Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Newyorkbrad (talk | contribs) at 23:45, 28 September 2011 (→Keepscases: typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Index of archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Admin term limits

Elective Governors Act

--Seablade (talk) 02:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Responded there. As a general practice, I automatically watchlist pages I edit, so talkback messages to me aren't needed unless there's reason to think I've missed a comment. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Friendly reminder! --Seablade (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That;s it's still on my list. I hope to be at the law library either Friday or over the weekend. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You're invited! Wikimedia DC Annual Membership Meeting

DC Meetup 23 & Annual Membership Meeting

Wikimedia District of Columbia, the newest officially recognized chapter, is holding its Annual Membership Meeting at 1pm on Saturday, October 1, 2011 at the Tenley-Friendship Neighborhood Library. Agenda items include: election of the Board of Directors for the next two years approval of a budget for the 2011-2012 fiscal year report on the activities and accomplishments of the past year social gathering afterwards at a nearby restaurant Candidate nominations are open until 11:59pm EDT on Saturday, September 24. We encourage you to consider being a candidate. (see see candidate instructions) The meeting is open to both the general public and members from within the DC-MD-VA-WV-DE region and beyond. We encourage everyone to attend! You may join the chapter at the meeting or online.

Note: You can remove your name from the DC meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude

Sherman Minton

A dour personality. I did not write that section. User Charles Edward (who is the main impetus behind it) did. Whether or not i was true, the test is not WP:truth, but WP:verifiable. For what its worth, I am certain that if Charles Edward said the source said it, then the source did. I am not trying to get into an edit war here. Even though he is mainly withdrawn from Misplaced Pages, I know him to have been a scrupulous and painstaking editor. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I will look up the books when I get to the law library, though I cannot do that tonight; but I am afraid that even before I am able to do so, the sentence in question will need to be reverted. The facts as I have set them forth on your talkpage, as confirmed at List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States and even more specifically on the Supreme Court's own website here and here. Justice Minton never served with Justice Murphy, and Murphy's successor, Justice Clark, was appointed by President Truman, not President Eisenhower. I am sure that the editor or former editor you mention is entitled to great respect for accuracy and integrity, but there is no possible doubt that in this particular instance an inadvertent mistake has been made. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Note: I see that Charles Edward is at least semi-active on this article; I have asked him to comment here, as he may have the references closer to hand. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, Just a well meaning word of advice, I think that the haphazard use of the word revert will get you into avoidable disputes. You are dealing with obviously good faith edits here, and what you are doing is "undo"ing them. Experience teaches that some editors are sensitive (perhaps overly so) to the difference, and there is no need to start disagreements about personalities, when all we are talking about is a good faith dispute as to content. You know WP:civil. I am not accusing you of being uncivil (and you weren't), just trying to point out a matter of etiquette. Have at it. Happy editing and best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I was using the word "revert" in its simple sense of "change back," rather than in any context implying that I was dealing with a vandalistic or bad-faith edit. I accept your suggestion that it would have been better if I'd used different terminology, and I will bear this in mind in the future. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I knew that, but it has an implication that calls into question the contributor's intent. 'nuf said. If you could, please take a look at Frank Murphy. I had in days gone by contributed extensively to this article, and unfortunately other reviewers removed a lot of good and relevant content. Also, if you are interested, I do have the full text of the University of Michigan article by Theodore St. Antoine, which I could e-mail to you as an attachment. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll be glad to look at the Murphy article. Could you point me with a little more specificity to the good, relevant content that's been deleted? I didn't notice anything specific that was deleted in the recent article history, but I may not have gone back as far as you are thinking of, or I may have overlooked something. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It's been a long time. Very long time for those edits. I think some of it had to do with his improvements to the probation department at the Detroit Recorder's Court. I try not to be proprietary about articles. I make my additions and then 'fade away' like Douglas MacArthur. I'll have to cull back through the article history to figure that out.| The details of the Ossian Sweet trial deserve amplification. I have just acquired the book that deals with that. In any event, there is a lot about Murphy (and particularly about his involvement with the labor movement) that is not mentioned. He was involved as a representative of the governor in the Calumet massacre/disaster. I just acquired a book that deals with that. This experience may have been part of the reason why he declined to send in and activate the National Guard when he was governor during he 1937 Flint Sit Down. He had important input on Supreme Court policy regarding the labor movement. St. Antoine's article deals with that. I think that they have excised the sections I put in which dealt with the extraordinary collection of Philipino artifacts that he amassed (one of the largest collections in the world) which are on display at his boyhood home/law office in Harbor Beach, Michigan. As I recall, his dissent on the Korematsu v. United States was in there and has been excised. This was one of his most memorable moments on the Supreme Court, and though he was in the minority, he had gotten it right. This deserves amplification. This is one of those ongoing 'wish list' projects that I long to get involved with, but have not completed. Interestingly, one of my professors, Harold Norris, wrote a little known book, "Justice Murphy and the Bill of Rights" that analyzes some of his important decisions. I note finally that we have down played Murphy's education. Although Sherman Minton had down post graduate work at the Sorbonne and Yale, as I recall Murphy had a stint at Oxford (sorry, but I'm doing this from memory, so I could be wrong in the details), so despite his mediocre academic record at Michigan, he was not an uneducated twit. I would also note that his involvement with Michigauma at the U of M was akin to being a member of Skull & Bones at Yale: whatever his academic shortcomings (as noted in St. Antoine's article), he had a level of charisma and commitment that set him apart, and this was recognized early on. His long term impact on the history of collective bargaining (both as governor and as a member of the Supreme Court) should not be underestimated. He settled the Flint Sit Down Strike with a one page agreement that became the underlying foundation for more than a half century of labor history. I would also recommend for your consideration the Hour Detroit article, which sets forth a lay viewpoint on him. Additionally, I know that I had run into (may not have added to the article) online citations about his extraordinary anticolonial positions when he served in the Philipines. He died with a net worth that was tiny. Frank Murphy was an extraordinary man, whose first and only instincts were for public service. He is somebody who deserves remembrance and recognition. He was not the finest "legal scholar", but he had an instinct for what is right. That is an overview of a complicated man with a complicated history and contribution. Hope that gives you some guidance and that it interests you in looking at him further. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I have a general knowledge of Murphy's career (more specifically his Supreme Court tenure and to a lesser extent his service in the Philippines), and had spent some time going through his microfilmed papers (in the Bentley Library at the University of Michigan) for my work on the in-chambers opinions project. I agree with you that most, if not all, of the subjects you mention deserve inclusion in the article, although I don't personally enough about all of them to do the work myself. I suggest that you begin reinstating the content that you think should be in the article and that I will then be glad to tweak based on sources available to me. If anyone disagrees with inclusion of the content, we can see what the issues are at that point.

