Misplaced Pages

User talk:Privatemusings

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 Dtobias (talk | contribs) at 23:15, 5 April 2008 (→Discussions by banned editors). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:15, 5 April 2008 by Dtobias (talk | contribs) (→Discussions by banned editors)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This user is sharp as a marble.
This user will make anyone a cup of tea, as long as he can have one too.

Welcome back

If you come back. Since your block didn't auto-expire, and Mercury is no longer an admin, I've requested it's lifting at WP:AN. -- Kendrick7 20:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks Kendrick - and it's nice to see you! Hope you're good etc. and I can confirm that my ban is no more! - hope to see you around.... Privatemusings (talk) 21:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

great, now I have Kotter's theme song as an earworm. I can't bring myself to say "welcome back" without chuckling sardonically, but since I only have to type it - WELCOME BACK! Never has so little been so manifestly due. Do try and not step on any more toes with your pointy sock feet, but if you must, I understand "confounding issues" are all the rage now. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 21:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
hi Snick! - aside from the aspects of 'that' current case which read a bit to me like a 'how to', I am concerned that our devilish plan to appear to be different people may come under some scrutiny. With our editing habits not interleaving at all over the last 3 months, the jig may be up....... ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 21:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
plus, we both edit from Earth, in a similar way... sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 21:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back. I trust that the Wikback was helping you keep sane? bibliomaniac15 22:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikback was keeping me something - though I'm less sure 'sane' was it! It's a bit ironic that my ban from wiki actually led to me digging a bit deeper into some issues than I would have bothered to previously - which translated to me banging on a bit over at the wikback.... nice to see you here biblio, and see you around! Privatemusings (talk) 22:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the lateness, but welcome back! I enjoyed talking with you on the Wikback, and hope to work with you here. - Mtmelendez 13:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Glad to see you back, PM. Let's hope I don't get this account blocked for saying hello. Best, Amerique 09:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thanks chaps - and who is this Amerique? I recall chatting with the leader of an academy, but have no recollection of Amerique? Clearly a disruptive influence in these parts.... ;-) (good to see you too!). Privatemusings (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back! Hopefully you will be added to this list. Cheers. miranda 13:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, if you need any help or advice, please don't hesitate to get in touch. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Well thankee very much! - I'm having trouble gybing at the moment, so any pointers would be welcomed, otherwise I'll surely head your way with wiki questions as and when... know anything about Sunscreen? Privatemusings (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Not really, but I can decode any of the science people throw about in that dispute and provide you with sources that require subscriptions. E-mail me and I can send you PMID 17693182, which should be a good review on the topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's bad enough...

...finding a depiction of me on the internet; but finding you posting it twice on your userpage is the pits! LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

...well I've tried to be quite clear that it's not me (and to be honest, there are 5 other 'not me's that I think I might add too) but I should also say that I've let the OTRS people know that there's a possible conflict of interest between me and not me, and I wonder if you might be interested in discussing this further in a hotel room in DC at the weekend, they've got lovely couches and mirrors I hear....

ps. apologies if such peurile attempts at humour aren't well received in your far higher brow.....! ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 09:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Mmmmmm... round these parts DC is the wet, wobbly stuff that is on the other side of the beach to DLAND, so I can't say the offer interests me much. Thanks, anyway. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought DC published comic books. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought it was Edison's favourite way of lighting up a room but he lost the battle of the bands to Tesla? ++Lar: t/c 17:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it stands for 'Don't Care'? ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

JzG RfC

A user conduct RfC involving the actions of JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) in which you have been mentioned is about to go live and will be found at WP:RFC/U shortly. Viridae 11:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks, viridae.... I was aware of it's development, and will take a look, and probably pipe up as quietly and gently as I can. Privatemusings (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC) (ps. nice to see you now that I'm back 'on-wiki'

My advice would be to steer clear of controversy and just edit articles, at least for a while. Seriously. Unfair? Sure. But a prudent course. You KNOW that topic is going to be controversial. ++Lar: t/c 15:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
good advice Lar - as you know, I feel very strongly about certain aspects of Guy's past behaviour - I felt he abused my trust in forwarding information which I expressly asked to be kept private - but now is probably not the time for me to be overly involved, for no other reason than it likely won't help at all. I've commented in what I hope is a quiet and fair manner on the talk page of the RfC, and will probably leave it at that. If you think I should strike or remove my comments there, do let me know, but I really did want to put something on the record in some way..... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd say neither add nor subtract, just leave what you said and say no more for the nonce... ++Lar: t/c 22:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
That's my plan.... I'm hopeful that Guy and I will get on better in the future - but thanks for your notes too.... Privatemusings (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC) ps. I saw your blog, which I hope is the precursor to further writings - I think you're in a great position to promote positive change, and I made a note of your blog on mine
"My advice would be to steer clear of controversy and just edit articles, at least for a while. Seriously. Unfair? Sure. But a prudent course."... still true. Why are you involving yourself in several of the latest flashpoints? It seems massively imprudent. I strongly advise against it. Leave it to others. ++Lar: t/c 13:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
It's still good advice, Lar - and I thought I'd bow out by adding a couple of words of explanation in this small wiki bywater, for what they're worth. I well recall the anger and embarrassment I felt (and feel, to be honest) when first indef. blocked without so much as a 'by your leave' - and I also recall at that point how important the short notes that I did get on my talk page were to me (this may be cheesy, or foolish, but it's true!) - so I guess it was that pet peeve of mine, the lack of notes on Mantan's and Mackan's talk pages, which drew me into these broo ha has - my continued posts at Georgewilliam's page were probably best left to others, and I'm glad to see good people making similar points - I hope George didn't find my posting annoying, and I would have stepped back if I had the impression that he was doing so...
The Mantan case is one that I've tried to be assiduous in avoiding for now. Another intention of my leaving the note I did was to forestall any need to unblock before Mantan had responded - I see that Doc chose to do exactly that, and I'd question why, given that it certainly raised the temperature. In my heart I deeply wish to comment on a variety of issues this case raises, about which I feel quite strongly, but I understand that this just isn't really possible right now. If you examine my block log and arb case, you'll see that admin.s repeatedly blocked me, following which discussions emerged with a consensus to unblock, followed by yet another block, thus it frustrates me to see admin.s writing about 'clearly no consensus to ban' appearing to me to be hypocritical. The fact that I am an arbcom sanctioned 'puppet master' both galls somewhat and indicates to me that the approach I chose, to confide privately in an administrator, led me further into trouble - which is a shame.
You'll also be aware of my concerns over 'checkuser' in general, and the fact that a 'private checkuser' was run on Mackan I feel should be more surprising and concerning to many - I hope you'll agree that I'm taking a gentle approach there to try and get to the bottom of what I see as a damaging systemic trend. I suspect Mackan, like myself, doesn't really mind the individual impact of having had one, or a series of, 'checks' run, but I think the bigger picture is worrying. Offensive hyperbole such as mentioning 'lynchmobs' adds to my disquiet - in short, it looks to me like good people may be doing the wrong thing, because they believe it's exactly the right thing to do. This shouldn't be overly surprising in terms of community evolution, either... history shows it's an endemic trap to fall into, and I believe the sooner we can explore it, learn and grow etc. the better the community will be.
Hey ho, lateness and a relatively uncharacteristic seriousness have made this post longer than I think I intended, but I'm pleased to commit thoughts like these to my userspace, and now plan on returning to gnoming away on Socrates, and other articles, helping out at WP:TOV, and planning another chit chat which I'll shamelessly encourage you once more to consider joining! We'd love to have you! best, Privatemusings (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Audio broadcast

