Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) at 16:30, 28 June 2008 (→Wow: BtW, T2 (inappropriate crypticity)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Archive 1 - epoch — July 7, 2007 Archive 2 - July — Nov 25, 2007 Archive 3 - Nov 25, 2007 — March 6, 2008 Archive 4 - March 6, 2008 — June 1, 2008

RfAr

I've replied there btw. dorftrottel (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw, and reviewed, but ran out of time to act. I'll get back to it sometime soonish. John Vandenberg 23:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No hurry, I suppose, just my usual impatience... :) dorftrottel (talk) 06:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

OTOH, see here. If you still think it's a useful idea, it should be done soon so that any potential response can be evaluated and weigh into the proposed and final decision. dorftrottel (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As one final precaution, I've discussed your suggestion with an arb, and they didnt see a problem. Im just about to head out of the office now; I'll do it in an hour when I get home. John Vandenberg 10:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Good to hear. dorftrottel (talk) 10:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and good idea imo with the dedicated Workshop section. I hope you don't mind my amendment according to my explanation here that comments by the parties regarding the evidence presented against their own behaviour are the most valuable and should be specifically asked for. dorftrottel (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw, and it was good. John Vandenberg 23:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot problems

It's patrolling outside article space, and I don't see any connection between the bot's actions and the whitelist. DS (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the problem with letting it patrol any userspace edits made by the users themselves is that it's marking-as-patrolled userspace spam. This makes me uncomfortable. DS (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The bot no longer autopatrols user/user talk on enWP. John Vandenberg 22:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource upload

Hi again, John. I've uploaded a similar document to the one you helped me with some time ago, here. I've also uploaded it to Commons here. I wrote up a summary on Wikisource here, but am not sure how to match it up with the uploaded file like you did for the other file I uploaded previously (this one: B-23). Can you take a look and tell me what I need to do? Thanks for any help you can provide. Parsecboy (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

ENCA

Dear sir,

could you take of the speed deletion from ENCA.

I believe that ENCA is enough to have an own article in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuleote (talk • contribs) 10:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If you believe that, find good quality reliable sources to prove it to the rest of us. John Vandenberg 10:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Your second welcome

Thanks for welcoming me here as well! Stratford490 (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your comment and clarification. It is much appreciated. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It occurs to me to ask this question, based on the initial warning that I got from ChrisO here : Am I to understand that the Arbitration committee regarding the Israel-Palestine Conflict area has recently passed some rules allowing administrators more leeway to discipline editors in that area? Is it also my understanding that they are supposed to come out with some report about this any day now? Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy, the Arbitration Committee has imposed what it calls a "general sanctions" regime on that and a number of other topic areas. See Misplaced Pages:General sanctions. In general, what it means in practice is that administrative action may be triggered sooner and more robustly than might be the case in non-sanctioned topic areas. I'm not aware of any report being produced on it. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, thanks for your comments at my talk page. I have decided to come to you a little early in light of what is happening now at the Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah page. I have tried to stay away and edit other things, and indeed I have done so , though I can't help but look in now and again. It appears that the edit which MZMcBride said demonstrated that I could not productively contribute, ie this one, has held for the last 6 days and has not been substantively changed . The argument has moved on. In light of this & in light of a number of positive unsolicited comments by other editors here , concerning the value of my contributions to this article; and in light this argument by Elonka , who was/is moderating the page, and in light of the new bans placed on other editors, namely ChrisO & Julia1987 -- it seems to me that the sanctions placed on me (3 months for both the article and its Talk page) are uniquely heavy.

