This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NeilN (talk | contribs) at 13:10, 24 April 2010 (Undid revision 358010370 by Seb az86556 (talk) read, thanks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 13:10, 24 April 2010 by NeilN (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 358010370 by Seb az86556 (talk) read, thanks)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)If you feel that I have reverted an edit or issued a warning in error, please click here and let me know. I am human, and I do make mistakes. Please don't interpret an error on my part as a personal attack on you. It's not, I promise. I ask you to simply bring it to my attention; I am always open to civil discussion. Thank you. NeilN |
Need your help with a disruptive user
Check out the AN/I entry here. Me and several other editors have argued and argued with this person, and the AN/I report seems to have been ignored, so I need your help - Do you know some admins that could get involved? I've already fallen into the trap of reverting him excessively because consensus is against his changes, but the thing is that he's not listening to us, so we can't reason with him. Check out the Tony Hawks Pro Skater 4 article's talk page and you'll see. Eik Corell (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- I've been away for most of the past week. It looks like the situation has calmed down? --NeilN 14:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah a compromise has been reached. My primary concern was about how much coverage something actually needed from reliable sources. The problem is that a lot of video games have remakes or community-driven projects, and on some of the cases, there are only one or two reliable source that have picked up on it, for example mentioning it in a blog post, so when reliable sources address something in a limited capacity, but there are a couple of them, I'm not whether this constitutes coverage in reliable sources or not. Eik Corell (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Justin Bieber article
I can't seem to edit the discussion page of the Bieber article, and you have, so I thought I'd share this with you to add to the talk page. Basically, I think it should be noted in some way that Bieber does not write the majority of his music, as is implied by the article. In fact, most of his most popular songs were written by others, According to the THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS AND PUBLISHERS website (see the list of writers for the song One Time here: http://ascap.com/ace/search.cfm?requesttimeout=300&mode=results&searchstr=750420905&search_in=i&search_type=exact&search_det=t,s,w,p,b,v&results_pp=30&start=1) Songs written by Bieber include Common Denominator and that one about his dad that I forget the name of. Heres a list of more of his songs: http://ascap.com/ace/search.cfm?requesttimeout=300&mode=results&searchstr=JUSTIN%20BIEBER&search_in=a&search_type=exact&search_det=t,s,w,p,b,v&results_pp=30&start=1 Thanks --Saldon (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Wayne Gretzky
Why are you continuing to mislead your readers with the following statement, "the only Slavic language spoken in the family is Ukrainian". You bury the truth,
In the book Gretzky by Jim Taylor and Walter Gretzky (pg.49), "...until Phyllis (Wayne's mother) arrived Mom (Walter Gretzky's mother) couldn't speak English very well, only Polish and Ukrainian....But Mom never forgot her Polish background". Why are you so afraid Wayne Gretzky has Polish ancestry. For goodness sake, put the preceeding line into Wayne's biography, by the "only" statement. Your misleading your readers by not publishing this factual statement! 205.200.39.233 (talk) 10:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, you have me mistaken with someone else as I never made that statement. Here are my edits regarding the matter , . If you wish to discuss these edits please let me know. --NeilN 14:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
ANI notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Jim Bell. Thank you.. Guy (Help!) 19:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. --NeilN 19:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think you have read between the lines with remarkable accuracy :-) Guy (Help!) 20:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Dion Phaneuf
Why can I not write that dion hasnt scored a g oal in his first 22 games in toronto? Also, why is the view of some newspaper columnist any better of a source than the views of myself or others in a forum? We both carry one vote in Presidential ellections. At least in MY country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poiuytrewq9 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Note: user is indef blocked. --NeilN 07:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
References
Further to your request on the help desk, I thought that this might be useful. Chzz ► 22:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
How references work |
---|
Simple referencesThese require two parts;
Chzz is 98 years old.<ref> "The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. </ref> He likes tea. <ref> </ref>
== References == {{reflist}} (an existing article is likely to already have one of these sections) To see the result of that, please look at user:chzz/demo/simpleref. Edit it, and check the code; perhaps make a test page of your own, such as user:NeilN/reftest and try it out. Named referencesChzz was born in 1837, <ref name="MyBook"> "The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. </ref> in Footown.<ref name="MyBook"/> Note that the second usage has a / (and no closing ref tag). This needs a reference section as above; please see user:chzz/demo/namedref to see the result. Citation templatesYou can put anything you like between <ref> and </ref>, but using citation templates makes for a neat, consistent look; Chzz has 37 Olympic medals. <ref> {{Citation | last = Smith | first = John | title = Olympic medal winners of the 20th century | publication-date = 2001 | publisher = ] | page = 125 | isbn = 0-521-37169-4 }} </ref> Please see user:chzz/demo/citeref to see the result. For more help and tips on that subject, see user:chzz/help/refs. |
- Hey, thanks for the template! I think I was answering a question rather than requesting help but the template will be definitely handy to use in the future. Do I subst it or what? --NeilN 23:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Cosby Cwestion
Hi, Neil. Thanks for your note. I'm a bit vague on the policy. At WP:ELNO, the policy disallows "links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services," as this site that sells dissertations does. Is the policy actually less strict for footnote references? I'm not sure that a footnote could link to an Amazon page that sells a book, for example. If you could help me with any clarification or point me to the pertinent cite policy, that would be great. -- Tenebrae (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks — I appreciate you taking the time to help me understand it better. One question, though: The policy seems to be talking about sites that require payment to access. But the site in question (which has a new URL, in any case: http://disexpress.umi.com/, which seems to be referenced again, without a link, in footnote 14) charges to sell you individual theses and dissertations — just as Amazon charges to sell books. Is there a difference I might not be seeing? --Tenebrae (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- I appreciate your collegiality. Boy, that's a tough one. The footnote only really has to verify the title and that he wrote this thesis, and there's a UMass page here that does that.