Sorry, but I don't have adequate audio equipment right now (and honestly, I don't have the time, part of the reason I never bought a microphone to talk on Misplaced Pages Weekly). Thanks for the invite, though. Ral315 (talk) 09:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

We need a userbox. Bstone (talk) 08:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I'm not sure I can assess my interest in participating yet - I'm more of a writer than a talker, and I haven't had a chance yet to listen to the stuff so far. I know where Ral315 is coming from, I never got around to Misplaced Pages Weekly while running on regular Signpost deadlines either. With serving on the board the demands on my time may be as great, but there's at least the potential for more flexibility in how I structure it, so an occasional chat might be possible. But at the moment I still need to set up the equipment and that's first waiting on another internet issue to be resolved on my end, so I'll need to get back to you. --Michael Snow (talk) 05:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Socrates Article

Hey Privatemusings,

We traded a few comments on the talk page for Socrates. I plan on help out with the Socrates article. I'm doing some research on JSTOR and other journal archives to find solid sources for the article, so any major edits from me won't come for a week or so. In the meantime, I say go ahead and be bold! I posted some more comments to the Socrates talk page. I just wanted to drop you a message here to let you know that I want to collaborate....not get involved in a edit war.

Though I've been on Misplaced Pages for awhile, I've never helped to do a “major” improvement to an article before. So, I've not sure of the etiquette here. What I'm thinking is that I may make an “alternate” version of “Socrtaes” in my Sandbox. We can then pick and choose pieces from our drafts to make a better article for Misplaced Pages.

PS: A copy of my latest comment for the Socrates talk page follows:

I'm still a bit uncomfortable with the way your characterizing both Socratic Irony and the Socratic Method. Since Socrates didn't write anything, I think it is inaccurate to suggest that these concepts are his “ideas”, that he created them, or was a proponent of them. Both SI and SM are concepts inspired by the characterization of Socrates in Plato. As later philosophers, teachers, and writers thought and wrote about (Plato's) Socrates these concepts developed. Some of the articles I've been reading suggest the concept of Socratic Irony begins as early as Aristotle. SI and SM as we think of them today, however, are the result of 2000 years+ of scholarship. They are excellent examples of Socrates' legacy , but not of ideas we can attribute directly to him.

I am working on a paragraph or two that will talk about Socrates legacy, the significance of his being the first “Non-Socratic” philosopher, and how he has influenced Western Thought. (The SM will certainly play into discussion.) I'm doing some research on JSTOR and other journal archives to find solid sources for the article, so any major edits from me won't come for a week or so. Fixer1234 (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks alot for the note, Fixer - and I don't think we're going to have any trouble at all collaborating on Socrates - I'll continue my reply at the talk page - nice to meet you! - Privatemusings (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the message about the "Thoughts" thread on The WikBack, PM. And, as far as I am concerned, everything is fine with us. I was afraid the thread might be misunderstood, but I felt that in time people would get the positive sense of it. I'm just trying to stir up some thoughts in people and, perhaps, post something that might have special meaning to someone. Hope to see you posting again, soon.

Be healthy,

Marc

Michael David (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Plano

My oh my. The original threat seems to have come from Amsterdam, but isn't this interesting. Bstone (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:TOV

I nominated it for deletion. The nomination is at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Threats of violence. This by no means indicate that you are not valued. You contributions are valued. Please feel free to participate in that discussion. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

the Sydney Journal

Hi there, Just thought I'd drop you, and the other sydneysiders who came to the meetup, a line and mention that the first edition of the Dictionary of Sydney's online, peer-reviewed journal is now live.

The Sydney Journal is the first (and most academically rigorous) "product" of the Dictionary. It will be a quarterly publication with a variety of texts from upcoming Dictionary articles and is hosted by UTS E-press. This edition features 4 thematic articles, 6 ethnicities and 5 suburbs - all specifically related to Sydney.

I hope you find it useful and interesting - If nothing else it's essays are eminently referenceable for their corresponding articles here on WP.

