Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bluemarine (talk | contribs) at 06:00, 26 March 2007 (Terms usage and verifying sources). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Click here to start a new section. (The edit summary will be created automatically; it will be the same as the heading of the new section.)

Archives

/Archive 1 September 2005 - August 2006 /Archive 2 September 2006 - November 2006 /Archive 3 December 2006 /Archive 4 January 2007 /Archive 5 February 2007

User:Cheeseah

Thanks alot for your help; I can now finish the page I was working on. Again, thanks a lot, your help will let me improve the site greatly.Thanks!!!! 16:02, 21 March 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheeseah (talk • contribs)

One archive per DAY???????

Having a separate archive for each day is DEFINITELY overkill. You are wasting files. JRSpriggs 07:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki stores pages as database entries rather than as files. It's not clear whether dividing content among many pages "wastes" more resources than combining it into one large file. From the standpoint of disk space, images and other media files occupy much more space than text. --Teratornis 00:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Team effort

In the spirit of reducing the amount of Wikipolicies and obviating confusion (see WP:LAP), drafts are in progress for a unified deletion policy here, and a unified protection policy here. These should really be team efforts, so since you commented on the matter earlier I would like to ask your help. The intent is not to change policy, merely to clarify and remove reduncancy; thus, anything that inadvertently changes the meaning should be fixed. We should be ready to move the drafts over the existing policies soon, but this needs more feedback and consensus, otherwise it'll just get reverted by people who "like the old thing better". Thank you for your time. >Radiant< 13:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Thanks for the welcome and adoption note on my talk page. I'm just getting my feet wet with Misplaced Pages, having felt like a guilty non-contributor for all these years. I'll start looking for good places to contribute. And your index is outstanding! Thanks!

Outside of Misplaced Pages, I do community research, mostly studying how strangers trust each other online, and I'm thinking about joining the masses of wikipedia researchers. In particular, studying what motivates people to move up the ranks in Misplaced Pages. If you'd be willing to talk about this with me over email, drop me a line. Cheers! Grammarnerd 18:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Isaiah13066

Hi, thanks for reverting Isaiah13066's edit to my user page! He proceeded to add "You will shut up this instant." to the top of your talk page. Not quite a personal attack but not exactly helpful either... Cheers, --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

He struck again (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:John_Broughton&diff=prev&oldid=111479654) and has been blocked for 48 hours by MacGyverMagic. --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

advice on etiquette / moderation question

Hi John Broughton - We've had a couple of interactions; first on the Nadine Gordimer pages and then you were very helpful to me on with thoughts on dealing with difficult editors w/r/t etiquette. There's an ongoing problem at the Nadine Gordimer page, with an anonymous editor (70.23.*.*) who persists in putting in material in the article; eight other editors have looked at this (as part of an RFC) and all concluded that it was more or less non-notable, the anonymous editor keeps putting it in, self-professedly for race reasons. This probably needs to go to mediation or something, but I'm really unsure of what the process is. Although other people were involved in this early on, they have mostly dropped out. But mediation doesn't seem quite right, because the process has involved other people ...? Thoughts? I'm really frustrated by this person! Who is repeatedly uncivil and difficult to work with. --lquilter 15:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd hate for anyone reading this page to get the idea that the foregoing complaints have any connection to reality. User:lquilter thoroughly misrepresents me, when she asserts that I restored the material she deleted "self-professedly for race reasons." Actually, a projection is at work. She and the other removers are of the racial belief that no one may report any facts that show blacks in a negative light, and that anyone who does so is a racist. (Apparently, they have no problem with negative depictions of whites.) Conversely, I am of the opinion that the truth cannot be racist.

And so, the ideological clique of editors to which User:lquilter belongs persists in removing material from the Nadine Gordimerarticle. The material in question is a report on a black-on-white attack on Gordimer. Several other editors had had no problem with the material prior to my discovering the "removals." (I did not originally "insert" the material. I only got involved when I saw the c--------p going on; I just hate c--------p.) When I discovered the removals and restored the material, some other editors removed it, initiated personal attacks against me, and commenced an edit war. They also alternated between announcing that nothing I could possibly say would change their minds, and demanding that I defend my restorations. I duly defended the restorations, but the removers always demanded ever better reasons, even though the best reasons for restoring the material were already given in the material itself. More recently, I have added material that further supports the original insertion, but that only stoked the removers' rage.

