article with a malformed hatnote referring to the other Moshe Bar. I corrected the hatnote and created a legitimate disambiguation page to list both articles. I also expanded the page somewhat since it seems that, at least at first look, that this associate professor is doing some pretty important work in the field of cognitive neuroscience. Not being an expert in that field I thought the article deserved to hang around enough to be improved. I'll admit the article had problems (not the least of which was the fact that the author is one of Bar's students), but those issues could have been addressed.
The "negative unsourced information" in the Black article was neither negative nor unsourced. The "controversy" surrounded Black's support of a former girlfriend in the girlfriend's legal troubles. Since the fact was controversial (not negative) and referenced, it should have been allowed to remain. And even if one does concede that there were attacks in the article, we should not delete articles simply because they have been the subject of attacks. If we went in that direction, most of the articles on any prominent person would soon be deleted. The community is vigilant enough to throw out the bath water while saving the baby.
Don't get me wrong -- I don't think either of these articles were very good (I was the one who nominated the Black article for deletion), but I feel that your actions (deleting an article that had already been nominated for speedy and then declined; and deleting an article with an open AFD with no explanation or note at the AFD) subvert the deletion processes that are in place at Misplaced Pages. I don't intend to recreate either article as I don't really have any information on either subject. I just wanted to express my concerns about your actions. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 12:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I understand, the reason I removed the Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) was simply that it made no claim to notability. Associate professors typically don't make WP:PROF and past experience indicates that a week of withering scorn is a potential outcome when such things hit the usual place. I don't think that would have been a great result since it does seem to me form my interaction with the creator that they don't actually want an article, only to make it clear that there is more than one person with that name. Guy (Help!) 12:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Rankin

Thanks very much for dealing with Andrew Rankin from my note on WP:BLPN.

Was that the correct place to raise my concern in that case? (Other than fixing it myself, of course)  Chzz  ►  09:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Wobbling

What evidence is there that Wobble2600 is Grundle2600? –xeno 21:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Ditto Gagablabla. –xeno 21:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Spidey-senses. And the contribution history, especially Wobble2600 - that looks like a deliberate "look at me I'm a sock". Guy (Help!) 21:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I think it's more likely this is the person who was grave-dancing. –xeno 21:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
In that case, can a reblock correct that they are Syntax and not Grundle? Grsz 21:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
You might want to get those spidey-senses calibrated. =) –xeno 21:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh bloody hell, I wish these idiots would just sod off and play somewhere else rather than trying to get us to guess which particular idiot is responsible for which bit of idiocy. What a colossal waste of everyone's time. The spidey-senses don't say which fly it is, only that it's a fly :-) Now I'm off to create {{Find somewhere else to play}}. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Pointer?

Can you please point me towards the discussion on the Foundation wiki that you refer to on Bell's talk page? I'd like to take a look. --NeilN 23:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Camerata Zelter

Seems the creator has re-added the page with the {{db-spam}} tag still in place. Possibly a Edit-conflict ? Codf1977 (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Think you may need to do it again :-) Codf1977 (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Helen Rollason Cancer Charity

You recently deleted Helen Rollason Cancer Charity. I found some references that suggest notability. Could you please restore the article?

Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Shams Khel

Hours after you deleted the article for A7, a user by another name recreated the identical article. I tagged it as an A7 again but wanted to let you know about the situation. OlYeller 13:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I just checked his talk page and it looks like he's removed db tags at least 6 times. I'm going to check his edit history and see if there's any more similar incidents with other pages being recreated. I also leave a message and try to explain what's going on in case he doesn't understand. OlYeller 13:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Quack quack. Guy (Help!) 14:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Lame. I thought he might be socking. I'll look for more. I left a message on Shumayel's talk page just in case. OlYeller 14:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
The IP user falls slightly outside of the edit period but it has edited a majority of the pages that Ihsanss86 has and has been blocked as well. "86" seems to be a pattern as well. OlYeller 14:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Terri_Summers

Hi! I was wondering why you changed the Speedy Delete of Terri Summers to a regular AfD. I thought WP:HOTTIE was just a gag-guideline. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

With what reliable references? 207.237.230.164 (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't much matter, notability was asserted (multiple appearances in major magazines). AfD can work it out. Guy (Help!) 16:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Okie dokie! 207.237.230.164 (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Cabo Rico

Please expand on the problem with article. Thank you. RJ (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It says, "Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." What specifically is promotional about the article? I will edit the article in userspace to be acceptable. Thanks. RJ (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