Best, Witty Lama 12:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Just replied to you and PM and noticed this. You mean all the loudmouths around the WMF traps are from Sydney?
I hadn't realized. One of my mates at UTS is the head librarian, so I'll mention the journal to her when she returns from her latest euro-junket. Cross referencing is something between global and local is one thing we rave about constantly. I take it this means you'll know Shirley (?) down there as well, so it would be nice to consider how that accessgrid rave on I gave you might attempt to do for the comms of a little group what a librarian does for their info. Congrats on the job. --Simonfj (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

To make sure I understand correctly

Those two other accounts were yours? If so, that might be a great help.

What I hope to do is come up with a list of possible criteria before checking them against known accounts. That should ease some of the possible data dredging biases. So once I have the criteria I hope to test, I can apply them against a sample set of known socks and known non-socks. This shoudl help if these are yours.

And I totally forgot about Cruftbane. There was that whole tiff where he edited the evidence page under Cruftbane. Cool Hand Luke 18:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't previously know why you were blocked. After the MM mess we just went through, it seems like disparate treatment to me. Cool Hand Luke 18:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
ah well I certainly view my block as an odd note in arbcom's behaviour - I would love my 'conviction' to be overturned, but that's a story for another day, probably..... Your understanding is exactly correct - that I operated the 'Petesmiles', 'Purples', and 'Privatemusings' accounts (and all the others mentioned, though several weren't used, and the other 5 have less than 40 edits over a long time period - so probably aren't much use). I hope some good might be able to come of crunching the numbers - my intention was to run two accounts concurrently, with one being used for what little 'wiki-gnoming' I got enjoyment from, and one for discussion which seemed likely to be rather heated. I retired 'Petesmiles' quite a while ago, because I used to have a bunch of 'real world' accounts at other sites under that name, so the pairings of interest may be 'Petesmiles' and 'Purples' - and 'Purples' and 'Privatemusings' - I'm very happy to be entirely open about all of this, so do feel free to ask any questions you might come up with too.... cheers! - Privatemusings (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

WikipediaWeekly/NotWikipediaWeekly

Sounds like I'd be interested in helping out, but I don't really understand what exactly the Notwikipediaweekly is. What do you think of video podcasts? I'm pretty good at those. Mac Davis (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Have a click here - Misplaced Pages:NotTheWikipediaWeekly and have a quick listen - which pretty much explains what we're trying to do - I think a video podcast is a very interesting idea... but have no real idea what it might look like! - any ideas? (ps. the more people involved the better, so thanks for taking a look!) - Privatemusings (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I missed it. I did get your reminder, and I am grateful for it, but I was and will be very busy. When I get a chance, I will attend. Thank you again. --Freiberg, Let's talk!, contribs 01:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to be able to make tomorrow unfortunately, and have a lot if stuff going on in real life that might stop me from participating in the future. ffm 16:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

On this...

Hello, Privatemusings. You have new messages at AGK's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Check out User talk:AGK#Misplaced Pages:NotTheWikipediaWeekly. Regards, Anthøny 18:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

NTWW episode 4

How does my suggested time - Tuesday, March 25, 8:00 PM EDT - work for you? Raul654 (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

G'day raul - just back online after a bit of time on the water.... will head over to the NTWW page now, and drop you a line too..... Privatemusings (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Ummm, i don't want to go to every talk page you just posted the message and fix it, but if you are reccording at 8:00 PM EDT on tuesday, then it is March 26 00:00 UCT. The Placebo Effect (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

To avoid confusion, I suggest you label it as 00:01 UTC. Raul654 (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added a bit more to the 'date and time' section of the wiki page, which hopefully will clarify - I'll leave folk's talk page messages alone for now in the hope that they'll swing by the central location in any case... ah the joys of many timezones! - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a little late for me to attend—I'm in GMT, which effectively means I'd be expected to have a meaningful conversation at midnight—not really possible for me :) I'll probably give this one a miss, in favour of future episodes which (I hope) fall a few hours earlier? Anthøny 18:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Not the Misplaced Pages Weekly

It might be interesting to get some of the most serious of the FRINGE proponents on the show. One of the most hardcore is Martinphi, but he has said he is loathe to give voice interviews. Others appear at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Paranormal/Participants. We also have a large contingent of creationists and intelligent design supporters around. Some of the most serious of course are blocked, but might still be willing to appear, like User: profg, who hosts a radio show here in the US (we know his real name and I am sure we could get ahold of him; However, I would check with Raul654 first since profg is a sort of notorious troll and sock puppet master and meat puppet master and we might stir up trouble by inviting him.). The longterm creationists we retain are more reasonable, like User: Northfox, but still might be interesting to have. In alternative medicine we have many to choose from. I am mostly familiar with homeopathy, although chiropractic has a very large number as well I am told. In homeopathy, probably the most fervent and well spoken is a well known author User:DanaUllman, who is associated with Columbia University I believe. User: Orangemarlin knows of many on other assorted medicine pages I am sure. We probably have a few AIDS denialists as well.

ScienceApologist, who obviously is on the science side of this FRINGE discussion, has repeatedly expressed interest in being interviewed at any time about this issue, by voice or even on video (and has done it several times already). I tried to nudge ScienceApologist to consider your show a few days ago, and maybe he could be encouraged to appear.