I'd also welcome someone's reworking the lead of the article, which reads right now a bit too much like a laundry list.

I will take a look and see if there is a good recent biography of Murphy. His Supreme Court contemporary, Wiley Rutledge, is the subject of a truly outstanding recently biography by John Ferren, which contains some good discussion of Murphy (and all the other Justices of the 1940s). You might want to take a look at that if you haven't already seen it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

As for the original subject of this thread ... I have now had a chance to check the source for the original edit (the Gugin biography of Minton), and as I suspected, the edit contained a typographical or transcription error. The reference in the book is to the death of Justice Jackson (1954), rather than the death of Justice Murphy (1949); that makes total chronological sense. I have reinstated the original edit with this correction. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts! Fact checking and topical experts\semi-experts is exactly what Misplaced Pages needs more of. :) —Charles Edward  15:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I came here to write and edit these sorts of articles, even though I've been pulled in other directions over the past few years. I've said this before, but I hope and expect to get back to contributing and editing more content. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Accurate and properly cited is better. Nice job! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Senkaku Marriage of "content" and "conduct"

This is a response to a question you asked. It took time for me to craft it.

To add this at this time, do I need to ask permission from you and your co-author? If so, this is my request.

If permissible, where do I add this? --Tenmei (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

1 . Newyorkbrad asked a question:

I do not understand specifically what you are driving at with this proposal. Please explain in a bit more detail (but only a bit more, please). -- Newyorkbrad 00:44, 22 August 2011

2. This was my initial, short response.

These concepts are illustrated in the diffs of Qwyrxian and Bobthefish2 in one short thread Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 7#U.S. Control prior to 1972. --Tenmei 19:49, 24 August 2011

3. This is an untimely expanded analysis:

In this ArbCom case, "content" and "conduct" are sometimes married, not divorced. Synergies in the marriage of information asymmetry and delegitimisation is a significant factor which ArbCom may have overlooked.