User:R_Jordan/Cabo_Rico_Yachts. RJ (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I disclosed exactly that...Can you put a finger specifically on what it is? Any help much appreciated. The company has enough notability, I think, so if written right, it would help educate people interested in the topic and help Misplaced Pages. RJ (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

FreeKick

Do you use the same standards for all MMOG game articles? Most of them are obvious advertisements placed by the owners. Or you didn't notice that they're referring only to themselves or MMOG game review websites? FreeKick won the Game of the month award, and the owner was interviewed by real newspaper. I think it's enough for Misplaced Pages, but not enough for you idiotic bastards. Speedy deletion, huh? Whoever employed you and gave you power is a real idiot. You're an amateur and have no idea how to follow rules, but you do use them at your own discretion to create "justice". Nerd. BTW I'm just a fan of FreeKick and not affiliated with them in any way. Cafa80 (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Your only edits to Misplaced Pages ever have been attempts over a couple of years to make an article on this game. I'm afraid that is going to result in my giving your opinion less weight than I would give that of someone who contributes here and understands our policies. Guy (Help!) 17:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


Johannes Maas

You have deleted a new article on which I was working and adding notability. Please put a copy of the deleted article on my talk page. รัก-ไทย (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI

I'm not sure whether or not you are following this discussion. Feel free to add anything if you feel it appropriate. (I'm really sort of amused at how this is turning out, as I am the one who actually deleted the article twice, even though I'm the one who called for a bit more process.) :-)  Frank  |  talk  13:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

TeleCommunication Systems, Inc

You deleted TeleCommunication Systems, Inc as promotional. I think the company may be notable, based on this search. If you restore it to TeleCommunication Systems, without the Inc, I could try to add references and make it less promotional. Sometimes it's best to replace a {{db-advert}} to a non-speedy {{advert}} with a request to the article's creator to fix it. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


Dr. Judy Wood Notability

Isn't this a notable secondary source though?

Dr. Wood was invited to present her research on the very popular radio show, 'We Ourselves', hosted by Ambrose Lane. The radio station is WPFW 89.3 - Washington, D.C. The interview is all over the internet, but a direct link to it is here: http://www.weourselves.org/wpfw/052308.html

Please let me know. Thank you.


The two reasons given for the deletion of the content was: 1. She is not notable. 2. Copyright violation. I have copy right permission from her personally, and I was going to have her email the permissions list until all this happened. As for a notability, Dr. Wood is the only 9/11 researcher ever to file her evidence in a court of law, and her court case made it all the way to the Supreme court. She discusses her research and the court cases on the very popular Washington DC Radio Station WPFW 89.3, on the Ambrose Lane 'We Ourselves' show. There are many other places she has presented, but this is one of the most mainstream and credible places. Considering that Dr. Wood has done more to bring about truth and justice regarding 9/11 than many other 9/11 researchers who are mentioned in the 9/11 Truth Movement, I think some information about her should be added to the 9/11 Truth Movement wikipedia page. '''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC).


Talk:Conservapedia

I have an issue regarding Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution#Sensitive_and_privacy-related_issues. May I contact you privately? Thank you. nobs (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Nicole Ray

I've noticed you've deleted Nicole Ray. She is clearly a real person, has a prolific filmography, and has been nominated for several awards within her industry. These could clearly be gleaned from the article you deleted. Could you explain why you keep deleting her?--Thiseach (talk) 05:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Being nominated is not the same as winning, especially in that industry where you could win every single award going and still never achieve even a passing mention in a mainstream source. Guy (Help!) 08:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Splash Fashions

Hi you have deleted the Page Splash fashions, Splash (UAE) which is part of the landmark group is very much a legitimate and important enough company to warrant a mention on wikipedia. Please advise on how I can change the write up to make it nuetral in voice (although that was my intention the first time around) to avoid deletion. It was even voted superbrand in 2010 (only among 40 brands in the UAE chosen including household names like nike, coca-cola etc. I believe that a page on wikipedia is necessary for this brand, kindly advise on edits required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bala1729 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

added new convenience link

Hi, I have created WP:BLPTALK, please delete it if you find it inappropriate. Best, Unomi (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't that section also cover non-talk user space? All non-article space, in fact. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
It would be fair to say that Misplaced Pages has no safe haven for violating WP:BLP. Having handled a lot of tickets where Misplaced Pages has been abused as an attack vector I can only applaud that. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I choose BLPTALK simply because I consider that to be the most common scenario, it is also fairly easy to remember / infer. I considered BLPNONARTICLE, but...
WP:BLPZERO for Zero tolerance perhaps?

Unomi (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)