The editors who had previously inserted/worked with the material in question were either intimidated by the removers' aggression, or had moved on, and were not obsessed with matters of "removal." After all, arguing with the removers can get one c------d, and even blocked. 70.23.199.239 08:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The news report about the robbery and assault of Nadine Gordimer might fit less controversially with the articles: Race and crime or White flight, which are more about the subject which upset the keepers of the article about an anti-apartheid activist, and are probably patrolled by a very different set of editors. The White flight article, for example, already has a section which mentions white flight from Gordimer's city of residence (Johannesburg); news reports of the attack on Gordimer may have helped further fuel the exodus (if you can find a reputable source claiming as much, that would seem to be worth noting in that section). (High-profile events in which race seems to play a role, such as the beating of Rodney King, can certainly be notable, as can the public reaction to them.) While Misplaced Pages pays lofty and well-meaning lip-service to the ideal of WP:NPOV, in practice there are sometimes sets of articles which refer to a common topic from different points of view. For example, many articles about various religions are clearly sympathetic to the beliefs of their adherents, and are almost certainly patrolled by religious adherents who are anything but objective. I've read several religious claims presented as fact, without the necessary disclaimers. --Teratornis 16:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki training videos

Hello, User:John Broughton. While browsing the Web, I stumbled across some MediaWiki training videos. I made a list of links to them here: User:Teratornis#MediaWiki training videos. Would it be possible to link to these videos from your Editor's index? Obviously to make that convenient, we would need to make a page in the Misplaced Pages: namespace to act as the compact link target (e.g., Misplaced Pages:MediaWiki training videos), and contain the links and explanation of video players I put on my user page. --Teratornis 16:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I started Misplaced Pages:Instructional material at your suggestion. I referenced our discussion on the talk page: Misplaced Pages talk:Instructional material#About this page, and started a to-do list for the page. Hopefully we can solidify the page quickly enough to help it avoid deletion. Is there a WikiProject that oversees the creation of such training materials? --Teratornis 04:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use Images

Please see the debate starting on my talk page, "Tom's" talk page where I answer him, and the discussion here.

I completely understand that WP wants to restrict using "fair use" images because of possibly copyright infringements and because most people don't understand "fair use" and will (unintentionally) take advantage of it, thereby causing copyright problems.

That said, however, (and, fwiw, I do have a law degree), "fair use" *is* a *statutory* exception to the copyright law. (For starters, see http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html)

Secondly, public relations materials are clearly produced for the very purpose of dissemination.

Thirdly, it is questionable whether a state portrait is even copyrightable to begin with. (A statutory requirement of any copyrighted work is that it must contain some degree of "originality", which is why, e.g., the "Yellow Pages" company can't copyright the phone book).

Fourthly, a state government that puts a picture of an officeholder on site, is clearly doing it for informational purposes, and not trying to create a market. An important quote: "an important fair use factor is whether your use deprives the copyright owner of income or undermines a new or potential market for the copyrighted work." Hello? It's not like the state of Rhode Island is trying to make money off of this portrait.

John, I tell you think from an unbiased point of view. A state portrait of a governor is so clearly "fair use", and so legal, it's hard to know where to begin. To fight with small minds on WP who really have no idea of the big picture here is a real drag -- and, to look at even the larger picture here -- to restrict use clearly hurts WP and hurts the public. The state is putting the picture up because it wants the public to know what their elected officials look like. WP helps fulfill that purpose.

So . . . now what?

FWIW, I would like to propose a new clause in the Fair Use section of WP, something along the lines of this: "It is generally accepted as fair use, and permissible for WP, to use an image of a governmental official that appears on the website the governmental department of which he or she is a member. Similarly, it is generally accepted as fair use, and permissible for WP, to use an image of a politician taken from a political brochure or website produced by that politician's election campaign, if it is clear that the materials were intended for widespread dissemination to the public."