One thing you might not know is that it is possible for people with regular phone service, but no Skype, to join in the conversation without much trouble. I am a Skype subscriber, and I can add anyone with a telephone in the US or Canada with no problem. Adding people in Australia, Europe or other parts of the world can also be done with a bit more trouble and expense, depending on who is involved in the show (easiest if you also include a Skype subscriber from the part of the world where the nonSkype user is located, so the nonSkype user can be added with no expense; otherwise per minute charges apply).--Filll (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The momentary interloper yesterday on the Skypecast was me; sorry about that (I just left a similar message explaining my weird appearance and disappearance yesterday on Filll's page -- thought I should do the same here). I misunderstood the nature of the call -- I thought it would be a fishbowl conference with several active participants and perhaps 40 or 50 listeners. Some glitch dropped me off after the effort to join a conference call with the Skypecast. I'm still somewhat new to Misplaced Pages (one year) and tend to listen and lurk for awhile before speaking up, but I'm perfectly happy to listen to recordings after the fact if the live call is really intended only for active participants -- I really don't know how Skypecasts scale for larger audiences. Perhaps the NTWW weekly page could use a little more explanatory text in this regard? I will watch for the next call. You and your regular participants are doing a fabulous job, so thanks for that, I'm learning a lot! I'll keep watch for the next one, perhaps over time I'll get a little less shy about participating. --Sfmammamia (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't be sorry at all! - and it's certainly not so much your misunderstanding, as the fact that you came across the project in its very early stages, when no aspect of what we do is really written in stone (or actually written at all!) - you're most welcome to pop in and listen live - my ideas for how this project could develop include large listening audiences - possibly with 'IM' chat running alongside etc. - I'm hopeful that if we're open to such ideas then they'll evolve organically - that (and the fact that I've got limited time, and am probably a bit lazy!) is also my rationale for not nailing too much down by way of explanation at the wiki page... It'd be great to have you in the room - in the 'audience' or as an active participant if you so wish - nice to meet you, and I look forward to seeing you around! best, Privatemusings (talk) 06:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Note

I'm afraid your query got lost in the shuffle, but I don't have much of an answer for you in any case. I'm not aware of an official position, one way or the other, on whether a checkuser may disclose checks run by a different user. My own feeling would be no--it's up to the checkuser in question to make whatever disclosures he or she deems necessary or proper, and the operation of checkuser is by design and necessity as private as possible. I'm speaking as an ombudsman, but not for the committee nor for the Foundation. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks heaps for your response, Mackensen - and I'm very pleased that my question has been addressed (I've received other responses privately too - which is great - I'll try and bring something together before too long....). More than one checkuser indicated to me that this was a policy question about which they were unsure - and I think the key bit here really is "it's up to the checkuser in question to make whatever disclosures he or she deems necessary or proper" - which tallies with what I perceive as practice.

To be very clear - it is my understanding therefore that if an individual checkuser wishes to inform an editor about any checks run on an account, including details of rationales given, the identity of the checkuser, and the date / time of the check, then that would not be prohibited by the privacy policy - but a strong reason would be required to overcome the expectation that all checkuser information be kept as private as possible.

Thanks once again for engaging - and would it be ok with you to copy your comments to a centralised location for discussion at some point? - I think that would be useful! - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi and Thanks (for all the Fish)

Just made a note over on Liams user page. It'll give you some idea what I'm cooking. Not the nine O'clock news approach eh? That's real nice.

Yep, am in oz. Don't know Liam but he's a short trip to town so we'll meet up one of these days; as I will on Skype with you, when a few more things are in place. Like John Snow I'm more comfortable writing than talking but give us both a bit of time to get our heads around the new habits. Am a bit surprised you and Liam wouldn't just collabrate on the same platform, rather than splitting the effort. But the idea I've mention to him is more about looking at a bigger picture and working towards a common platform which can support it. No doubt you're talking anyway.

All I can ask is that you two might chose a forum type place where a common listener can have a talk. Wikback yo know but I'm across lots of other project's silos; inside and outside of institutions. Just tell me where so we can get the wiki enamoured focussing on the same page ocassionally. My best. --Simonfj (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC) PS. Jay Walsh is the man whose head needs to turn, and Kul would get the most benefit when it does.

I would hope that the Misplaced Pages:NotTheWikipediaWeekly page is a good central location for anyone to edit / contribute any ideas at all - or even just to post their own conversations / collaborations - and I'll drop Jay a line to see if he might be available to come and join a chat... I'm in Sydney too - so if heads get together at some point I'll be happy to pop along, and of course you're most welcome to join a 'NotTheWikipediaWeekly' chat at any time (as is everyone!) - thoughts for developing the structure of that page are most welcome - and I'd also be happy to explain the benefits as I've found them so far of using 'skypecasts' - which technically should allow for up to 100 people to participate in a conversation, hosted by a single user (typically with 3 or 4 people discussing something at any one time, and all others able to indicate whether they're happy to listen, or would like to speak... it's actually pretty cool stuff......)

Good to hear from you Simon - and unfortunately I won't be able to chat on wikback for a while, having copped a month's ban there recently.... :-( - my skype ID is my username here, so do feel free to drop me a message any time if you'd like a quick chat. best, Privatemusings (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Future show ideas

There are so many ideas for things to discuss I thought I would put longer term and larger topics here so I do not lose track of them. Some of these are big enough, if the right guests can be invited, an entire show might be devoted to each of these.--Filll (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the ideas, Filll - and have mentioned the idea at GTB's talk page previously, and will do so again.... I think the talk page is a good location for discussion about ideas etc. - the more people willing to get involved at this stage, the better, I reckon... - Privatemusings (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

NTWW template

See Template:NTTW-subscription. I've put it on the community portal. Raul654 (talk) 04:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

good stuff! - now we need a fancy logo and an RSS feed....! Privatemusings (talk) 04:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not funny

This is not funny. Masquerading as Jimbo, on Giano's page, is wrong. It is more than wrong. I am extremely, terribly disappointed in you for having done this. I believe you owe Giano an apology, at a minimum, and probably Jimbo too - and quite possibly the community as a whole, as that page is watchlisted by an awful lot of people. Cut it out. Risker (talk) 06:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, I think you're right. I am sorry - I'll go delete those things with my tail between my legs. Sorry folks... move along..... Privatemusings (talk) 06:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh, and you pretended to be Giano on Jimbo's page??? Oh PM... Risker (talk) 06:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
messages crossed in cyberspace.... one at your talk.... Privatemusings (talk) 06:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Check your email where I have explained some of my concerns in a more detailed, and possibly more diplomatic way. Risker (talk) 06:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

