Misplaced Pages

a delicate question....

I thank you for "adopting" me. I have been carefully watching the edits of articles put up by the now-blocked puppets of a now-blocked puppetmaster. My sense is that the edits should be removed if proven to be non-factual, or if in violation of WP:NPOV or WP:COI. But what I am seeing is that many of the edits are being removed simply because of their source with no reagrd to their accuracy or benefit to Misplaced Pages, as many seem to be good contributions. For instance, here where an episode title was removed with no discussion and no reason or here where a reference was removed about one of the many videos segments of a show (though in this latter case, the reference contained specific mention of the actors involved and that specific mention likely does not belong). And going back a bit, here, here and here, where partial filmologies were removed... though in the latter example, another editor came forward and returned the filmology as being a recognized good edit. I do not want to stir up trouble, and am definitely afraid of myself being accused of violating WP:NPOV and WP:COI, but not all of what is being undone by that particular editor (as the last example shows) are in and of themselves bad edits... and are being removed only because their original submitters were blocked as puppets sometime after the edits were made. Wishing to tred VERY lightly, is this something I might myself address? The editor making these deletions is someone whose has gotten a few negative responses for their edits or comments in other areas and I do not wish to do anything that would further upset them. What options do I as a neophyte have?

Also, one last question... to remove a filmology because "this information is identical to IMDB" really a proper reason to summarily delete something without discussion? My sense is that factual informations is supposed to be on Wiki and then properly referenced or cited outside of Wiki. I believe that to remove information simply because it can be found outside of Wiki seems to defeat the whole purpose of Wiki as an enclopedia. Am I crazy? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Michael. Sorry it's taken me so long to respond. I started looking over this, got pulled away and then forgot I hadn't already responded. My apologies. Some of the edits appear appropriate to me, although a note on your talk page explaining why would have been polite. Considering your previous issues with Cumulus Cloud it is, however, not surprising that he's just removing without any sort of explanation. Regardless, to explain. Notability is a concern with some of these addition, as well as undue weight. The Paris movie, for example, was the only item on the list that gave any detail past the title. So you've basically (or whoever added it) put your name in a list of movies. That looks like promotion, which is unacceptable. It also gave that particular movie, which does not have an article, undue weight. Other examples listed appear as though they may not have met the notability requirement of Misplaced Pages. Lara❤Love 14:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Image

...as promised; Image:Daniel BRC.JPG. *sigh* Daniel (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Fantabulous!! Lara❤Love 15:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. It's great that your enthusiasm in your message here is equal to that displayed in the image. :p

Request for advice

Hi, Lara, I'm involved in a situation where I'd like the advice of an admin, and I am hoping you can help. Here's a summary; I can provide diffs and so on if that's useful. Editor Yorkshirian created a map he wanted to use on several medieval articles. There was some reverting but eventually we got several people to discuss the issue at Talk:Mercia#Map. Yorkshirian joined that conversation. My interpretation of that discussion is that there was a strong majority for the version of the map I was suggesting. On 18 January I went ahead and repointed all instances to the revised map.

Yesterday Yorkshirian reverted the change to one article, Northumbria, with no edit summary. I reverted, pointing to the consensus. He has just reverted several of those edits with an edit summary of "remove crap, amateur map per majority concensus on Talk:Mercia#Maps" (the link error is my fault; it should be 'Map', not 'Maps', but he was copying my previous edit summary which was a typo.)

I'm not sure what to do next. It doesn't seem to me to be a content issue any more; we've got what I would cal a clear consensus. Is this an ANI issue? I've rarely posted there. I have also never done an RfC, so I'm not sure if that's the right thing here. Can you suggest what the right next step is? His tone isn't polite, but that's OK. I'd simply like to implement the consensus and have him respect it. If he can change people's minds so they want to use his map, that's fine too. I don't see much value in reverting him since I would assume he'll just revert me back; I reverted the first one with an edit summary that pointed him at the consensus and that didn't help.

If you would like more details of the history, including diffs of various conversations with him, let me know. If you look at a recent version of Yorkshirian's talk page, you'll see some of the conversations with him. I did ask another editor (Llywrch) for advice at an earlier stage and you can see the result on Yorkshirian's talk page too, here.

