Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 177.154.145.103 (talk) at 05:50, 3 July 2015 (→Topic ban). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Move Discussion

Hi,

This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Farshad Fotouhi

As soon as the protection level was changed on Farshad Fotouhi the sockfarm was activated again: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Farshad_Fotouhi&diff=prev&oldid=657794030 Since you already know the history of this page, can you please take a look? Thank you. Dr wiki editor (talk) 06:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

OnLive BLP article

Last week on the reliable source noticeboard I asked you what the next steps were regarding BLP. My read of BLP is that the article should be immediately removed, since the article is about a living person, identifies no sources, is not corroborated by any other article I can find or anyone has suggested, does not state any effort was made to contact the subject of the article to comment on the facts, and we can see that at least one highly credible publication has removed a link to it. You said there was no need for me to do anything and you would be looking at the reliability of the article from a BLP standpoint. Have you had a chance to do this? Or should I post it on the BLP noticeboard or doing something else? As I mentioned, I agree with MIT Technology Review that the article's lack of reliability is clear-cut in non-Misplaced Pages journalism, so I'm increasingly intrigued to see what the outcome is on Misplaced Pages and I'd love to write about it, particularly as we are taking a closer look at the credibility of journalism in the wake of the Rolling Stone scandal. Thank you for your time on it so far, and let me know if I should seek out another editor to help me through the process if you are too busy. Thanks! Starkcasted (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

vandalism?

I reverted you because the IP post isn't vandalism of the PD page at all. Is there a reason why you are edit-warring? If there's a question, better to let the clerks handle it - that's their job. Karanacs (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a clear and unmistakable BLP violation targeting me, and I have the right to remove such at will. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like we had cross-posted. There's a difference between vandalism and personal attacks, and an edit summary reverting an edit on the basis of vandalism didn't make sense there. The content that was posted on the surface did not appear to be a personal attack - I haven't done the search suggested and have no intention of doing so. If you'll use more accurate edit summaries the problem will be avoided in the future. Karanacs (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It should be fairly obvious to any administrator of any experience that any reference to a notorious attack site is not appropriate use of the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not a website I'm familiar with. I don't hang out at ANI or AE much, if that's where it's been discussed. If it's that awful, then, yeah, it needs to be gone.... but again, what's obvious to person A is not always known to person B. Karanacs (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I have emailed Oversight to expunge this. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

And I have taken the liberty of reposting your call to action at AE, very lightly edited, over my own signature after an IP editor removed it as a topic ban violation. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

While I understand NBSB's frustration, and note the IP as a likely problem child - the post did actually seem to be on topic and appropriate for an arbcom discussion about if off-wiki harassment (sexual or otherwise) is restricted to female editors. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The post was a blatant attempt to exploit Misplaced Pages to publicize a scurrilous libel published off-wiki. If Misplaced Pages were to fail to make every effort to stop this, its complicity or negligence could well be culpable. The IP, of course, is doubtless a Gamergate sock, Gamergate having apparently run short, for the moment, of useful zombie accounts to reanimate for such purposes. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

And oversight informs me they have deleted the offending material.MarkBernstein (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban

Your recent edit to Grace Dunham violates your topic ban, as indicated by the arbitration committee. Please try to be more careful - we have almost 5 million articles, you only have to avoid a few dozen. 104.200.151.11 (talk) 04:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I see you've already been warned. Consider this your second warning. The case linked above addresses this exact subject matter in a different article. The wishes of the arbitration committee could not be clearer or more specific: you are not to edit this subject. 177.154.145.103 (talk) 05:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)