Misplaced Pages

The Cartoon

What did you mean when you said "Keep" the article?

Rainjar (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Gokkun

Unless these are also trolling:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Anal%E2%80%93oral_sex http://en.wikipedia.org/Creampie_(sexual_act) http://en.wikipedia.org/Bukkake http://en.wikipedia.org/Snowballing_(sexual_practice)

I don't consider the image on Gokkun trolling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.31.108 (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

While perhaps not strictly necessary, it is a free image and does illustrate the subject of the article. Since Misplaced Pages is not censored, I don't think that removing it would accomplish anything. Cheers, –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 23:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment made by black falcon, a current wikipedia administrator for http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Anal%E2%80%93oral_sex#photo

Moreover, its an image of a woman drinking a cup of unidentifiable (i.e. without context) white liquid. Hardly more obscene than an image of a woman eating out the asshole of another woman.

Moreover it is already on these wikipedias

Die nachfolgenden anderen Wikis nutzen diese Datei: Nutzung auf cs.wikipedia.org Gokkun Nutzung auf da.wikipedia.org Gokkun Nutzung auf es.wikipedia.org Gokkun Nutzung auf fi.wikipedia.org Siemennesteen juominen Nutzung auf it.wikipedia.org Gokkun Nutzung auf it.wiktionary.org gokkun Nutzung auf ja.wikipedia.org 精飲 Nutzung auf sv.wikipedia.org Gokkun Nutzung auf zh.wikipedia.org 飲精

I consolidated my points on the talk page (seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gokkun#Picture_2) I don't understand how I'm trolling, I provided valid points on the talk page. If I am a troll, then so is the similar edits to the other pages I listed and similar edits on every different language Misplaced Pages. You aren't attacking the objective validity of my edit, you're attacking the fact that I don't have a username and I have few edits.

Your list of spouses

I boldly added Merlyn Mantle to the C class of your subpage. Of course, my take on it could be entirely wrong (and it's your subpage anyways), so if you want to move/remove it, feel free. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm a big Yankee fan, so even though I'm young (almost 20), I know the players from that era. I figured that would be a nice addition. That said, that article will need some work, and hopefully I'll get to it soon. I have a volunteer job researching baseball for a historical society, so I'm sure I can work that in. I stumbled on your subpage by accident; serendipity can work for even me sometimes. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Upper Crust (pizzeria chain)

The article Upper Crust (pizzeria chain) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unnotable chain of restaurants.

While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I respect your opinion there but it being all over the Boston Globe doesn't necessarily mean that it is notable all over the world. I'm going to start the AFD for it now to see what others think. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind that, I'll let it stand for now to see what others think. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hope that was worth a laugh

And sorry for your issues with adminship. This wiki can be so toxic. N419BH 04:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh, sure. Herostratus (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Characterizing people's contributions as "abuse"() is unwelcome, and your elitist attitude with regards to adminship even more so. --erachima talk 04:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Some people just don't get it. N419BH 04:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Then why are they being allowed to close threads at WP:ANI, I wonder. Herostratus (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Because nobody disagrees with me. Also note that marking a thread {{resolved}} does not "close" the thread. --erachima talk 07:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

From a cursory look, Herostatus, I don't think anyone has already said this; however, per WP:CSD,

The creator of a page may not remove a Speedy Delete tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so.

While only an admin can actually speedy a page, anyone can decline it. After all, speedies are only for uncontroversial cases, where every clueful editor, given the chance, would concur, because speedies avoid the consensus-gauging phase that usually takes place on XfD. If someone doesn't think that the page should be zapped without a discussion (even though he may even think it should be deleted), then its deletion is not uncontroversial and the page should go to XfD. Salvio ( ) 09:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

RE: Riane De Vant

Thank you for the notice. I agree that is is unlikely for the article to survive due to limited notability, but alas the author has protested and there is nothing we can do about it.Yousou (talk) 11:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

hey hey

How you doin' HS? Hope everything's going alright & enjoying your summer (if you live in the northern hemisphere that is). :) Tommy! 16:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

dual AfD nomination of Jimmy Binnie

Looks like Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Binnie (2nd nomination) is yours. VQuakr (talk) 05:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Social Entrepreneurship: What Everyone Needs to Know

