Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs) at 07:52, 30 October 2011 (→For posterity). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page.

Consensus of the Heroes in Hell Merge - Did it include all of the Books and Stories?

According to my memory during the Lawyers in Hell AfD discussion about merging the Heroes in Hell articles into one large article, it was decided ALL the articles were to be merged. No mention was made of leaving any of the articles separate.

When I went to merge the one remaining article, one editor got really upset saying that the merge discussion did not include this article, Gilgamesh in the Outback. I believe that the consensus was for all articles. The admin who is currently handling the dispute was not involved at the time, and needs to see a show of hands. If you have any opinion on the issue could you please make your opinion known at Talk:Gilgamesh in the Outback. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I am sure you know what a legal threat is...

...and how use of the Wiki libel page is not. I clearly stated he was crossing a line. Made no threat of any action, legal or otherwise.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Also I have no problem mentioning that I received a block for a boarder line offense of this nature, lost privileges that will likely never return as well as the respect of many in the project over the issue that will take time to recover if ever. Learning from mistakes is something I take seriously.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

10c removal edit summaries

I've performed several thousand of these edits with this edit summary. I use the wording I do because I've run into people who think 10c is optional. The point is to convey via edit summary that this isn't optional, and to give links to appropriate policy and essays. If a person restores an image, I use User:Hammersoft/10c as a template to further bring home the point. The manner in which I conduct these edits has worked quite well. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello SarekOfVulcan! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

AE

Hi. Note that this was the first violation of the interaction ban for Volunteer Marek and the fourth one for Russavia. Are you sure that the length of the block should be the same? Colchicum (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I count second to third, but I agree with your sentiment (see my post below). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfair treatment

Self-censored per --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Their last i-ban violations got them 3 and 4 day blocks -- therefore, 1 week is reasonable for both, imo. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Self-censored per --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

AE thread

No objections against your close of the Russavia AE thread, but I just wanted to note that I might be considering yet more sanctions regarding other participants there. But I'm in a hurry now, more later. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, ok, I'll un-hat it. I just closed it because it had been an hour with no further comment. Thanks for the note. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Unlike ANI, AE usually moves on a timescale of days, not hours... T. Canens (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

FPS, aren't you contradicting yourself? . PS. On the subject of confusion, can somebody confirm that my involvement in this discussion is acceptable (if not, as I stated earlier, I'll gladly self-rv my edits and remove myself from this issue). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States

Why are you attacking the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samesexmarriage101 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL. A committee reporting out a bill isn't terribly notable.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You just blew up that whole article.Samesexmarriage101 (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Define "blew up".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like Vandalism Samesexmarriage101 (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Then I suggest you read WP:Vandalism.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's obviously not vandalism, which would be an intentional attempt to damage an article. As Sarek mention, he is acting on the WP:CRYSTAL guideline. The correct response would be for you to familiarize yourself with it, and address his argument, not to engage in personal attacks, and accuse others of vandalism (which, again, most obviously has NOT taken place here). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The article was basically completed demolished of current events. North Carolina and Minnesota is going to vote on amendments. Why was it removed I don't know. Washington is going to vote for marriage and Maryland is going to vote for marriage in 2012. Why was it removed I don't know? Samesexmarriage101 (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS?? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I like I am personally getting my rights taken from me. By multiple people. Samesexmarriage101 (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, nobody has any rights here, so your perception is mistaken. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It is because I am gay? Samesexmarriage101 (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS -- they apply to everyone equally.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I understand... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samesexmarriage101 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

On anon's edit

Re: . I formatted it, and yes, the blog is valid, but I see nothing in the link with regards to reading order. Wrong blog post linked? PS. I need to catch up on the last book or two from that series... :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I just reverted the bot because I recognized the URL -- I didn't click through to see the specific post. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Good way of handling this?

Hi SoV, User:DavBar1 asked for me to adopt him here. I answered there and in more detail on his talkpage ("sure...", links, welcome, etc). Earlier today, User:Sportslegend asked for adoption. In reviewing the two accounts (see userpages), it appears it is the same editor. I've left a welcome message on the second account and advised thusly. Do you think it's sufficiently handled for now? Neither account has any real edits (so far solely to their user pages and my talk page), so I skipped a templated message for what appears to be a very new editor. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 18:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

TY. Looks like I can got an explanation on my talk page, albeit from another editor. Will keep an eye. Thanks again, R ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 19:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Dorrance Publishing Co.