- But wait ... I just found something that sort of splits things right down the middle. What do you think of this: I found a page a ProQuest (the new name for the UMI repository) that offers a preview — including several of the actual pages — for free. It's here. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Nice of you to say so! I'll go ahead and put it in. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Jim Bell
Could you specify what you wanted me to read? These discussions end up scattered all over the place, so I'm sure I missed something. Wnt (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Basically you'll have to go through the history of the article's talk page and his talk page and read his contribs to ANI and other users' talk pages. Bell wasn't banned for just being uncivil, he was banned for refusing to get the point and not dropping the stick. Plenty of other editors were willing to work with him to fix problems in the article but he just wanted (and still wants) the editors who had prevented him from making his desired edits blocked. --NeilN 01:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ahhh, "Read it" means "I read your comment". --NeilN 01:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that he was breaking some rules and could have gotten banned - what troubles me is that in the block log I don't see a 24-hour block, another 24-hour block, a three-day block, a one-week block, a one-month block etc. I see 67 edits, most of which were not violations of policy - motivated by BLP concerns, yet - and then an indefinite ban. I am also rather appalled because I've just seen a sourced article speedy-deleted as an "attack article" -an article which doesn't seem that different than Jim Bell to me - with my dissent but with the approval of Jimbo Wales and other high-ranking Wikipedians. Yet Bongo, as (maybe) First Lady of her country is much more of a public figure than Bell. Wnt (talk) 01:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- You seem to be on some sort of crusade about the other article. I haven't looked into that situation much but I seriously have to question your assertion that most of his edits were not violations of policy - WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:BLP are policies and WP:AGF is a founding principle. He asked to comment on content, not on contributors multiple times and refused to drop the stick and is still refusing to do so. We'll put up with difficult editors, but there has to be some benefit to Misplaced Pages. --NeilN 02:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Is there any way to print out all 67 diffs in one page? Downloading all those pages takes too long for me to be at all eager to go through them all. I've only looked at a fraction of the edits, and I've seen a few fairly flagrant personal attacks. But certainly it doesn't look like every personal attack on Misplaced Pages gets a warning, so much as a block. I think that new editors who are not out and out vandals deserve even more cycles of short blocks and reinstatement than the vandals get - not less.
- You seem to be on some sort of crusade about the other article. I haven't looked into that situation much but I seriously have to question your assertion that most of his edits were not violations of policy - WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:BLP are policies and WP:AGF is a founding principle. He asked to comment on content, not on contributors multiple times and refused to drop the stick and is still refusing to do so. We'll put up with difficult editors, but there has to be some benefit to Misplaced Pages. --NeilN 02:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that he was breaking some rules and could have gotten banned - what troubles me is that in the block log I don't see a 24-hour block, another 24-hour block, a three-day block, a one-week block, a one-month block etc. I see 67 edits, most of which were not violations of policy - motivated by BLP concerns, yet - and then an indefinite ban. I am also rather appalled because I've just seen a sourced article speedy-deleted as an "attack article" -an article which doesn't seem that different than Jim Bell to me - with my dissent but with the approval of Jimbo Wales and other high-ranking Wikipedians. Yet Bongo, as (maybe) First Lady of her country is much more of a public figure than Bell. Wnt (talk) 01:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Last but not least, let's remember that according to the article itself, Bell just got out of jail after being locked up for ten years on trumped-up charges - if you don't count him as an out-and-out political prisoner - he comes out, pulls up his Misplaced Pages article and sees a biased report. This is someone who may never have read a Misplaced Pages article before, let alone written one. No one would have been more deserving of a short fixed term block to keep things cool while he gets more familiar with Misplaced Pages procedure. Wnt (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Bell alleges they were trumped up charges - the article makes no such claim. And it's not much use discussing what happened if you haven't gone through the history. Suffice to say, Bell was given ample chances to keep his cool. Yet here we are, three months later, with his socks and emails to OTRS demonstrating the same behaviour that got him blocked in the first place. --NeilN 04:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- He was sentenced to ten years for doing things that are not illegal for the wealthy (ask Mark Fuhrman!). I call that a trumped up charge. I don't think of IP addresses as "sock puppets" - they're simply block evasion, and I bet there's a fair chance if you set a fixed date for the block to end and said to stop using fresh IPs to argue his case in the meanwhile that you could talk him out of using them. He's just arguing his case anyway, and Wikipoliticking like everybody else. And OTRS is just not Misplaced Pages so far as I'm concerned. Wnt (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- You've got a lot of definitions that are at odds with the community. And for the last time, Bell was not blocked for arguing content, he was blocked for only complaining about other editors. Take a look at his last five contributions before the original account was blocked: , , , , . Do you see any constructive suggestions about the article in there? --NeilN 17:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I recognized that the "sockpuppet" term is generally used more broadly than what I'd prefer, but it seems problematic. If an IP address is a "sockpuppet" then the typical newbie starts out with lots of sockpuppets, from whatever IPs the modem gave him before he started an account.