Hello Herostratus. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Social Entrepreneurship: What Everyone Needs to Know to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question - A7 doesn't cover books. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Gene Tierney's Birth Date

You were correct that her birthdate is November 19, 1920. I found her Social Security Card on Ancestry.com in the Social Security Index:

Her birthday is November 19th according to the Social Security Index:

Her Social Security card says that her birthday is November 19, 1920:

You have saved this record to My Ancestry (Shoebox). This record has been added to your shoebox. Social Security Death Index about Gene T. Lee Name: Gene T. Lee SSN: 043-12-2502 Last Residence: 77027 Houston, Harris, Texas, United States of America Born: 19 Nov 1920 Died: 6 Nov 1991 State (Year) SSN issued: Connecticut (Before 1951) ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stutzey (talk • contribs) 13:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Valery Androsov

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Valery Androsov. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Valery Androsov

The article Valery Androsov has been proposed for deletion because under Misplaced Pages policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Misplaced Pages:Referencing for beginners or ask at Misplaced Pages:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Rettetast (talk) 08:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Jesse Waits deletion

Hello Herostratus. You recently nominated Jesse Waits' page for deletion on the grounds of questionable notability. I have found a similar article that has been marked as being within the scope of the WikiProject Biography standards. Noel Ashman is also a nightclub owner. If I mirror this page would I be on the right track to getting my article to remain published. Jpjpstar (talk) 02:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC))

Thank you!

thanks. (:

Thanks for your contribution to the debate over the article about the Philadelphia Convention! DrStrangelove64 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Russian Snark

Hi Herostratus! Thank you for rescuing my page Russian Snark. I have added a few references, is that enough to make it notable? I am very new :)

Rachelchoy (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Russian Snark

Hi, thanks for the tips. It is a new film - just finished in July 2010 so at the moment we are sending it out to festivals around the world. When the film gets into a film festival overseas I will definitely put the link onto the Misplaced Pages page. For now I will just add a few more references from New Zealand sites.

Thanks!! Rachelchoy (talk) 02:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Blah

I've restored all the diffs. How much difference do you see between the original and the current versions? DS (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Happy Herostratus's Day!

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your welcome! Marc (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Histrionics and veiled threats

Please refrain from them. If you'd like to discuss article content, that's great. Please add your thoughts on the article's talk page. I have absolutely no interest in your expressions of displeasure, especially if you're gonna go Godwin right out of the gate. I'm half tempted to do an RfC on you immediately. From here out, I'd ask that you limit your interactions with me to article talk pages. Thanks. Jokestress (talk) 05:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Cookies? For me?

Why thank you kindly *blush*. I shall save it for tomorrow's lunch. :-)

Thanks very much - happy editing! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 03:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

Why thank you! Herostratus (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

All wi doin is deletin

If it gives you pleasure to delete this article go ahead. SmokeyTheCat 15:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! It would, but I can't delete articles. But thanks anyway. Herostratus (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hullo again. On reflection I have removed the tags from the article and (hopefully) justified myself in the edit summary. I couldn't find any debate about the article in AFD so until more editors are involved it is just your opinion of notability or otherwise against mine. I will probably be in a minority of one in any forthcoming debate but have grown fond of the article so thought I would try and preserve it. Cheers for now. SmokeyTheCat 19:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Okey-dokey. It's your perfect right to remove the tags. I will send it to WP:AFD where it can now get a full discussion. However, in my opinion, there is little chance that the article will be retained. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm sorry if an article that you worked on and like ges deleted, that's a bad feeling, but standards are standards. We can't have articles about every song, we'd be swamped. If you do want to preserve the article, you should quickly add proof of notability per WP:SONG, or at least per WP:GNG showing some press mentions of the song or whatever, if these exist. Thank you for your contribution, sorry again if you lose an article that you have grown fond of, and I look forward to your future contributions to the Misplaced Pages. Best, Herostratus (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Long Island Tigers

Hello, I am very curious in what you in this article can u please tell me why u don't think it is qualified for CSD. I have yet to see any notable sources for this article. I hope to hear from you soon Cheers.-- Staffwaterboy ]] 04:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Talkback

Just in case you missed you, I also dropped a message on the user's talk page yesterday. User_talk:Justin_Proveaux#Ouch.21 Netalarm 01:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