As an admin you should have known better to tagged this article as a speedy, it clearly claims notability. Thanks Secret 19:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Since notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, I see no claims of notability there.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability

An RfC is not a means for deciding changes to policy. You seem to be treating it as if it were some hybrid between an RfC concerning a user (in which case the RfC is closed by an uninvolved editor) and a vote on policy, which it simply is not. When RfCs are on content, they are simply a way to solicit comments. They are usually closed thirty days after opened, or when consensus has been reached. It certainly is not up to anyone to make some kind of ruling, as if this is a process meant to make a firm decision.Slrubenstein | Talk 17:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I disagree with your assertion that this was not meant to make a firm decision -- as far as I can tell, that was the whole point of moving it out from the subpages and starting an RFC.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sarek: thank you, I agree with you. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

That is not whatr RfCs are for. You are not complying with our policy for RfCs. If you think I am misread the RfC policy page please - I would appreciate it if you would explain how. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

"Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process" -- not a policy. The intent of this RFC was clearly to see if there was sufficient consensus for the proposal to adopt it -- I found that there was, so I made the change. If you think the initial proposal was _not_ for the purpose of judging consensus for the change, please tell me what wording in the proposal leads you to believe this. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, we did not reach consensus. And let's finish your quote "...for requesting outside input, and dispute resolution, with respect to article content, user conduct, and Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines." I have consistently and repeatedly said that the RfC solicited and received comment, i.e. outside input. Fine. It is up to editors working on the policy to make use of that input as they see fit. RfCs are not votes and they are not a mechanism for making decision outside of our normal, collaborative consensual process. They are just what they say they are, a way to attract outside comments. here is another key quote: "RfCs are not votes. Discussion controls the outcome; it is not a matter of counting up the number of votes." So I do not see how you interpret this to mean it is a vote and a mechanism for making decisions independent of discussion of the RfC. It is not your decision, it is the decision of all the editors working on the article or policy contents. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, you're not going to convince me of your position, so I'd suggest bringing it up at WP:AN if you really feel that the intent of that discussion was not to determine if there was sufficient consensus to adopt that proposal. Forgot how it was framed -- what was it trying to do?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sarek, please undo your closure. RfCs are meant to stay open for 30 days, and this conclusion is very borderline for a major policy change. Also, there was an assurance before this started from Blueboar that he would ask two questions (do you want change, or do you prefer things as they are?). But he didn't do that, and some of the replies suggest that people would prefer no change, but are "voting" for some change as a compromise. So it was an unfortunately framed RfC, and needs a very careful closure because of that, preferably by multiple uninvolved admins who are aware of the policy issues. SlimVirgin 22:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sarek... consult with Slim Virgin. I don't really care if the RfC stays open a few more days or not, and if this needs more admin eyes, that's fine too Although I suddenly find myself trying to come up with a punchline for "how many admins does it take to change a lightbulb?"

Slim... sorry if we got our wires crossed. I thought I did what we agreed to do... I though I had worded the proposal in a way that made it clear that the choice was: a) my proposed compromise (change) or b) keep as is (no change). That was my intent at least. Blueboar (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think it worked. I was ill at the time or I would have said something, so my apologies for that. Also, you didn't sign it, so I don't know whether the RfC bot would have picked it up in readable form. It reproduces whatever is before the first sig. Plus your title (compromise) made it POV from the start (I have just changed this, and added a sign after the first two lines for the bot). But whatever we do, it must stay open for the full 30 days, and we must make sure people are told about it in a completely neutral way, or it will have been a waste of time. SlimVirgin 22:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar, it was just too much to read. It needed two separate sections, one of which asked "Do you want to keep the first sentence as it is?" That clarity was important, and I thought we had agreed to do that. Otherwise, we have people agreeing to change because they're fed up, and think "no change" isn't a realistic option. SlimVirgin 22:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sarek, I am not going to convicne you? Why not? Aremyou just so closed mined that you do not believe in discussion? or, you quote policy only when it serves your purposes? At least no one can blame me for failing to assume good faith and be civil. And no, I do not need to go to AN. I am going to keep editing according to policy, which means that the RfC is a request for comments, not a vote, and that it must be followed by decision, not your attempt to impose your own views on the V policy page without consensus. And if you don't like it, well, then you are free to go to AN. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I have asked on AN/I for uninvolved admins to close it after 30 days. See here. SlimVirgin 22:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For closing an enormous and messy RFC with a positive decision rather than a wishy-washy compromise. —S Marshall T/C 18:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

RE: Outing

Sarek,

There's no link on Cazedessus's page that identifies him as the person he was stated to be, nor does he say it's him, so per WP:OUTING, which reads:

Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Misplaced Pages. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address,

Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Misplaced Pages. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address.....etc.....