Thoughts? And, in the meantime, check out the discussion and add your two cents? Thanks, -- Sholom 15:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

I have no idea what you are talking about. As follows "It is normally a violation of WP:TP and WP:TPG to delete anything from another user's talk page. If you do have permission from the user in question - User:Pascal.Tesson - to delete a section on his user talk page, you should note that in your edit summary so others know that guidelines are not being violated. I have reverted your deletion because there was no such explanation. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)" --User:Susannah Mills

Editing via a school network

i am editing through a school network, you can't block me! fuck you 14:42, 8 March 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.68.211.170 (talk • contribs)

Your suggestion for my wikitable

Unfortunately, your suggestion for a nested table will not accomplish what I hope to do. I have been told that my goals cannot be accomplished for IE viewers on any wikitable. I'm quite disappointed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mphamilton (talk • contribs) 08:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Seek Recommendation

Hi John-

Could you please be so kind as to take a look at the contributions of Wham Bam No Thank You Spam ?

For almost a year one person has been systematically deleting all Source links that I made for articles that I started or, or on occasion, significantly expanded.

When I recently began restoring them, Wham Bam No thank You Spam suddenly appeared and began systematically and very quickly deleting the restorations:

*On 7 March he deleted 10 restorations within six minutes.

*On 8 March he deleted 17 restorations within 11 minutes.

*On 9 March he deleted 23 restorations within nine minutes.

The talk page explanations of why the Sources are not spam are apparently ignored. What do you recommend?

Many thanks. David Justin 16:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

David Justin is a spammer, linking articles to his own site on the slightest pretext. One of his recent tactics appears to be copying text from the Misplaced Pages into his own page and then claiming his page as the source. See my comments in:

• Talk:Ernest Cherrington
• Talk:Daisey Douglas Barr
• Talk:Marie C. Brehm
• Talk:Temperance Educational Quarterly
• Talk:Alcohol and cancer Wham Bam No Thank You Spam 13:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi John-

Thank you for your positive feedback. It's apparent who has created the sock puppet, "Wham." He has accused earlier me of creating links to my web pages to increase their search engine ranking. Not so. First, Misplaced Pages has in place a mechanism to prevent such a consequence. Second, I wouldn't need such help even if it were possible -- many of my pages rank higher than Misplaced Pages's.

The bottom line is that I help Misplaced Pages but it dosesn't help me. Wham's systematic deletion of links to my pages hurts Misplaced Pages users but not me.

Under “Links normally to be avoided” is #11, “Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.” I'm not spamming but helping readers. Thanks.David Justin 15:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi John- I appreciate your thoughtful and very helpful comments which will enable me to contribute more effectively to improving Misplaced Pages. Many thanks.David Justin 16:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

On User:MikeURL/Credentials. You made the article a lot more readable. I hope you'll check in periodically to help as I incorporate more of what i believe is the consensus on this issue to the page.MikeURL 17:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Help desk comment

Under no circumstances was I putting down your point and I understand that it may have been a joke, its hard to tell really as it could have been real, anyway I hope no negative feelings were caused and that we can remain civil, happy edting. Best Regards - Tellyaddict (Talk) 09:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

How dare you make such a comment that I am a vandal. I apologize for what happened on the help desk, but if you look at my contributions, I am a very skilled contributor, with 1200 edits to this project, so please refrain from adding the term vandal to experienced good contributors. Retiono Virginian 12:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You mentioned that I was a vandal on tellyaddicts userpage. Retiono Virginian 13:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

re: IRI

Sorry about the edits to the IRI entry - this shared IP is for everybody working at IRI, myself included. Whoever at the org keeps editing our entry, they probably won't stop. I would ban this IP from editing the IRI page.

Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.57.121.14 (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

In that case, I apologize for the behavior of whoever's doing it. Nobody in my division, based on the other articles this IP has edited - Russia, South America, Eurasia stuff...

Al Gore

I don't think of my contributions to Al Gore's page as negative. I consider them to be more information on his current condition. Why is this a problem? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moldysocks (talk • contribs) 01:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

But wouldn't you say that Al Gore has gotten a little chunky? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moldysocks (talk • contribs) 02:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

But can you just tell me in your opinion if Al Gore has gotten a little hefty? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moldysocks (talk • contribs) 03:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why asking for your opinion about Al Gore's weight is such a problem. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moldysocks (talk • contribs) 01:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I just want to know whether you think Al Gore has "put on some pounds". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moldysocks (talk • contribs) 01:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not interested in chatting. I simply want to know an answer to a question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moldysocks (talk • contribs) 15:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCN

Hi John. You submitted User:Hellfreezesover666 to WP:RFCN. As you did not ask the user to change his user name first (per the policy on usernames at WP:U, and per the header at the top of WP:RFCN), I have removed this nomination. Please ask the user first in future, politely, if they would consider changing their name; don't just submit their name for an RFC and tell them about it. There is even a handy template for this, at {{UsernameConcern}}. Neil (not Proto ►) 22:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Another "Hi!"... and I was going to make the same request. But while I'm here, may I ask you to do the four-tildes signature bit when moving entries like that? I'd thought it was Leuko who posted that entry at WP:RFCN, because no-one else's name was attached, so I asked Leuko to read the top of WP:RFCN before posting there. I'm a bit red-faced now, since he hadn't posted the entry there.... -- Ben /_HIST 22:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

(This is regarding my posting on this page.) My mistakes are noted; I'll try to do better next time. I also note that Nardman1 asked the user to consider changing his/her username, at 22:44, 21 March 2007, and that the account was permanently blocked for vandalism at 05:25, 22 March 2007. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

My RFA?

Thank you for letting me know about the nomination if I had been online that day I would have declined it I currently do not wish to be an admin--Cylonhunter 13:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Alternative outlets

Thanks for adding a link to Misplaced Pages:Alternative outlets to your editor's index; I had not seen that page before. As you can tell from my frequent advice to disgruntled editors on the Help desk, I'm becoming more convinced that Misplaced Pages isn't doing enough to account for its honey trap nature, by promoting alternative outlets for articles Misplaced Pages usually just deletes. I'm editing some thoughts on this topic on a user sub-page: User:Teratornis/Outplacement. --Teratornis 06:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the message you left for 1ne

Hello, John Broughton! I noticed the message you left for 1ne about administrators and consensus. I would like to clear some things up; first off, administrators are not divine beings and are capable of messing up. Therefore, just because an administrator puts his foot down on something doesn't mean he or she is invariably right. In fact, you don't even need to be an admin to close AFDs -- all adminship really is is access to certain buttons.

In this case, it appears the administrator correctly judged that a redirect was to be made. However, note the date on the AFD: 2005. This means they were judging based on the 2005 version of the article, which is rather different than the 2007 version that was created. When a new version of an article is created, like in this case, it is not appropriate to apply CSD G4, which calls for the speedy deletion (or in this case, reversion) of recreated material that is substantially identical to the deleted version. If you have any qualms about the article's notability, your best route would be to take it to AFD. If you have any questions, please ask. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 06:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Since you're involved in the dispute over the existence of the article, I brought it to AFD so that it can be discussed by more users. (Also, a non-admin can technically close an AFD as "delete", just that they need to get an admin to delete it or nominate it for speedy deletion from there.) —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 15:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez

I am Matt Sanchez and there are several patently and demonstrably false statements on my "biography".

I never lived in England. I never was a "male prostitute". These entries passed off as facts are just pure slander.

19:02, 25 March 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs)

Greetings,

Blue Marine continues to edit his own (Matt Sanchez) page. I find it amazing, considering his own words in Salon earlier stated "I'm not denying it" and told many that he did it "over ten years ago." It seems that Sanchez wasn't denying what brought him attention, but he's denying it now that the military has begun an investigation into his past activities.→ R Young {ł_talk} 05:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Terms usage and verifying sources

1. I never said I was an escort and I'm tired of this argument especially by malicious homosexuals who have obviously declared jihad on me.

2. There's a project called the Movie Minute that belongs in my "other activities" http://youtube.com/watch?v=pYX1wEM3yAs please add it.

3. You could completely delete this article and I would not complain, but I not going to be slandered by shadow keyboard "contributors" with a beef.

4. You should add that I've publicly stated that I am NOT gay and that that declaration has infuriated the Pink mafia morons who have nothing better to do than to spend hours slandering me.

5. The Columbia University article is another hit job on me, please merge the two articles, or put "disputed facts" or something to that account.

6. I realize this is an annoyance sir, but I AM the subject of this article and the information does NOT reflect my reality, either past or present.

7. I'm sure you can see that this whole article is politically driven.

You can reach me at matthew.a.sanchez@gmail.com