AfD: Adult sexual interest in children

As someone who agrees with the spirit of your nomination, I'm going to submit a concern that you're taking this way too seriously. As you stated on the talk page, you may not be a scholar, but many of us are, and I can assure you there is more than enough good scholarship out there to bury that article in the weight of opinion that child sexual abuse is harmful. I would urge you to be calm and help build the consensus that will happen anyway— the article is an unnecessary fork. I've submitted my vote and made a number of comments you might want to read. In the meantime, try to avoid an attack on her directly, it works against the cause. The vast majority of editors can see right through this sort of normalization, and will work toward making sure the article is NPOV or deleted, but personal conflicts simply fog the issue. — Chromancer /_cont 01:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, I replied on your talk page. Herostratus (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If I am reading your recent AfD comment correctly, you were wondering what motivation Jokestress might have for trolling pedophilia and related pages. I believe I am that missing link.

As part of what she considers her activism for trans-causes, Jokestress has been harassing, for the better part of a decade now, sex researchers and any other professionals who note the existing science disagrees with one or more of Jokestress' claims about transsexualism. She maintains off-wiki attacks sites attempting to discredit not only scientists who study transsexuality, but any scientist associated with them including me personally, whole lists of sexologists, any topic that any of us has ever studied (such as pedophilia and penile plethysmography), other activists who disagree with her (see also), and even a whole conspiricy network that includes many of the top researchers in sexology. Jokestress has written to researchers’ employers (including mine) demanding the scientists be fired. She's posted on the Internet photos of researchers’ children. Etc. In fact, it came to the point where Jokestress’ behavior itself became the subject of inquiry by a professional ethicist (and for whom Jokestress ‘declined to be interviewed’).

Although Jokestress referred to not having previously edited the pedophilia page at all, she didn't mention what did happen before: Recently, Jokestress attempted re-adding long-deleted EL's that violated WP:ELNO, but found herself unable to justify the re-addition except for repeating that the edit came from me. She instead stopped editing penile plethysmograph, posted another boingboing blog against me, accusing me of ill-deeds for editing WP at all (I am the person she refers to as "guy in charge of Sexual Abuse"), and swtiched to editing pedophilia (my usual topic of research) to continue her long-standing wiki-hounding of me. The other editors at pedophilia quickly found Jokestress' edits wanting, resulting in the POV fork currently under AfD. Sexology pages on WP are littered with similar incidents.

So, to make a long story short, the reason that Jokestress is trolling the pedophilia-related pages is to bring to WP her off-wiki battles to discredit the researchers (and findings of the researchers) who do not adhere to her views on transsexualism. If my colleagues and I had a history of studying sex addiction instead of pedophilia, then that would be where Jokestress would be trolling.

It is my personal belief that there should be an RfC calling for Jokestress to be banned from sexuality-related pages. I assume that Jokestress will be reading this, and I am sure that she will express her side of this/me quickly.

— James Cantor (talk) 04:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Your Welcome

(Jordan S. Wilson (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)) You are welcome anytime. You need anything you leave me a message!!

Talkback

Thank you so much :)

My dear Herostratus, I am so very grateful for the award. Thank you so very much! I do try, indeed, to have patience. I suppose I don't always succeed. Yes, indeed, the user has a particularly strange interpretation of Misplaced Pages policies - I suppose a literalistic reading that gravitates only to what he wants to read interpretation of Misplaced Pages policies. It is, as Thomas Carlyle wrote, that "the eye sees what the eye brings means of seeing". The user appears to think that a pro-LGBT parenting point of view can be stated in "Misplaced Pages's voice", and he gives examples of, for example, Evolution, as though they are of a similar order of agreement; he also wrote a bizarre FAQ subpage of the article to try to justify the removal of negative material from the article on the basis of WP:UNDUE. However: I am convinced he is actually genuinely trying to do what he believes to be the correct interpretation of Misplaced Pages policy. I believe him to be a good-faith editor who, in fact, is not attempting to be a POV warrior, but simply does not quite understand the nuances of what is meant by the policies -- perhaps partially on his incomplete understanding of idiomatic English. I believe, however, we may be close to getting him to understand. Sadly, the only other option would be, of course, referral of the MedCab case to the arbcom which really I don't want to do, because again I believe he could be helped into being a productive editor. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI

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. Thank you. Exxolon (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Gabriele von Lutzau

Hello! Your submission of Gabriele von Lutzau at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Please see DYK discussion page. Yoninah (talk) 11:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2

Because you participated in Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not/Archive 34#Does WP:NOTMYSPACE apply to secret pages?, you may be interested in Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2. Cunard (talk) 07:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Gabriele von Lutzau

Talkback

FYI...