Considering that as of tomorrow I would have had a week off from the article itself, I would ask that at least the Talk: be opened to me now as a token of good faith and as a matter of fairness. I would very much appreciate your thoughts. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been following Tundrabuggy's progress, and have been very pleased with what he has accomplished. He has made some excellent contributions to other articles, and based on the improvements at his userpage, is working hard at understanding the culture and improving his communication style. If you have no objections, Jayvdb, I'd like to see Tundrabuggy resume participation at the Muhammad al-Durrah talkpage, and then if things go smoothly after that, I'll look into allowing him back to editing the article as well. --Elonka 04:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the talk page ban should be lifted. Go for it. John Vandenberg 04:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone involved. I will try to not to disappoint you. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the list. I appreciate the opportunity to work on some of those subjects. Tundrabuggy (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for Semi-Protection From Anons

Hi. I'd like to ask you for semi-protection of two articles, Sheylanli and Minkend, from editing by anons. There are many IP's which teamed up for edit warring on those articles as you have blocked one. They don't give any useful summary for their edits, and the materials they add is inappropriate for the articles. I've observed that they push registered users into edit war and got them blocked on violation of 3 reverts rule. Thank you. Gülməmməd 07:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I have semi-protected one, and full protected the other, both for a duration of two weeks. Hope that helps. John Vandenberg 12:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitely that will help. Thanks once again. Gülməmməd 14:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

White listing

Hi there great idea having a bot automatically patrol the elite editors and contributors. I was wondering if you could extend the same courtest to User:EJF who is an active and able contributor. PLease see his contributions and then make a decision cheers ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ 13:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the discussion to User talk:JVbot/patrol whitelist. John Vandenberg 21:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Rivers

Hi, thanks for all of your past help on the Rivers page. I've only been adding things in patches these past few months because my time has mostly been taken up with university and research for his biography but I have added an 'extensive' bibliography. A little too extensive I fear. Is there any way to create a new page for it? I'm not good with technical stuff :-P Thank you! --Pudupudu (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC) --- Sorry to message again. I copied the list to wikisource, should I delete it from here and what should I write in its place? --Pudupudu (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving the list to Wikisource is a good idea. The usual practise is to include on Misplaced Pages a smaller bibliography, including only the more influential works. John Vandenberg 22:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Lrr06.jpg

I've tagged this Image:Lrr06.jpg because it's missing the fair use rationale. I would have added a rationale had the source been somewhere on the image page. Cheers Kevin (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The image was at the URL provided by the article. Sorry, I am at work at present. John Vandenberg 02:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added the boilerplate rationale with your link. Kevin (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Tool Newsletter

Speedy Deletion Tag on Israelinsider article

Not sure how to deal with this (see my talk page and the history). Running off for a few hours now. Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I already handled it. Tundrabuggy's stub was inappropriately tagged and then deleted within 60 seconds of creation (even though it had sources, an assertion of notability, and was being linked to from multiple other articles). I have had a word with both the tagger and the deleting admin, and the stub has been restored. --Elonka 17:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, I disagree. Please see my comments on Elonka's talk page. I am reverting the {{nn}} tag, as it expresses my belief that the site is probably not notable, but gives everyone time to work out the issues without going (yet) to the formal AfD. I believe that AfD is the avenue of last resort, and we aren't to that pont yet, and may not get there at all. But that is yet to be seen. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource and 1911EB template

Can you help? Would like to try and get people to use wikisource in addition to attribution templates when copying in large chunks of PD stuff. Some discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Plagiarism. Carcharoth (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Before you try to get other people to use Wikisource, I strongly recommend that you try it yourself. John Vandenberg 22:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Were you serious about the "5 hours" thing? My entry into all that plagiarism stuff was because of an ANI thread about someone copying (with minimal rewriting) some botanical website. That turned out to be copyrighted, but the "minimal rewriting" stuff led to accusations of plagiarism, which led me to invite people to this discussion. I'm now looking at User:Magnus Manske/Dictionary of National Biography and wondering if it is worth doing anything with that, or where one would start? Those are actually short enough entries that they would only be the basis of a stub and pretty much worked up and rewritten with only a little bit of effort. More relevant, it would seem, would be the full text of a PD copy of the DNB. Let me see if the wikisource search engine works... wikisource:Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900. Hmm. That's a lot of redlinks. When (not if!) I register an account (I should already have a SUL "reservation"), where is the best place to go to learn the ropes and ask questions such as where effort is best directed? Carcharoth (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Five hours is a worst case scenario; for you, it should be less than an hour to get up to speed.