<-- to any lurkers / onlookers - I hope there's really not a big huge deal here - just a silly april fool's post or two, a pretty prompt clean up, and we all went home without anyone losing an eye... phew! Privatemusings (talk) 10:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well *I* thought it was funny. Except for the part about how Jimbo ought to actually give serious consideration to doing something like that. ++Lar: t/c 16:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Inviting guests for interviews

I am frantically inviting friends to come and talk to us. Some might be suitable for a general discussion on lots of topics. Some might even want to come back! Some might have enough to say that we could spend a lot of time on just them. I have a few that have shown interest so far. And as you can see, GTBacchus has even bought himself a headset! Maybe I should make a list someplace of those who have expressed interest.--Filll (talk) 11:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussions by banned editors

I just listened to your conversation with the banned users. There were a number of things I felt should have been addressed. At one point (in file #1) Somey claims that Misplaced Pages Review is a open forum, so that people can freely converse with little or no censorship. (I'm paraphrasing, but that was the gist of it). It is, of course, a bald-faced lie. Just ask user:Grace Note (aka, user:Dr Zen). He was banned from the site when he exposed the fact that WikipediaReview's founder, Igor Alexander, was in fact Alex Linder, a neo-nazi, and his postings and evidence were deleted. You probably didn't know that, because they don't like to talk about that much. WR feels that no-holds-barred with OK when dealing with Misplaced Pages or its editors, but they are very touchy when confronted with the truth about their own actions.

I don't know all the circumstances behind it, but the article Moulton mentioned (the 'founder' of the affective computing field) was Rosalind Picard. Long story short - in the US, there's this thing called the discovery institute, a creationist front that exists to market the idea that evolution is a "theory in crisis" and that creationism is right. They put together a petition called A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. That petition is a professional embarrassment to every academic (I use the term loosely) who signed it - and rightfully so. So anyway, Ms. Rosalind Picard signed it, and now (presumably) doesn't want this fact known. Moulton, who works with her, was trying to censor this fact from her article, and the members of the ID wikiproject (including Filll) - who have to deal with these attempts to whitewash the truth on a daily basis - weren't particularly thrilled. That's what led to the troubles he described. In other words, it's all his fault and he brought it all on himself.

MyWikiBiz noted that he drew inspiration for his pay-me-to-edit-your-article buisness from Misplaced Pages:Bounty board and Misplaced Pages:Reward board. I'd like to point out that both of these articles state, very explicitly, that all donations are made to the Misplaced Pages Foundation, not the person doing the editing. Being paid to edit an article absolutely clear-cut conflict of interest, and if he says he didn't think it was, he's a fool or he's lying.

You said in the podcast that you are a "technical ignoramus". I am not - I'm rather knowledgeable about about computers and how they work. Wordbomb claimed in the podcast that the spyware he sent Slimvirgin was no different than any commercially available cookie. This is a complete untruth. If he was sending someone a link to a file on a server on which he had access to webserver logs (the http access log at /var/log/httpd) there would be no need for any client-side script -- he could simply check the log. Now, let's say he attached it the files to the email instead (so that he was sending the files themselves instead of a link to them) -- most (all?) email clients provide a utility for the sender of an email to request a return receipt (see this for example). It's equivalent to sending certified mail. What he sent - a surreptitious program that dials home to a mother server when the email it is attached to is accessed - is spyware by any definition.

The discussion with all of these people tended to focus heavily on the reasons surrounding their initial bans (and highly biased descriptions thereof) while glancing over their numerous misdeeds since. Also (and these would have been good points to put towards Somey) there was one cases on WR where MyWikiBiz ranted at length about one or two socks that were absolutely not his, and that these were clearly good users who had been swept up by overzealous admins. When I checkusered them later, it turned out they were sockpuppets belonging to Jon Awbrey (another banned user/wikipedia review participant) impersonating MyWikiBiz. And while it's conceivable he didn't know and thus wasn't lying, I thikn he was lying and I take anything they say with with a large grain of salt. It would have been nice of you to ask Somey about the real-world harassment that Misplaced Pages Review has spawned. In one case, a member there (almost certainly Lir) reported user:Snowspinner (an admin and english major in Florida) to police because of fictional stories (admittedly violent ones) he had put on his personal website. The police harassed Snowspinner, demanded he voluntarily be fingerprinted, threatened to search his garbage, etc, until Cory Doctorow made a lot of noise about it; in another case, user:Katefan0 (a very good editor and generally a very nice person) was outed as a worker for Congressional Quarterly, and had to quit because of possible bad-effects on her job. Of course, I expect Somey would give some idiotic answer along the lines of 'these are the acts of individual Misplaced Pages review participants and can't be used to judge the whole site', but frankly, WR encourages these acts and I consider all participants there to be either actively or tacitly guilty of fostering harassment. Raul654 (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