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. Thank you.. THanks, raseaC 22:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Final warning on disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a point

Your hijinks with the creampie image and the ANI report are obvious and self-evident disruption of Misplaced Pages to prove a point, prohibited by WP:DISRUPT.

You're not a new user. You know policy. You should have known beforehand that this was not acceptable behavior, and certainly not continued to defend it in the manner that you have.

You have a point, but the manner you're expressing it in is supremely disrespectful for the other editors around. That's not OK. That is the entire point behind the disruptive edits policy.

This is on the edge of blockable at this point. You get an AGF on how far you intended to push this, and I'm not going to do anything more than warn you here and on the ANI discussion, but if you keep this type of behavior up you will be blocked for it.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've watched this debate a little and other then your comments about Mooks, I'd say this is a worthless warning. Nothing in the discussion says you are being disruptive. I see a very very reasonable comment at the end of ani adequately suming up the situation. I'd go to bat for Herostratus if it came to it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest, then, that you take more time to study WP:NPA, and the nutshell which states, "Comment on content, not the contributor". Herostratus is violating that both at ANI and the article discussion page - though, to be fair, they are not indicating much understanding of other policies either - and as well as GWH's warning regarding WP:POINT I am going to give one for violation of WP:NPA also. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Less, please re-read above comment. I did say that other then the part about calling people mooks (NPA) I thought that the warning was not worth anything. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't just using the term mooks, but noting that they realised that the other parties might be right per the rules but since they were "pornograhers" their stance was deprecated - and terming people pornographers because they would not remove an image that had consensus to remain is much more of a pa - and I had already commented that by not following proper dispute resolution procedures then they were certainly disruptive, per GWH's finding. AGF a new editor may think it fine to remove or amend an image without process, but not an established editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

"emove or amend an image without process"? If you're talking about the image at Gokkun that Exxolon is still mad about, there was an RFC and the image lost, what could be more process-y than that? If you're talking about the image at Creampie (sexual act) -- I posted on that talk page and asked objectors to "please take discussion to the talk page". Isn't that the usual process? Isn't the article talk page the usual first step for discussing content issues? User declined to do that that and instead went to ANI and the people who monitor the ANI let them do that and thus we have this mess. Image "had consensus to remain"? Where? What consensus? There wasn't any discussion on the talk page. Herostratus (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No power or right on Misplaced Pages is without limit. WP:BOLD is limited by WP:DISRUPT and WP:NPA. One of the functions of uninvolved administrators is to step up and tell people when they've crossed the line.

What you did crossed the line.

Please set your expectations and behavior going forwards accordingly. Again - discuss or advocate for removal of the image all you want. Don't do it in a manner which is disruptive or disrespectful to other participants. With the personal attacks and content disruption, you're about as far as you can go before you get blocked. Two completely unconnected topic-uninvolved administrators have now warned you. If you keep going, you have no excuse that you weren't aware of the issue or the consequences.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Truce?

I'd like to call a truce if possible. We are probably going to run into each other again on sexuality related articles and images, simply because I'm a firm advocate of having relevant images on articles. I suggest that if we do we both refrain from impugning each other's motives (i.e. I don't suggest you have problems with sexual images/topics and you don't suggest my reason for wanting an image or topic covered is prurient) and we limit ourselves to neutral statements about the image or topic itself. Do you think this is workable? Exxolon (talk) 10:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh absolutely, and thank you for your offer. I apologize, and will will do so in more detail on your talk page in bit. Herostratus (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Page Patroller Academy

In the interest of being proactive rather than trying to be quite so negative about the lack of discretion on the part of some Misplaced Pages watchers in the past, I've considered trying to come up with what I'm trying to call the Page Patroller Academy. It is still an idea in an embryonic stage, so if you have some thoughts (or even an alternate name for the concept) I would really like your input on the idea.

