Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Brews ohare (talk | contribs) at 07:09, 15 August 2010 (→unable to engage with Misplaced Pages as it is, rather than as he believes it should be: Reply to Steve Smith). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• Archive 1 (May 2007–May 2008)
• Archive 2 (May 2008–March 2009)
• Archive 3 (March 2009–May 2010)
• Archive 4 (May 2010–present)

Dick Ebersol photo

Hi Steve-

There is currently no picture up for Dick's page. Would you like me to send one to you and add? Let me know, would be happy to. Thanks.

Julianyc (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello again- I definitely have a photo you can use... how do we go about this then? Shall I send to you somehow, what kind of file works? Let me know what is the easiest and we can get a photo up there! Thanks.

Julianyc (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Steve- Don't have all of that info handy, do you need it in order to put a photo up? Let me know, if so, I'll ask around... thanks!

Julianyc (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The photo was taken by an NBC photographer, and NBC holds the rights to it. Will that suffice? Let me know and I can send on over, or I'll try uploading it. Thanks!

Julianyc (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Steve- Never heard back from you about the above. Let me know, thanks!

Julianyc (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Your FAC

I see the Brownlee FAC is short on reviewers. You might try reviewing Kentucky gubernatorial election, 1899 (also at FAC) and see if User:Acdixon will do the same for you. Just a thought. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Replying to your message on my talk page, can you look at my suggestions? RIPGC (talk) 05:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC

If you could drop by and comment at the RfC here, regarding date styles, it'd be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Connormah 00:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Niagara Parks Butterfly Conservatory

Here's a new article I created. Please help improve it. It's also up for DYK for 24 July. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Need an arbitration hand

Hi. Unfortunately I can't yet edit this page, so I'm asking you for a help in resolving a dispute. I nominated the article for second the time, but the case was closed way too fast (one hour), without even letting anyone to object on such a controversial matter (there are people who are against, it was nominated already so it can be considered as controversial already), and it was closed by the same wikipedian who closed the previous nomination. So I want at least to keep the nomination for another time, so there would enough time to make an objection (I'm myself was late to make it as it was closed already, damn). And it seems that interested persons so immediately took part in it, thus were biased. The previous nominator was warned by me. Dramadeur (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparent SPA, and quacks loudly. Dram -- out of curiosity, given your nom which has been closed as POINTy, and the nature of your five edits, have you ever edited under a prior name or IP address?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you stalking me? Why are you asking it in front of an arbitrary? You should have asked it in my page, it's not relevant to ask it here. Anyway, yes this ip belonged to me, when I had gone trough procedures it was revealed that I need an account to leave my "thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page." Dramadeur (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I've indef blocked that account. Fences&Windows 13:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Kudos.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Decision on clarification issue is stalled

Although you have expressed an opinion on the matter, as has Carcharoth, this question of clarification appears to be stalled. Without a decision on this matter, my appeal cannot proceed, as Sandstein has made this a precondition for progress.

Do you anticipate framing a motion to bring this clarification to a conclusion? Thanks for your attention. Brews ohare (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Harrassment

This is a prime example why we get upset over the speed of light issue. ] is a rosey example of hounding and persecution. Kinda funny how he can block when he is knee deep in the. Itas hard to say I'm assuming bad faith when there is multiple statements like ]. In the past Brews advocaters have been blbamed for brews issues but here is what happens when someone doesn't say something. Can you please comment on this? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Note

You seem to be online, so I am making you aware of these procedural notes I made at the appeal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said in another venue, Jehochman is clearly obsessed with the outcome of the appeal but that's not what I'm concerned about right now - my concern is that an editor, any editor, even the worst/best of editors, should be able to make an appeal to the community without difficulty and excess bureaucracy. While J continues to bully editors (be it below, or when he insists appeals should go directly/only to ArbCom), more heat than light emerges. He's advocated in nearly every discussion concerning Brews on the matter , he encouraged an admin to misuse their tools , he failed to discuss concerns about this behavior , and he responds with unrelated+condescending commentary in response to my active concerns . There are plenty of editors who can identify problem conduct that the subject may be exhibiting, and have done so on important occasions (myself included), and that isn't going to change. However, I don't think his participation is beneficial when it goes towards intimidating editors or making them feel that they are being treated unfairly, especially when contrary to what he or Stifle insists, appeals in this are not limited to ArbCom. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC) P.S. I may have misinterpreted a bit of your response on my talk earlier - I apologise for the occasions where that is apparent. It's sometimes not easy to convey that one is trying to argue for keeping the principles in tact.