According to Elen of the roads, "A useful thing that the parties can do is help Arbcom with ... what it is that is all about....".

In part, the case is about tit-for-tat diffs. Stepping back, the ArbCom case is also about Information asymmetry (ja:情報の非対称性) and Moral hazard (zh:道德风险)

Information asymmetry. Without using the term explicitly, Magog acknowledges the information asymmetry, e.g.,

"... it's just so difficult to read that page history and figure out what's gotten some people upset and what hasn't." -- Magog the Ogre 06:43, 13 August 2011

The term "information asymmetry" implicates the study of decision-making where one party has more or better information than the other. In effect, Magog acknowledges an imbalance which might cause decision-making and its consequences to go awry.

The genesis of this ArbCom case is distilled in one thread. At Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 7#U.S. Control prior to 1972, STSC and Bobthefish2 attempt (a) to modify an intransitive verb and (b) to add "by the Americans". Both the verb usage and the three words have significant ramifications which are recognized immediately by John Smith's, Phoenix7777, Oda Mari and me. Qwyrxian doesn't "get it", and he marginalizes what he doesn't understand, e.g.,

Okay, you know what, it's not really that important to me (other editors may speak for themselves). I am still firmly convinced that the sentence with "by the Americans" is grammatically incorrect, and that, by definition, grammatically incorrect sentences cannot be "precise," but it really isn't important enough to fight about ...." -- Qwyrxian 09:44, 27 January 2011

In subsequent months, the significance of this diff is emphasized by Qwyrxian when he repeatedly points to arguing about three words as the proof that outside intervention by mediation or arbitration is needed. Characterising others as " pretty much entrenched and non-collaborative" is demonstrably a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Moral Hazard. Economists distinguish "moral hazard" involving hidden actions from "adverse selection" involving hidden information. Both are special sub-sets of information asymmetry; and both exacerbated in Misplaced Pages by the unexamined consequences of the hortatory WP:Assume Good Faith.

Nobel laureate Paul Krugman explains moral hazard as "... any situation in which one person makes the decision about how much risk to take, while someone else bears the cost if things go badly."

A. Bobthefish2 proposes contriving conditions which cause Senkaku articles to be locked, e.g.,

"Let's just get the two pages locked so that they will move on and go mess with better-monitored pages like 'Japan in World War II' and 'Nanjing Massacre'." -- Bobthefish2 08:45, 27 January 2011

B. The strategic thinking is underscored by repeating the proposal, e.g.,

"Anyhow, the lack of any constructive efforts on this page is evident. Perhaps locking this will allow some people to go off and contribute their time on something like Nanking_Massacre_denial." -- Bobthefish2 21:34, 27 January 2011

C. Locking an article stigmatizes everyone in the manner of Mercutio's "plague o' both your houses!" which overwhelms all else ... which is part of the objective the gambit was intended to achieve.

Qwyrxian was only partly correct in assessing the impact of Bobthefish2 and others, e.g.,

"Of course, the problem is that any comments I make like this are useless ... and really, even if you could be blocked (say, if this went to ArbCom), you have nothing to lose, since you're not really interesting in actually editing Misplaced Pages, anyway." -- Qwyrxian 00:20, 9 June 2011

Summary. In our collaborative editing context, "delegitimisation" refers to a process in which an editor or editors are strategically undermined. WP:Delegitimization as a tactic is about deflecting attention away from writing or content, focusing instead on the writer or writers. Information asymmetries exacerbated the short- and longer-term consequences.

I was asked the exact same question, as was John on his talkpage. I have replied on my talkpage. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy keep

Hi. Since none of the 'speedy keep' criteria applied at your close of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Copyright symbol, I'm sure you won't mind correcting it to 'SNOW keep' since that's what it really was? Thanks in advance, ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 08:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and the same applies to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2011 Christmas special (Doctor Who). Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 09:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Per my comment at the AFD in question - criteria #2 could be applied as there was a succession of obviously to be kept articles nominated. Agathoclea (talk) 09:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that an element of WP:AGF (as well as common sense) should play a role here. None of the articles I nominated cited (at the time, anyway) significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. You are welcome to check the page histories to confirm the fact. Therefore there was a legitimate reason to nominate them, and it was clearly not an act of bad-faith disruption. I resent any suggestion of this. ╟─TreasuryTag►Acting Returning Officer─╢ 09:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles don't need to cite SIGCOV, it only has to exist. I can understand the nomination of the copyright symbol one (though doomed to fail obviously), but the Dr. Who one was more pointy than anything else. The only thing that benefits from such nominations are the opposers of the current system and the people believing that too much is deleted and nominations are too easy. Fram (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I understand that it just has to exist. But my brief searches revealed none for the copyright thing whatsoever, and nothing really substantial for the Doctor Who. Whether or not you agree with the nominations, I can assure you that they were not made in bad faith, and I would reiterate my belief that they were not disruptive. ╟─TreasuryTag►Clerk of the Parliaments─╢ 10:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