I'm trying to address two separate problems simultaneously with this concept:

1. Trying to recruit more editors and perhaps even "new users" to help out with the recent changes patrols on Misplaced Pages, concentrating on perhaps just one area like New Pages or perhaps something of an even smaller scope. Recruitment is key, and there are some things we could get done along those lines. Simply letting Misplaced Pages users know there is a way to learn how to do these kind of page patrols might lower the bar and get more people involved. If there are more people involved, it might help to solve some of the problems we have experience where some of the page patrollers don't feel overwhelmed.
2. Educating those who are helping to patrol new pages to learn what the "best practices" on Misplaced Pages really are. Obviously there needs to be some significant education including even teaching potential users about what tools are available, and questioning when those tools ought to be used. All of this has been happening in an ad hoc fashion, and perhaps the time is now to formalize the process. This is not a one stop process, but something that is ongoing and trying to set ever higher bars for improvement.

Again, this is also proactive for would-be abusers of the current system. Some admin or perhaps even the arbitration board might suggest as a step for demonstrating good faith to the project for somebody who has been abusing the AfD process to go through any course material set up with this academy.

Where I'm struggling on what to do here is if this should be something on Misplaced Pages, or if we should host this on Wikiversity. I'm leaning for something akin to a Wikiproject and keeping it here on Misplaced Pages, as you suggested on the barnstar nomination on my talk page (BTW, thanks for that too!) I'm also trying to find the appropriate forum for setting something like this up and how to advertise the idea. Those are some things that I think you could help me with, and the fact that you are at least interested in trying to make things better and considering some options might make this successful. Yes, I do want to work with you and I think that "humans make things better". Automation has its place, but what we are trying to address here is a people issue, not a technical issue. Even dealing with trolls is a people issue, and it should remain that way. The automation tools are there to deal with the automation tools of the trolls, not with the "unwashed masses" of potential new editors to be pushed aside as unnecessary at the moment.

Anyway, if you like this idea or even just parts of it, let me know. I would like to put this on the Village Pump, en-wp mailing list, and possibly on foundation-l and wikiversity-l as well (perhaps if it gets some traction) and some help on the Collequim at Wikiversity. The reason I'd like to bring in the Wikiversity guys is both to show they do know what they are talking about in terms of setting up training programs, and I think this can be a model for other Wikimedia projects on things above and beyond just the New Page patrollers. It is a small domain to work with, but something that has a huge potential to benefit Misplaced Pages in the future. --Robert Horning (talk) 04:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Julia Pirie

Brenda Hodge article

You said gave me 7 days. You deleted it before the agreed day, even though you stated I had the time to argue my case. I am not on this computer 24/7. I am only on weekends, so I could not get to the computer. I thought I had time, but you deleted it before the agreed time, simply because you couldn't wait. I had plenty or arguments for retaining it and other information to change nthe article. But because you could not even wait the time you gave for me to tell my side, you deleted it. Now all the information I have on it is lost6. Thanks for nothing. There is no point mentioning what I was going to do or what my arguments were for retaining it. Believe it or not some people are not on the computer 24 hours a day. Again, thanks for being so patient. Sliat 1981 (talk) 08:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

re Brenda Hodge

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I have posted a message about this at User_talk:Sliat_1981#re_Brenda_Hodge. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Pedophilia#Proposals for new lead

Care to weigh in on this or any of the other current discussions going on at that talk page? We definitely need new WP:Consensus, and I am getting worn out going in circles. I've tried to get as many editors to comment as possible, but I suppose it seems too much of a hot topic for most...as well as too long to read through. Flyer22 (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Upright

The "upright" parameter scales an image to 75% of the user's setting width, as opposed to a forced single size regardless of the user's preferences. Its usually used to deal with portrait-orientation images, but I've found it very useful in shrinking down 'square' images to prevent their (relatively) longer vertical size from dominating over images in an article. In addition, upright=X can be used to modify this size while keeping the scaling relative to other images.