PS - just one more follow up to the above. This touches on both censorship of facts WR is touchy about and real world harassment. You should ask them about Andrew Morrow (aka, Amorrow). He's another fine example of the high quality oversight that WR does. Raul654 (talk) 04:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There are two errors in my above comments I'd like to clarify - Wordbomb contacted me to let me know that it was an <img src> tag, which (as Random832 says below) is equivalent to the first thing I described - a link to a file on a sever to which he has access to the logs. This is not how it was described to me originally, nor how it was described in the podcast, but regardless, it's a mistake on my part. It's not quite as bad a thing as I had heard, but it's still a dirty thing to do. Second, Misplaced Pages:Reward board does, in fact, allow monetary payments to an editor as a reward for editing an article. However, most people would agree that being paid by another editor to improve an article he/she likes is not a conflict of interest (or at worst a pretty small one), whereas being paid by the subject of the article to improve it clearly is a very big conflict of interest. Raul654 (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I do, for the record, agree that the use of a web bug is not appropriate for a personal e-mail to someone who has not consented to being tracked in such a way - the difference (if WordBomb is reading this) between this and a commercial e-mail is that when it is used in a commercial e-mail, the recipient has either (A) consented to it by opting in to the mailing or (B) if not, this is considered an underhanded spammer tactic and not considered appropriate in any case. --Random832 (contribs) 15:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thanks for having a listen - and taking the time for the above, Raul - I'll certainly bring much of the above stuff up if we do move towards another conversation - I don't really have a response personally, because I'm still digesting some of it - the issues have seemed so clouded to me, and I'm hoping to bring stuff out into the open - really just on the basis that 'it's good to talk...' - I don't expect everyone to be heading off fishing together for a weekend anytime soon - but if any of the problems at all have been exacerbated by folk talking past one another maybe this will help a bit - and if underneath it all there's some value there, then well - that'd be great.... Privatemusings (talk) 06:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It was interesting to hear how Moulton is now presenting his "case" to outsiders. Amazing how different it seems to be than the facts, and even statements he himself has made in writing, which can be discovered with a little bit of digging. Anyone interested can look at a little tiny bit of the problem by looking at his RfC, but this barely scratches the surface; I only put as much in his RfC as was necessary to deal with this problem, and did not put in everything I could have. Since others have no particular reason to doubt Moulton or investigate his situation, he can maintain this story to them and get some sort of hearing, but it does not square with reality. However, I would ask the rational person to listen carefully to even what Moulton claims in that interview; the evidence that something is wrong is presented right in the interview if you pay attention.--Filll (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Even if his manner of making his point wasn't always optimal, he did have a point; the Picard article, as it was when he first started editing it, was very much a "coatrack" article; it had only a brief sentence about her before launching into a long dissertation about her signing the "criticism of Darwinism" petition and what that supposedly signified. Somewhere between that position of giving a disproportionate weight to the petition over all else in her life and career, and Moulton's apparently desired state of suppressing all mention of the fact that she signed it, is a reasonable middle ground (and I think the current state of the article does a better job at this). *Dan T.* (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well even on this issue, you cannot take a quick glance and make up your mind based on almost no information. Actually, Picard's article was of substantial length for most of its existence up until a few days before Moulton appeared. The section associated with the New York Times report was short by comparison to the main body of the article.

However, the writing of most of the article was sophomoric and overly obsequious. It also appeared to be an example of plagiarized material, possibly drawn from some autobiography, and unsuitable for an encyclopedia. So someone removed it, possibly to rework it. It might also have been removed and no text substituted for it because it was some act of vandalism, or some other reason.

This is the situation that exists on most of Misplaced Pages; if one does not like it, that is unfortunate but that is a fundamental part of its character. The very same people that demand that Misplaced Pages be available to anyone and changeable by anyone are also the same people who complain when this situation leads to inaccurate or biased material or vandalism. Basically, you cannot have it both ways. And they want to throw tantrums because they want it both ways.

The article had not been the subject of serious attention from experienced editors. It was frankly a bit of a mess. Then Moulton came and demanded a number of unreasonable things. Which we could not do, although we tried to accommodate him at first. And then it started to appear that he was just running some sort of experiment to try to see how irritating he could be to observe and record our responses, so he could write articles about us. He did not cooperate or show any evidence of being able to work in this sort of collaborative environment. And so, he was blocked.--Filll (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


Um... Raul - SlimVirgin has actually posted the spyware code that she was sent by WordBomb. It was an <img> tag and nothing more. It is what is commonly known as a web bug. It was precisely "a link to a file on a server on which he had access to webserver logs", and there was no "client-side script", and he did "simply check the log". --Random832 (contribs) 15:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Why let facts get in the way of a good Two Minute Hate? *Dan T.* (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's see - on the one side, good editors like Katfan0 being trolled into quitting. On the other, we editors like Jon Awbrey and Moulton whose "productivity" can be measured in the amount of time and effort required to repair the damage they do. Which one should we be partial to? Hrm... not a hard one. Raul654 (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
You're continuing to be fact-deficient. Jon Awbrey was not in the podcast in question, and to the best of my knowledge had no involvement in the Katefan0 incident. I don't believe any of the podcast participants, banned or otherwise, were involved in the Katefan0 matter. Thus, it's a red herring. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you pretending to be ignorant, or does it just come naturally? The argument I made was quite clear - why is Misplaced Pages Review bad? Well, let's see. Moulton tried to remove facts (sourced to a NY times article) about a colleague of his because those facts made her look bad. Other people had to undo his "contributions". Hence, his productivity can only be measured in the amount of time other - good contributors - have to spend cleaning up his mess. And this is not true only of Moulton - it applies to any number of other banned WR contributors, who good users have to come in and clean-up after. On the flip-side, the existence of WR has caused several good editors (Katefan0 among them, but not the only one) to quit. So for those of you keeping score at home, that's 2 ways in which WR is demonstrably bad for Misplaced Pages, and 0 ways in which it is good. Raul654 (talk) 18:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you pretending to make personal attacks in violation of WP:NPA, or does it just come naturally? You have been caught in quite a number of factual errors, so why should I or anybody accept your biased spin on WR and its participants? There's more than one side to every story. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The fact that you didn't read my comment carefuly and mistakenly thought I said Jon Awbrey was responsible for Katefan0 leaving is your error, not mine. Read more carefully in the future. I did make two error in my initial post - (1) saying that Wordbomb used spyware when it wasn't spyware per se (but a devious way of spying on another person nonetheless), and (2) that both the reward board and bounty board are for donations to the foundation (one is, the other is not).
Meanwhile, since I see you didn't actually respond to my above points (that WR trolls are not productive editors, but that they cause more work for other editors cleaning up their idiocy, and that that WR fosters harassment of good contributors and causes them to leave) I'll take your non-reply as acceptance of the fact that they are true and you cannot rebut them. Raul654 (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
That last paragraph; you are asking for someone to prove a negative or absence - and also using the subjective term good as regarding contributors (EssJay - or whatever his username was - such a valuable contributor...) No wonder you don't get replies, except those pointing out the gaps in your logic - but then any such response is likely to have been created by a WR "meme" and is thus to be disregarded. How convenient. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC) (oh, and how nice to be able to post within minutes of PM alerting the community that he is active.)
active may be a relative term...! but I'm here and reading... g'day LHvU - Privatemusings (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not *asking* him anything, let alone to prove a negative. I am stating that his (Dtobias's) reply to my comment above completely ignored the substance of that comment, and that his non-responsive reply underscores the hollowness of his claims. A straw-man argument does not a substantive reply make.
As far as labeling editors good or bad - I'm going to go way out on a limb and say that editing that causes you to be blocked is probably not good editing. And the particulars of Moulton's case - censoring true-but-embarrassing facts about a colleague of his, published in the New York Times - illustrate this clearly. And as for Essjay - nobody has ever shown single bad article-namespace edit or admin/bureaucrat/checkuser action he ever took, despite (I'm sure) many attempts to find them if they exist. Raul654 (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm supposed to give a substantive response to a message that opens with a personal attack on me? I find your messages to be nothing but attacks and straw-man arguments, not really worthy of being dignified with responses, but with regard to Moulton, the state of the article prior to when he started editing it was a clear "coatrack" consisting mostly of a long diatribe about the petition regarding evolution vs. intelligent design, so it's understandable that he objected to this state of affairs, though removing all mention of the petition was an overreaction. And assuming that because somebody was blocked this proves they did bad things is a circular argument that could be used to justify even the most unfair block... they're blocked, therefore they're bad. *Dan T.* (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
First, as to Moulton it would have been much more productive and ultimately beneficial to readers if he had chosen to expand the article rather than censoring facts he didn't like. We we have unbalanced artices, the obviously correct thing to do is to add more content to balance them out, not remove content because it's unpleasant.
As to the above, Frankly, I don't care if you think there were personal attacks above or not. I've already demolished every claim you've put forth, and unlike you, I've supported mine with facts rather than playing logical gymnastics in the absence of them.
As to your latest logical contortion, each block has to be justifiable on its own merits. Nobody can go to ANI and justify a block by saying "I blocked him, therefore that makes him bad". And given that rather inconvenient fact, your claim of circular reasoning vanishes. Users are blocked for their individual bad behavior, and if you look at the contributions of those who get blocked - Wonder of wonders! - you'll find that virtually all of them were behaving badly. In fact, we can even go a step farther and find this out for ourselves using the block log. I went there, and looked at the last 5 people blocked:
Now, I suppose we could play your game and debate the relative merits of replacing the Empire state building article with 'what what in the butt.' and further debate the subjectivity calling that a good or bad edit. But in reality, where the rest of us live, that's vandalism, it's bad behavior, and that user is creating more work for people who have to clean it up. Just like the people on WR do.