- Looking through those edits, I don't see them as any more or less useful than my comments here... But let's look at the larger picture. Misplaced Pages is dying. And the reason why it's dying, according to the independent press reports I've run across, is a combination of deletionists and an increasingly rigid and complex set of rules. In other words, the "control freaks" Jim Bell is talking about! So while his edits may not be improving an article today, and are fairly ignorant of the rules, I see him there not only defending himself, but fundamentally trying to save Misplaced Pages. I don't think a ban or any part thereof should be based on those five edits. Wnt (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- False assumption. Please read through the entire section you pointed to, specifically "I, for one, welcome the slowing in the growth in the number of articles. While any article which does not yet exist, but which should exist, should be created... growth for the sake of growth is absolutely the wrong metric.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)". Bell has zero interest in "saving" Misplaced Pages. He's interested in controlling the article about him and having those editors who get in his way, blocked. --NeilN 18:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's my perception that the number of editors is dropping in direct proportion to the number of new articles. I think Wales is being far too optimistic here. I don't agree with Bell's request for blocks on others, and I don't think he should control his article, but he should be a rather knowledgeable editor of it. Wnt (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- There's nothing that backs up your claim. Please see User:Katalaveno/TBE and . As for Bell, please find the last edit of his that suggested a constructive change to his article. --NeilN 20:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing me at Katalaveno, and also I hadn't realized they finally had some statistics past 2006. But both these pages show the same thing: a decline since 2007. It is not quite as extreme as the decrease in number of new articles, but it is still significant. I've inverted Katalaveno's graph File:Misplaced Pages edit rate (x1000 per day).png to allow comparison with the number of new articles File:Enwikipediagrowth6.PNG. Wnt (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- There's nothing that backs up your claim. Please see User:Katalaveno/TBE and . As for Bell, please find the last edit of his that suggested a constructive change to his article. --NeilN 20:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- You've got a lot of definitions that are at odds with the community. And for the last time, Bell was not blocked for arguing content, he was blocked for only complaining about other editors. Take a look at his last five contributions before the original account was blocked: , , , , . Do you see any constructive suggestions about the article in there? --NeilN 17:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- He was sentenced to ten years for doing things that are not illegal for the wealthy (ask Mark Fuhrman!). I call that a trumped up charge. I don't think of IP addresses as "sock puppets" - they're simply block evasion, and I bet there's a fair chance if you set a fixed date for the block to end and said to stop using fresh IPs to argue his case in the meanwhile that you could talk him out of using them. He's just arguing his case anyway, and Wikipoliticking like everybody else. And OTRS is just not Misplaced Pages so far as I'm concerned. Wnt (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
(deindent) As noted on Jimbo's page, one very plausible reason for the decline is because all the "easy stuff" has been written about. Also, sourcing, notability, and BLP guideines are much stricter now. In many cases, you can't just spend five minutes adding content to an article and expect it to stay. Other editors will be looking for sourcing, NPOV, and notability and if they don't find it, revert the edit. This discourages the casual contributor who just wants to add a piece of info they "know is right". --NeilN 23:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Martin
That version of the BLP is awful, I can barely read it. It is a shame now, a shame on wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- You might want to tone down the rhetoric and discuss specific changes on the talk page as a number of senior editors obviously do not feel the way you do. The subject is primarily known for controversial and unpopular actions. Does the article neutrally document this? I'll pay more attention to what is happening but right now my only involvement is one relatively minor edit that was designed as a compromise. --NeilN 17:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Niobe photos
Hi Neil! I left at Talk: Niobe on your recent edit on the article. Is it possible you haven't noticed Niobe already contained images. In that case, I will revert to the previous page order. Regards. Cretanforever (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- Replied here --NeilN 12:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Krauss
I undid myself, because it shouldn't have been a vandalism reversion, but that doesn't make any sense to me. If she didn't win for participation on Yo-Yo Ma's album why is she credited for O Brother wins on their site? Staxringold talk 17:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- Replied here. --NeilN 19:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Page Fix. Vandalism.