See Misplaced Pages:Extended image syntax#Size and Misplaced Pages:Image use policy#Displayed image size for more info, and HMAS Sydney (FFG 03) for an example in practice (look for the commemorative patch in the "Operational history" section). -- saberwyn 04:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:220px-Cumfart 02.png

Thanks for uploading File:220px-Cumfart 02.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Misplaced Pages uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Misplaced Pages.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the inspiration

Hi Herostratus. In my short time here, there have been a handful of Wikipedians I look up to — and you are one them. I have a great deal of respect for you and I just wanted to let you know you have been an ispiration to me. Thanks. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Why, thank you! I'm not even sure what I did, but I appreciate the sentiment, very much. Herostratus (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You've done a TON of things in your time here. You've also been put through a lot of things. I just found it all very inspirational. It makes me want to be the best Wikipedian I can be, so I wanted to say thanks for setting such a fine example. I also wanted you to know that people look up to you for setting such a fine example. I think "Hero" and "Stratus" with a space between the two is a more fitting username. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

hi

I'm not a troll, my i.p. address frequently changes, and I disagree with the term great patriotic war because of it's positive connotation and propaganda sounding name, and I believe stuff like world war 2, Eastern Front, and Operation Barbarossa are better and more universal terms. --139.168.51.49 (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, OK then. You see I... wait a minute. Your IP adress frequently changes? Well then you need to get an account, especially if you are going to edit in such a controversial manner. The plain fact is that "Great Patriotic War" is the accepted name in Russia for this conflict, and this is not just just government propaganda but the name accepted and used by all Russians. I'm not going to further engage you on this matter until you get a named account OK? It's easy, it's free, you don't have to give out any information, and it takes 30 seconds. So go do it. Herostratus (talk) 03:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok I have made an account, how do you think we should go about this? And you've never heard of an IP adress that frequently changes? --WorldWarTwoEditor (talk) 11:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No, of course I have, and... welcome aboard! I have responded on your talk page. Herostratus (talk) 12:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

File:320px-Icon_delete_w_clock.svg

I notice the new image File:320px-Icon_delete_w_clock.svg isn't transparent. Other than that, it's a great image, much better than the one we used to use for prods. Is it possible to make it transparent the way File:Icon_delete.svg is? I can't seem to figure it out in Inkscape and wouldn't to make a change you didn't approve of anyway. —Soap— 21:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know how to do this. I don't really know Inkscape very well at all. Herostratus (talk) 03:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Neither do I, but I'll take your response as an indication that you're OK with the change, so I'll try to get it done one way or another. Thanks. —Soap— 17:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I seem to have done it, though all I really did was change the underlying bitmap. I didn't manage to figure out how to use transparency in Inkscape itself. But this should work for this purpose, since the image was a composite of two bitmaps to begin with. —Soap— 18:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Misogyny

You have referred to other editors not being fond of women or being misogynist twice in recent conversations discussing sexual images. You need to stop. It is offensive to assume that and you are aware of the civility standards here.Cptnono (talk) 03:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between being frank and being rude (see the discussion on the 21st). You have been warned twice now. End of story.Cptnono (talk) 04:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't care if you don't approve of the demographics. You have been asked to stop attacking other editors on talk pages. If you have a problem with images across the project you should open up a centralized discussion but under know circumstances should you accuse editors of being sexist (same with the racism thing) just because you disagree with their preference on how images are being used. This is especially true when you have already been asked to stop. Do you want to keep on going? You want to deflect or soapbox more? Go ahead, as long as you don't make any accusations like that again I don't mind.Cptnono (talk) 05:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a decent sized discussion above #Final warning on disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a point that involves NPA. The specific edits I am talking about are: and unnecessary the follow up . Neither might appear to be bad but you implied that I was a racist and a misogynist which is grossley offensive. And it was complete overreaction. So maybe I caught you on a bad day, right? Maybe I misunderstood? But then you did this regarding another editor on a similar image: An editor here "...is a skilled pornographer and, I infer from his work and writings, not terribly fond of women. So that is what I am on about You have been given a final warning already. It looks like you feel passionately about how women are treated and that is fine. However, it is not appropriate for you to infer or suggest that others do not. Some of us also might feel strongly about it and take offense when you feel like pissing on our beliefs. Sp like I said, stop making attacks and there should be no worries. But yes, another venue could be used to encourage a quicker understanding. You have been editing long enough that it would be a shame to have to open up such a conversation which I can only assume would devolve into all sorts of fun mudslinging. Maybe just not continuing the behavior is all that is needed instead. Cptnono (talk) 08:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

tl;dr. Make another personal attack and I am going to seek a block. Nothing else needs to be said and there is no defense when you treat other editors like assholes. Cptnono (talk) 07:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Masquerade (play)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Masquerade (play), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.wcadv.org/?go=download&id=20.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Englehardt coat of arms.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Englehardt coat of arms.svg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Misplaced Pages uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Misplaced Pages.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

re image at Creampie (sexual act)