Raul654 (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry? Did you just say that WR was wrong to out Essjay as someone who fabricated their real life identity and benefited from a spurious authority derived from their misrepresentations on the basis that he replicated passages from (as memory holds) "Catholicism for Dummies" and other sources reasonably accurately, and managed not to hold insane positions in discussions? That mindset seriously weakens any legitimate concerns regarding some of WR's participants (being one of them, I know of what I speak) actions relating to Misplaced Pages's content, appearing as being too biased to recognise that well considered criticism is a useful tool in building the encyclopedia. I realise that you will never admit to WR providing "well considered" criticism, but then you have likely never tried diving for the pearls that may be found there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
(semi outdent) G'day back at ya, PM! LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Moulton had his chance to work collaboratively, as you can see here, which he rejected. Moulton can still fulfil his goal by doing what I told him to do at the start, Durova told him to do, and numerous other editors and admins told him to do. It is not rocket science; it is pretty easy rather than just whining and complaining.
We have to assume Moulton is happy with how these biographies are, since he has so far declined to do what he has to do to change them. However, Moulton and others are not welcome to use this platform to broadcast libellous material made out of whole cloth, defaming the New York Times and the Discovery Institute without reliable sources; they can attempt to do that on their own sites, if they feel so inclined.
I haven't heard one reasonable answer to my challenge about the man and his coauthor wife; that is a real example. Rather than just talk in generalities, why not solve a real problem? Well I think I know why; it is easier to just criticize people's actions on a theoretical basis, because the actual practical issues are far far uglier and dirtier and messier, and these problems are more ambiguous.--Filll (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Apparently, your line of "logic" goes something like: (1) Some people have made idiotic edits, like replacing the Empire State Building article with "what what in the butt". (2) These people sometimes get blocked or banned for it. (3) Therefore, anybody who is blocked or banned most likely did something of the order of replacing the Empire State Building with "what what in the butt". (4) Anybody who posts on WR most likely is blocked or banned, or ought to be. (5) Therefore, WR is full of people who like to replace the Empire State Building with "what what in the butt". (6) Thus, WR is completely useless and worthless. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


Well, I cannot speak about any purported spyware. However, I can certainly state that what I heard out of Moulton and others speaking on Moulton's behalf (was it Somey?) was just nonsense. And I stand by what I said about the rules. The rules are there for a purpose: they are not there to cause trouble, but to minimize the chance of trouble. Should we abandon NPOV? Should we abandon NOR? Should we allow any editor, such as Moulton, to invent material for the encyclopedia, to pursue whatever agenda he has? Should we let Moulton write that other organizations are fraudulent, and place it on our website, with no proof of this? Is this his ethics?

Let's consider a real example (that recently came up). Suppose someone has coauthored 10 books with their wife. And suppose that they also wrote 10 books on their own, and on this second group of 10 books, their wife is not listed as a coauthor. All 20 of these books are listed on their own website, for sale, and on various other websites, with the authorship list for each book listing either the person, or the person and his wife. All of these websites and descriptions of these 20 books agree with each other. Suppose that in interviews, this person mentioned that his wife had coauthored some of his books, and that this person listed this coauthorship in his autobiography.