DNB00 is a freshly minted project, started by a newcomer at that; you should start by creating an EB1911 article in order to stand on the shoulder of giants. I will take the time to assist you once you log onto Wikisource with your SUL account, and poll me on my talk page over there. Or, come onto #wikisource which is a nice quiet environment unlike its wikipedia equivalent. You might even need to yell a bit in order to attract someones attention. John Vandenberg 01:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I hadn't forgotten this. It might take me until next week now, but, like Commons, wikisource is one of those projects where I definitely want to get more involved. I would ask you to nag me if I forget, but I really should remember myself as I've been mulling over a few things but without the time to follow them up. Carcharoth (talk) 01:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Electrical Experimenter

Hi, I got a note a few months about about collecting Electrical Experimenters. Sounds exciting. Are they in the public domain now? I don't have any issues, but I have Xerox copies of the Nikola Tesla articles and a few others. DonPMitchell (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied at User_talk:DonPMitchell#Electrical Experimenter. John Vandenberg 17:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Login

Here are me, I'm user Vatrena ptica. I'm anonymus user, I only add interwikies.--Vatrena ptica (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for saying hello! John Vandenberg 16:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource account

Um, I hadn't actually created an account. It seems the SUL software finally got around to kicking me off Misplaced Pages, and forcing me to log back in again, thus creating the SUL account. Please do forgive me if I seem to be off doing other stuff. I haven't forgotten my promise. Keep updating the section and I'll get there eventually. Carcharoth (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the software is telling your something. ;-) John Vandenberg 12:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow

You have some nerve. Discussion of a fundamental change in the way in which the community operates is "clogging up a notice board". I find your dismissal of such concerns to be deeply offensive. Guettarda (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It was not in reply to you. Close case notices on AN usually only attract a few comments, usually to clear up a few things. As you say, and FT2 has pointed out, this is a fairly radical departure from the normal case, and I fully expect lots of discussion. I am not trying to prevent it. I was merely suggesting that the standard practise is to discuss cases on the talk page, and I wanted to make it plain to everyone that was the case. I'll also go suggest that a VP thread might be useful to look at the broader issues. Surely you can see that this isnt an administrator-centric discussion, and having a very long discussion about this on the noticeboard where administrative notices are posted will clog it up; i.e. having it there will negatively affect normal administrative operations. John Vandenberg 16:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Again - I wasn't the only person disturbed by this major change in policy, so saying "it was not in reply to you" does not lessen its offensiveness. A discussion of a fundamental change in the way that Misplaced Pages operates doesn't belong in the talk page of an RFAR. Your suggestion that is does is offensive. Misplaced Pages isn't an oligarchy run by the arbcomm, much less the clerks. Maybe you've missed that. Guettarda (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I didnt say you were the only person. I didnt dismiss the content of what you or anyone else said. I am not suggesting it isnt a major change in policy. I have already posted twice now to try and clarify that I was only suggesting a change of venue. If you believe it is the right venue, so be it. It was a suggestion, and I think that is quite plain from the bland language I used. If people dont like my suggestions, they usually come up with better ones, and everyone is better of for it. I've clarified what my suggestion is because it seemed to me that you had misinterpreted it, but other that clarifying, I have no interest it pushing the matter.

I hope we meet again on a less glum day. John Vandenberg 17:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The OM case is clearly controversial, and arbcomm is having a hard time getting its story straight. So far we have FT2s posts, and KL repudiating them, and everyone else conselling patience. However, we also have you adding the case to the list of recently closed cases and putting up a note on ANI asserting that FT2's postings do indeed reflect the authority of the arbcomm. I would like to know by what signs you know that this is indeed done by the authority of the arbcomm, and whether you are still comfortable to assert that the OM case closure and result does indeed have consent of the arbcomm William M. Connolley (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)