Camel's nose

In my experience, one sign of a disruptive editor is that if you give any leniency, they take full advantage of it to resume their agenda. You may need to rethink the matter of Brews, Count Iblis, and Hell in a Bucket. I see no signs of comprehension or compromise. They have an agenda, and are taking full advantage of whatever cover anybody provides. Now Ncmvocalist has gotten into the picture, which inevitably will complicate the dispute. Jehochman 10:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

i'm very much interested in what is problematic by the questions Iblis or myself have made. Iblis is always civil from what I've seen, I'm not but in this case I have not cursed at anyone, called them nazis or the like. All Iblis and myself have done is question Jehochmans invovled sts and asked him to step aside from making blocking decisions because he has a clear and announced belief what should happen and does not seem willing to agf in the slightest. I again call upon Jehochman to back up his claims we are disrupting things, I've asked four or five times and he refuses to answer. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

unable to engage with Misplaced Pages as it is, rather than as he believes it should be

Hi Steve:

The header is your comment about my capacities on WP as stated in the Speed of light appeal. I'd like you to explore this matter further, to see whether you really see things differently than I do.

My view is that I talked about matters beyond the willingness of other editors to continue, so they sought administrative action to terminate discussion. One might sympathize with their view. If so, the question is what to do about it.

I think an effective remedy is a sanction to govern my Talk page behavior. The idea is to propose that when a thread is prolonged beyond endurance, the engaged editors can simply tell me that they are going to invoke this sanction unless I pack it up.

That seems to me to be a perfectly effective approach to the problem. I'd say that I'd be nuts not to accept that motion on the part of the involved editors, and desist.

The remedies proposed instead appear to me to miss the point that this is about behavior control, not about technical exchanges on a particular topic. What is worse, they open the door to a type of generalized harassment that I have experienced before that, frankly, I do not wish to operate under. The "uninvolved administrator" approach simply doesn't work, and leads to crazy actions that cannot be overturned.

What do you think about this? Brews ohare (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure that I understand what you're proposing. In crude terms, is it that editors discussing something with you on a talk page can require you to shut up at any time? If so, what would be the effect on subsequent article editing? If your participation in the D of WP:BRD is curtailed, surely that would remove you entirely from the editorial process on whatever issue was under contention? Some elaboration would be helpful, including, for additional clarity, your proposed wording of such a sanction, if you have one. For what it's worth, I do agree that the uninvolved administrator approach is not ideal; I have been sort of waiting for a test case to replace "uninvolved administrators" with "the following X administrators:", who would be chosen in consultation with the parties. Among other advantages, that would provide some amount of accountability (one of the issues with current arbitration enforcement is that it is necessarily the more sanction-happy admins who impose sanctions) as well as a built in appeal route (if X=3, then sanctions issued by one of the admins would be appealable to the other two, for example).

So I'm certainly open to alternative approaches. But I remain concerned that your view of Misplaced Pages is in many respects at odds with what Misplaced Pages actually is. One of the things that persuaded me of that actually has nothing to do with physics: in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Administrator abuse on Misplaced Pages proposed a course of action that, in my view, is so far outside of Misplaced Pages's role that I had to reread it several times to make sure I was understanding it right.

You've provided your real life identity and credentials, which I admire (I've emulated this approach so far as I am able, but I basically don't have any credentials). If everybody did that, then perhaps it would be more feasible for people to throw their own analyses into articles, subject to the review and critique of others - sort of the way things work in genuine scholarship. Misplaced Pages is not genuine scholarship, and as long as we have anonymous nobodies editing articles, a strict reliance on secondary sources is vital if for no other reason than as a dispute resolution mechanism, and an easy means to end debate when anonymous nobodies (or, for that matter, nobodies who are open about their identities, a category in which I place myself) add patent nonsense to articles. Steve Smith (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Steve: You have understood me correctly: for example, in the Centrifugal force article, DVdm and Balckburne could say simply (as they did): We think that your contribution is WP:OR and we don't want to discuss it. If you do, we will exercise the existing remedy and ask that you be banned from this article for a week (or whatever the penalty is). I would be shut out of all discussion simply because they felt that way, whether they had any reason or not.

I would prefer that approach because my experience is that this is what happens anyway, only after a prolonged ArbCom or AN/I hearing that never gets anything straight anyhow.

I get the idea that you think I am intruding my own analyses into WP. Perhaps you think the Speed of light and the Centrifugal force pages are examples of this. I don't think so. I think the dropping bird, for example, is not one that I've found in a text, but it is so very, very obviously an illustration of the principles cited that some editors called it wordy, some called it obvious and some called it tedious. DVdm and Blackburne called it WP:OR. Obviously they are all wet. However, to avoid this kind of stupid back and forth I am proposing that I just get cut off at the knees rather than let me indulge my fantasies that the obvious can be driven home if only the right question or the right words or the right source be found.

It may be that DVdm and Blackburne will follow me about and shut me up whenever I appear. If that happens, of course I will simply depart WP altogether. I am on the verge of that anyway. Brews ohare (talk) 07:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)