So in their biography on Misplaced Pages, we state that this person has coauthored some of his books with his wife. And then this person contacts WP, using the OTRS system, and threatens to sue Misplaced Pages for mentioning his wife was a coauthor of some of his books. He wants us to mention that he wrote all the books himself and his wife was not involved.

What do we do? Do we just state something that is contrary to more than a dozen reliable sources, which all agree with each other? Do we state something for which we have not a single source except a private email purportedly from the subject of the biography (but of course we do not know for sure)? Is this the kind of ethics that the "Misplaced Pages Review" people want us to follow? Is this the "proper journalism" these "Misplaced Pages Review" people want us to follow? Do we just make things up, which might make this person who sent us the email happy (if they really are the person they claim to be, that is, the subject of the biography, since of course the exchange is by email and we really do not know who is contacting us)?

This simple example is very similar to what Moulton and some of his supporters are asking for (you want more? Just read the RfC in this case). Where would it leave Misplaced Pages to be open to any edit by anyone who shows up and demands to write unsourced content with no references and no reliable sources, contrary to our existing sources? Where would that leave "ethics" and "standards for good journalism" and "encyclopedic content" ? It might make Moulton happy, but in that case, I think everyone can agree that the cure might be worse than the disease.

Of course, when no one is checking your claims, and you are leaving out all kinds of important details, someone like Moulton can make himself sound credible. However, when one looks at this a bit closer, the entire carefully constructed edifice just falls apart. Into nonsense.--Filll (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Moulton came to me shortly after his siteban and sought assistance. He presented himself very well and I opened an administrators' noticeboard thread to ask whether we might have made a mistake in his case. The long and short of it is that we need some verifiable source in order to change an article passage that is already cited to The New York Times. The subject of the biography has not complained. With Moulton's qualifications he should not have difficulty publishing his contentions in a reliable source. If he does so then, banned or not, I'd be willing to update relevant Misplaced Pages articles with the citation.
Regarding WordBomb, I occasionally mentor editors at Commons after they've been sitebanned from Misplaced Pages. (Privatemusings already knows this because I mentored him there during his ban and he did quite well!) Some of the comments at the AN discussion ask for positive evidence that he could adapt to our community. The same offer goes here: if he'd like to try Commons and things work out, that could give the Misplaced Pages community a track record to consider. If things don't work out there I'll take the responsibility for that myself. Durova 17:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Misplaced Pages:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Episode 6

Misplaced Pages:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Episode 6, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Episode 6 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Misplaced Pages:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Episode 6 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Probation violation

Because your edit was an indisputably good edit, I chose not to report it on the arbitration enforcement board, but please be aware that according to the arbitration request you are "subject to an editing restriction indefinitely. prohibited from editing any article that is substantially a biography of a living person." Heather Mills is a living person. You are not permitted to edit her article. Beyond that, she is a controversial living person involved in a dramatic court case - the same kind of person your restriction was initially based on. Please refrain from editing these articles per the terms of your probation. Thanks. Archfailure (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The edit was removing defamatory material... and haven't various strong proponents of WP:BLP often proclaimed that doing so takes precedence over all other rules and policies? *Dan T.* (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Ha! I'd love to see an admin block over that edit. Please take your trolling elsewhere. ➪HiDrNick! 17:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The biography of living persons policy trumps all. Any unsourced contentious content is removed without waiting for discussion. PM did the correct thing here. For PM to report it, would be equivalent to waiting for discussion. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Editing is the adding or removal of text which effects the consensually agreed content. Vandalism is not editing, and therefore removing vandalism is also not editing (it is termed removing vandalism.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Not to be contrary, but this edit, while fully unconstructive, adverse to our policies on NPOV and our guidelines on tone, is not vandalism. As I believe you know, Vandalism is "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages." (emph. in orig.) In fact, "test" edits are not considered vandalism - vandalistic edits require that one be acting in bad faith - specifically "adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated." PM is not permitted to remove or restate such, as he is not permitted to edit articles about living individuals. Additionally, if PM intended to alledge he was "removing vandalism," there are a series of steps he should have taken after removing said vandalism - he did not warn the user, and he did not mark the edit as minor. In summary, said edit, however rightful it was, however justified it was under WP:BLP, and all else, was expressly prohibited by PM's probation. If he would like to apply for a modification to that probation allowing him to make good edits to living persons biography, I would have no comments on that application, but untill such time, he is not permitted to edit biographies of living people. Archfailure (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Arch, no administrator will block PM for removing BLP violations. Simple. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
That is clearly vandalism - I would have RV'd that as vandalism, and left a vandalism/BLP warning in a heartbeat for that if I had found it. Lawrence § t/e 19:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I asked the Arbs

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification:_User:Privatemusings. Seems more efficient than just circling around here. Lawrence § t/e 19:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

a gust in a tea cup

..is how I'd characterise the above - I honestly feel very differently about content editing compared to simple reversions, and have taken my arbcom sanction to refer to the former. I've only got a few BLPs on my watchlist, so hopefully this won't be a big deal going forward.... moving on... Privatemusings (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

suggestion

Put together a "censored edition" of Episode 6 which leaves out the banned users (i.e. keep only the chat with Somey), and then "For the full uncensored version of this episode, click here" with a link to your gallery on Commons. --Random832 (contribs) 16:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

just got up....

and I have a cup of tea, and have read through most of the comments about the recent 'view from the review' conversation - I will respond substantively to the comments above in due course, and thank the folk who took the time to come here and make their points.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

..and I'm up again! - didn't get the chance to respond yesterday - and I see there's been a bit of discussion above - I'm kinda moving on myself, into thinking about how best to facilitate an appropriate response - both to articulate some of the above, and also to keep the momentum heading in a good direction. While I'm cogitating, I'm probably not going to respond 'in-line' to the posts above, because I'm not sure it would help - but if you do want something answered personally, then do feel free to drop a note below - further comments above are also most welcome, and most certainly will be read.... cheers. Privatemusings (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)