TreasuryTag, thank you for drawing my attention to the policy difference between a "Speedy Keep" and a "Snow Keep". I wasn't aware that a clear distinction has developed between these two types of early XfD closings; Misplaced Pages:Speedy Keep#What is not a speedy-keep seems to have been added since the last time I studied that page. Although I don't think it's a crucial distinction, I will keep it in mind from now on.

With regard to these particular closes, though, I still could argue that "Speedy" rather than "Snow" was the correct result. "Snow" does apply to both because the number and soundness of the Keep !votes was persuasive. But "Speedy" might apply too. Your AfD nomination of copyright symbol, even if in good faith, was pointless and frivolous; there was no way this article was going to be deleted, or deserved to be deleted, and nominating it was a waste of everyone's time. 2011 Christmas special (Doctor Who) was also sure to be kept based on the discussions last year and before that, so nominating it was also pointless, especially since even if we deleted the article now it would be back in a few weeks.

You should be thinking about something much more serious than whether your clearly failed AfDs should have been closed as Speedy Keeps or as Snow Keeps or even as both. The real question is why you continue to make this kind of nominations in the first place. None of the articles you nominated yesterday had the slightest chance of being deleted. Just as bad, after you nominate something for deletion, you continue with the awful habit of responding to virtually every Keep !vote or comment that everyone posts in the XfD discussion. I think dozens of people have asked you over the years to stop doing that.

As I have said on several occasions, the community's most precious resource is the time of its members, which should not be squandered on patently unnecessary deletion discussions. If you cannot get a much better handle on when articles should be nominated for deletion, you should stop participating in this aspect of the project.

Frankly, I also continue to have concerns about other aspects of your editing. For example, in preparing this response to your post, I checked through your contributions over the past couple of days, not to "wikistalk" or "wikihound" you but to see whether there were any other deletion nominations that I should mention here. Instead, I chanced across your edit to User talk:Moviegoblin, which was the first talkpage edit for this brand-new user. Moviegoblin's only edit so far was to correct a Doctor Who episode article by fixing a link to a BLP because he, rather than another person sharing the same name, directed the episode. This seems to have been an entirely correct, good-faith, and non-promotional, edit. Nonetheless, you greeted this brand-new editor with a templated, Twinkle-generated conflict of interest warning, even though there was no indication that he was going to engage in COI editing and in fact he had done nothing wrong at all. This warning was unwarranted, had the clear potential to drive away this new editor (see WP:BITE), and I am going to remove it. Please use much better judgment in the future. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Before I return to the AfD issue at hand, I'll respond to your persiflage regarding Moviegoblin (talk · contribs). I would ask you to note that {{uw-coi}} is not a warning as you seem to suppose, but a "notice": this is how it is classified by Twinkle and by its own documentation. It is simply a reminder that if somebody is going to edit articles about themselves (which Moviegoblin did, although as you say, constructively and in good faith) they need to exercise heightened caution. You'll notice that other templates considered to be notices include {{uw-tilde}} – in no way a warning, but simply a friendly reminder – and {{uw-agf-sock}}, which has the assumption of good faith as its main feature. For these reasons, I will be restoring my notice on Moviegoblin's talkpage, because it was designed to be delivered to people editing pages about themselves, and he fits that group perfectly. (Just a final note that if you feel the template language assumes bad faith, you should suggest some changes at Template talk:Uw-coi.)
As for the AfD issue, I'm slightly unclear as to your position. SK2 applies only to nominations which were "unquestionably vandalism or disruption." I would massively take issue with your classifying my nominations under this heading, if that is what you are implying. None of the examples listed under SK2 apply in this case, and simply disagreeing with my philosophy regarding notability, deletionism etc. is not an acceptable reason to label my actions as disruption. I consider that to be a personal attack. (I notice you haven't explicitly used the word 'disruption' but that is the strong implication of your claim that a 'speedy keep' criterion applies.) I would ask you to reconsider your decision not to amend your closures to 'SNOW keep'. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 15:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