I am concerned about your reading of consensus, and indeed much of your input on the rfc, regarding the use of the image in the above article. Whatever image is finally used, there is no agreement to remove the existing one until the RfC is concluded. If you again remove or replace the image before there is a consensus (and I recommend that you follow another editors view of consensus, rather than the one that only you seem to see) then I will block you. I would also comment that your suggestions of using depictions of animals verged on trolling, and your suggestion for using an image of either a male or indeterminate gendered person for reasons that you noted you did not feel compelled to give were also. I think that the other editors (including myself) have extended copious good faith in respect of some of your input, but that your unilateral interpretations of policy and consensus are exceeding those limits. For the removal of doubt, this is an official last warning. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It is nothing to do with 30 days for an RfC, since they can be closed earlier when there is an apparent consensus and no likelihood of new discussion. My concern is that you do not wish to formulate consensus, you want to get rid of the existing image and if not remove it replace it with one according to your preferences. I would further remind you of the sequence of events which lead to my issuing you with a warning; per these two edits you changed the image in the article and gave your reasons - so far so good. When the change was challenged, albeit with a poor rationale, you reverted, with a note requiring the other party to take it to talk - which, per WP:BRD, is wrong, as I noted subsequently on the talkpage; you made the Bold action, it was Reverted and it was thus for you to start a Discussion on the change you desired. Although WP:BRD was ignored, a discussion did start on the talkpage, where you proffered assumptions on what was more "realistic" and the other editor countered with references to policy. When a third party then commented that the existing image should be retained during discussions, again reflecting policy, you made the comment that the image should be removed pending discussion - without any reference to policy (likely because none exists). After a review, a third party admin comments that he considered your actions pointy and disruptive, and issues a warning. I also then comment, noting the poor application of WP:BRD and disregard for WP:CONSENSUS. Subsequently a discussion commenced on whether the image should be kept, removed or replaced to which your next substantive contribution was to advocate removal or replacement with an image of a creampie featuring a "male, for various good reasons I won't go into here." - which is not the proper manner of making an argument, if you have reasons then you owe it to others to clarify them. Your next edit was a substantive contribution, in creating the mooted RfC so more input can be gained - and I did note that in a subsequent comment. Unfortunately, your next comment reverted to your practice of substituting your personal opinion for policy or its interpretation. Your next comment, however, was possibly more inappropriate when you advocated the use of an image depicting an animal - referring to previous discussions without using an links (I think that WP:AGF was in action, since the lack of same was not commented upon). After belatedly providing a rationale for the use of an image of a male figure - not based in policy, but reasonable otherwise you misinterpret my commenting that depicting animals within a human sexual topic was bizarre, and alluded to "interspecies sexual encounter" which drew a mild rebuke from me, and drew this response from a third party. Finally, you removed the image with a demand not to edit war, while misrepresenting the consensus or indeed how it works, and gave a personal interpretation of the RfC, in which you are an involved party, which disregarded the fact that consensus must change to be able to remove the existing image. Out of some thirteen contributions by you regarding this issue, I can only find two that are compliant with policy - including the initial substitution of the image - and one other that was a positive contribution, and a fourth which was acceptable. The remainder were not based in policy, and some were simply your stated preferences (and not related to much of the surrounding discussion).

Were you to evidence some understanding of policy, and how it is applied, I may take some credence of your views relating to my performance of my sysop responsibilities. I have not seen any, so have concentrated on providing you with evidence of your own lack of propriety. You have been allowed, in good faith, to express your opinions even when not based in encyclopedic practice, per WP:AGF. However, when you persist in proceeding within your imperfect understanding of how things work then I am required to perform my admin function. If you further disrupt these pages by removing or replacing the existing image without there being a definition of a consensus formed (and by an uninvolved third party) to do so, I will block you for disrupting the project. You have been warned previously by an admin, and again recently by me. You may dispute the grounds - but if so, please refer specifically to policy or guideline - or get a third opinion. In the meantime, don't disrupt the pages. Lastly, my preference does not seem to have much support - I see more people arguing for a "better" image or photo, which was the reverse of my position; keep or remove. Again, your judgement is seriously in question. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)