Thanks for any help. Mike Christie (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Mike. Although there is some incivility coming into play here, it's fairly minor, from what I see. So I would still consider this a content dispute, which would make it inappropriate for AN/I at this time. I recommend filing an WP:RFC on Talk:Mercia. This will bring in a few outside views of uninvolved editors to help reach a consensus. If there is an act against consensus after that, then it may be time for administrative intervention. When you file the RFC, explain the situation more briefly than you have here, but touching on each of the main points. Basically, explain simply that there are two options, consensus was reached on which to use, but the consensus has been challenged and you want additional opinions on the issue. Lara❤Love 15:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -- I've created the RFC and we'll see what happens. I appreciate the advice. Mike Christie (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Help in dealing with a tendentious editor

User:Amazonfire will not stop his POV-pushing at So Far from the Bamboo Grove. He has disruptively reverted with super-civil edit summaries such as "Don't falsificate the history" and wants to insert an unsourced fact with a source that contradicts his claim.

Although he wants to say "The Japanese who had become the captive of a Soviet federation was indiscriminately restrained," to claim that the Japanese were not restrained for war crimes his "source" says "Some 600 soldiers have been convicted for crimes (in accordance with paragraph 10 of the Potsdam Declaration) committed against prisoners or civilians in the occupied territories." I'm sick of dealing with him. He just refuses to get the point. I need help bad! миражinred (speak, my child...) 21:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Your Userpage

Hello, I just wanted to say that I like your userpage and I think it is designed very well. :) --Grrrlriot (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Lara❤Love 23:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome. --Grrrlriot (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Dana's Homework

I'm sorry to bother you again, but I've posted a note on Dana's adoptee homework. I probably shouldn't, but I felt compelled after the misrepresentation he made. I'm sure you'd have spotted this though, so apologies if I've stepped on your toes - I didn't feel I could let it pass without coment. Yours, --DrEightyEight (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I also think that this edit shows that Dana is continuing to behave in a very very poor manner ; it is full if lies, does not AGF, and breaks many of the wikipedia policies Dana claims to have read and understand. --DrEightyEight (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL!

• LaraLove has quit IRC ("The Bathrobe Cabal > all...")

Absolutely right! :) Jmlk17 07:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes! It's my Horatio Caine move. I say some shit and walk away before anyone can respond. You can't see it, of course, but I also rip my sunglasses off every time I leave IRC. ;) Lara❤Love 14:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Needs more terrible punning to be a true Horatio move. ;) Th 2005 (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The banner at the top of your userpage

Is annoying to people who use skins other than monobook (I use "modern"). For me, it blocks the title, the talk/preferences/watchlist bar, the edit/history/move/watch tabs, and is generally a pain. Perhaps you could use a css class instead of inline styling so people with other skins can fix it (No particular reason to be picking on you, other than that your userpage was about the third I visited with this problem). — Werdna talk 11:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If you could give me the CSS code, that would be great. But which banner are we talking about? The Pats thing, or the custom title? Lara❤Love 14:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I jumped in a couple other skins (eep, that's a change) and took out the custom title. If you could get me CSS code that would do the same, it would be appreciated. :) Lara❤Love 14:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

TINBRC

I figured that it should only follow that if there's WP:TINC, and WP:BRC, then there should somewhere be a silly reference to TINBRC, and thus I took this picture. It was fun writing backwards. :P Cheers =) --slakr 14:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. I have slippers to hand out. I'm behind. I'm on it! Lara❤Love 15:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Warning someone about their behaviour isn't a dispute. Guettarda (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You two were arguing back and forth. That constitutes a dispute. Lara❤Love 16:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I warned him. He responded by repeating the sort of behaviour I warned him about. Not a dispute. Guettarda (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not alone in my view. It was a dispute. The block was bad. Like I said at AN/I. You're both guilty of the same behavior, NPA vios or not. So you can either both be blocked or you can both let it go, leave each other alone and be on your merry way. I recommend the latter. Lara❤Love 16:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You unblocked an editor after they engaged in repeated personal attacks. Are you saying that it's acceptable to engage in personal attacks after a warning? And that after they were posting personal information on Misplaced Pages. You consider that a bad block? Odd. Guettarda (talk) 16:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at AN/I. If we're considering them PAs, then you've engaged in the same. Keep it up and maybe you'll get blocked for harassment. Not really, but I'm just saying, let it go. It's over. Consensus is against you. Lara❤Love 16:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, you did mention on the ANI that if the block should be reduced or removed completely, you said it can happen without any consultation with you. Just a thought. User:Zscout370 16:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I said so. I didn't mean to come across like I was criticising Lara for unblocking without consultation. Undoing the block because you considered me too involved - not a problem. (I disagree, but I respect your judgment call). But you seem to be scolding me for blocking someone who responds to a PA warning with a PA. That I don't get. But that's ok. "I don't get it". The end. Guettarda (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)