It's outing unless he says it's him ... per policy. I'll remove that name, per policy. @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 19:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

"I won the Hugo in 1966 for my fanzine" is him saying he's him, as far as I'm concerned... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

BUT not as far a wiki is concnerned. He isn't identifying himself. Unless he self-identifies by name, we can't make an assumption. (I hear ya though.... it looks pretty obvious! ) @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 19:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Opinion

Since you previously commented on the outing silliness on BLPN, I'd like a reality check. Regarding Kosh Vorlon, BLPN, and User:Smoothpath: I'm not crazy, right? I told KV I'd block him if he kept playing that game, and immediately after, a new account shows up to revert again. By reverting and blocking an obvious troll, I'm not getting tricked into a "using his tools in a content dispute" zOMG ANI situation, am I? And do you agree that this wouldn't really be KV's style, and it's probably a joe job? I don't have the energy for an SPI, especially one that I'm pretty sure would come back negative. Thoughts? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd let it ride. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Your unconscionable misrepresentation of your status as "uninvolved"

Given your prior, active involvement in the debate surrounding the evolution of "Campaign for santorum neologism", eg....

I think that "sex-related" is more accurate, as the primary sources for the beginning of the campaign clearly state that was the goal. "Vulgar" is an opinion that was later hung on it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:10 am, 23 June 2011, Thursday (4 months, 6 days ago) (UTC−4)

...it is beyond me how you presumed to close the current RfC as an "uninvolved" party. Please revert your closure to allow an unbiased closure of the RfC. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see that as making me too involved to close a discussion that was that lopsided. Now, if it had been a close choice, that would be have been a different story. But in any case, I've reverted. I'll be very surprised if anyone else closes it a different way.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your reconsideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sarek, I think the only way to bring closure in this incident is for you to block yourself. 24 hrs should do nicely.– Lionel 01:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm thinking about blocking Slim, Jimbo, and Risker, and deleting the Main Page. If I'm going to do it, need to do it right, yes? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't gonna go there, but they are overdue. You can delete the main page only if you replace it with this. – Lionel 02:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Hang in there. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 03:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want you can name me your heir apparent and nom me for RFA. – Lionel 03:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I don't dislike you that much. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

LOL!!! – Lionel 03:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, he obviously hates me though. Tricked me into getting on that ride! ;-) ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 03:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Walked right into that one, didn't I? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

For posterity

Hey Sarek. I know that with time, memories get a little faded, so I wanted to drop this note on your talk page for posterity. You resigned your adminship today. I know my opinion means squat compared with those who run the show, but I for one do not believe you resigned "under a cloud". I say this because I hope after you take some time to refocus on what brought you to Misplaced Pages in the first place (hopefully the content :), you pick up your mop again. Best, NW (Talk) 03:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• I came here to say pretty much what NW has said above. I wish you well, and if I can ever do anything to help or support you, just message or email me. --John (talk) 05:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• • What the hell are you doing resigning your admin status? Ridiculous, really... Doc talk 06:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You blocked me, and edited over protection to a version I saw no consensus for, and you were right. I pretty much approve of all of your tool use that I've seen. I have no idea what this resignation is about but I hope you won't reduce your presence on the project because it needs rational editors. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Resigned? Um, WTF? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Per NW: best wishes William M. Connolley (talk) 09:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope you didn't resign over this. I know you're probably not a huge fan of mine given how critical I've been in the past, but I earnestly think you did nothing wrong there and would be very sorry if my own past criticism helped lay the foundations for that nonsense. SlimVirgin is just using cheap tactics to protect her creation. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This was probably the most proximate cause for my resignation. If I couldn't act while involved, but SlimVirgin and Slrubenstein could, then I was so longer interested in giving people the "involved admin" stick to beat me over the head with. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Sarek, I'm genuinely sorry that it came to this. In my opinion, you can hold your head high. Best wishes from me, very truly. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Same here. SV is a Wikipolitician par excellence and you had the misfortune to get in her way. If Misplaced Pages was a functional organization your fate and hers would be the reverse of what has transpired. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm just here to add my support as well. Your close was a valid one, as there was and is clear consensus. Reopening the RfC could also have been valid, but it was soured by SV's behavior. She's a clearly involved admin edit warring and wikilawyering to keep her own favored version (she won't win, as consensus is solidly against her) - that's bad enough but to have the temerity in the midst of all that to cast aspersions on you for allegedly being an involved admin is just disappointing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

from Christine Lavin -- just trying to change the photo on my page

Hi -- All I wanted to do was fix the errors on my page and change the photo -- now I get "edit conflict" messages.

Why is adding a photo so complicated? I've been at this for over an hour -- I have a Mac, am self-taught, but I've been doing this a long time.

I hate the photo that someone posted -- I took it down; now it's back up. I updated info on my compilation with new links -- it was up; now it's reverted back to outdated info.

I have so much other work to do -- this is hanging me up -- Can you advise me? Thanks so much.

Christine Lavin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teenylavin (talk • contribs) 19:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you upload the file yet? There doesn't seem to be a File:CLavin2.jpg last time I looked.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)