TreasuryTag, you have missed the import of my comments above so completely that, especially given all of your prior disastrous misadventures, I don't think you have the minimal level of competence required to continue participating in Misplaced Pages. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That remark would be an almost crippling blow if it weren't for the fact that I don't give two pins for your views of my editing. ╟─TreasuryTag►collectorate─╢ 16:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you give two pins for anyone's views of your editing? I am hardly the only person here who has raised concerns of this nature. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for writing something good

At Tenmei and disputes, thank you for writing "I think that Tenmei is clearly a good-faith, well-meaning editor ...."

I wish there was a transparent way to prove your belief is justified. Better yet, I would rather that there were no need for demonstrations; but here we are. For today, it is enough that I acknowledge the encouragement which your words bring to me. --Tenmei (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

At Tenmei baned for one year, you ask questions about my edit history outside the Senkaku topic.

Is it helpful to point to an "Edit count" pie chart here and "Articles created" list here.

As part of mentorship, I saved an inventory here which may be useful, especially the three bullets at the bottom.

Recent successes in dispute contexts informed my temerity in Senkaku-related issues. I used the same strategies, tactics and tools which were proven to be constructive in those venues, e.g.,

• Talk:Unequal treaties#Japan-Korea relations in 1904-1905
• Talk:Japan–Korea Treaty of 1905#Requested move (September 2010)
• Talk:Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905#Move? (October 2010)
• Cite does not verify asserted "facts"
• Talk:List of tributaries of Imperial China#Good step in process of collaborative editing

Is this appropriate? helpful? timely? --Tenmei (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

YGM

Received and responded. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Keepscases

I saw your comment here and I have warned the user that they will be blocked if they continue to disrupt. I would post any such block for review of course. What do you think? --John (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been concerned and outspoken about Keepscases in the past, so I don't feel comfortable taking or joining in any administrator action against him, but I agree with you that today's comment and !vote is a bit too much. One of the main defenses against Keepscases' silly questions has been "they are just optional questions so they don't hurt anything." If he's going to oppose anyone who sensibly ignores one of his sillier questions, that is really not good. (Typically, he does support anyone who takes his question seriously and gives any sort of meaningful response—unless they have userboxes he doesn't like.)

In fairness, there have been one or two times that a Keepscases question has yielded a thought-provoking, informative response (I complimented him on an unusually good question once), and a couple of other times his questions have yielded an amusing deadpan answer (RfA/Fluffernutter is a good example there). I think Keepscases could find a niche around the project where he could add value, in addition to his mainspace editing (minimal lately, but what there has been has been good). But as indicated in the double dactyl I wrote about him on WT:RfA long ago, I am not convinced that that place is on the RfA pages. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Just musing, rather than really criticizing anyone, but isn't the only reason for threats of topic banning Keepscases to protect us from ourselves? The oppose itself isn't really disruptive, it's that we can't seem to resist the urge to mention the fact that it's disruptive. Over and over again.

Personally, I sometimes find his questions (or the response he gets from the candidate) interesting and/or funny, so there is some small benefit to his participation. If we could just bring ourselves to ignore his opposes (which will have no effect on any 'crat worth his salt), then we'd have a modest benefit for a negligible cost.

But I suppose the fact is that we can't restrain ourselves from reacting, and a topic ban may be in the cards to prevent something we feel we must react to. We have met the enemy, and he is us. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Wholly agree with the above. I was drafting a (less-eloquent) reply which was along the same lines Jebus989 20:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking something rather similar too before reading this. --John (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

To those tracking this, please see my most recent comment on Keepscases' oppose on Anomie's RfA; for those with too much free time, please see my comments in this earlier discussion of Keepcases' questions, in which the discussion really went from bad to verse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that really was poetry in motion. The questions he was asking back then about haikus were in my opinion less disruptive than the one about terminal illness he recently asked. I don't see anything witty or funny or relevant about this last one. Having said that, I had no idea that he has been doing this for four years. Misplaced Pages needs a few eccentrics to leaven the mix, but I felt like this last one kind of crossed a line for me. --John (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)