Thanks for fixing my last page! Ahears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahears (talk • contribs) 20:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks.
You're the sixth editor I've had to thank for reverting vandalism on my user and talk pages tonight. :) - JuneGloom07 Talk? 22:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
The Userpage Shield | ||
Thank you, for reverting the vandalism on my userpage! - JuneGloom07 Talk? 22:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC) |
- You're welcome! You're sure one popular target today! --NeilN 22:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- I know! I have no idea why I was targeted, but it appears to have stopped now. Thank you again. :) - JuneGloom07 Talk? 23:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
public record problem
It is public knowledge that Sarabeth Tucek was born in 1967 and graduated from Westfield High School in New jersey in 1984. User ghmyrtle repeatedly reoves this information from the page. Please explain what verifiable source is acceptable to add this relatively innocuous detail to the artist's page without being harassed by ghmyrtle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjo5650 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Replied here. --NeilN 19:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Clannad Mediation Case
Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-02-21/Clannad is closing up, and I have requested final views. Please have a look at the page soon if you are still interested. Thanks. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Re Mitch McConnell Edit
My oversight with not using reference. So, so sorry. And I have successfully created and edited hundreds of Wiki pages so I am not going to go to discussion pages to see if people (like you) will approve them. I have had that exact type of new information added to many other legislators' websites. Thank you anyway. Myk60640 (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Myk60640 (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
The foreign language thing.
Explain why another person is allowed to write in Arabic? Here's a copy & Paste
Islam pliability
المتبعين للعقائد الأخرى مثل العلمانيين و اللاأدريين تختلف مبادئهم إختلاف واضح مع العقيدة الاسلامية ,الناقدون السياسيون أيضا يستنكرون وبعنف النظام السلامي في بعض الدول الاسلامية —Preceding unsigned comment added by EarthForPeace (talk • contribs) 17:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC) وهكذا؟ 92.132.232.173 (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
If he can, why not me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whateveruwantidowhateveriwant (talk • contribs) 04:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Replied here --NeilN 04:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Gabrielle Giffords
Thanks for trying to bring some balance to Gabrielle Giffords' page. Unfortunately it looks like some of your changes have already been undone (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gabrielle_Giffords&diff=prev&oldid=357083842, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gabrielle_Giffords&diff=prev&oldid=357083534) by the same person who was responsible for most of the problematic content in the first place (http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Parallel_process)
Thanks again for your attention to this, and please do let me know if I'm approaching this incorrectly -- I am new to this!
Stephanie4815162342 (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, you're doing fine. Other editors are now discussing and I've removed the problematic section in Ted Strickland. --NeilN 00:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Really appreciate both your help and your patience. I think we have gotten the Giffords page to a good place, but I will continue to be vigilant.
- I am doing this work as part of a larger project to ensure that US political candidates' wiki pages are complete, fact-based and free from abuse. As I continue to comb through them and spot problems, what is the best way to get quick resolution? The Talk pages for most of these folks are not trafficked enough to get any attention. Stephanie4815162342 (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Make the change yourself if there's no obvious conflict of interest or if the contents obviously violate WP:BLP. If there is, post on the talk page and add a pointer on WP:BLPN or drop a note here (I usually check in at least a couple times a day). --NeilN 16:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello NeilN
I believe the portions of the Ted Strickland article you are reverting are of value and appropriate for the encyclopedia entry. I would appreciate a discussion of the article, rather than deletes. Of course, I welcome any useful and accurate additions that you would have. Parallel process (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have. Note our process is WP:BRD - not keep on re-adding material multiple editors find problematic. --NeilN 03:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but multiple editors have also reverted that section of the article in support in past revisions. The best way to resolve this is discussion, good faith attempts, and hopefully consensus. Parallel process (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
neil
why do you hate me and tina fey, because she is freaking awesome, and you know it sincerly, ~the toole —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theicedt (talk • contribs) 04:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Note: user is indef blocked. --NeilN 04:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Vandalism
Excuse me, but I have a problem with this person who vandalize (Article Haratin) Algerialove ever since this section alters a person without reason article for pleasure.
- User:Koavf has given User:AlgeriaLove a final warning so any more disruption should be reported to WP:AIV. --NeilN 19:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Re: Vandalism
Thanks! Scarian 15:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)