Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jclemens (talk | contribs) at 17:48, 28 August 2012 (→Copyvio help please: r). 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

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

Welcome, correspondents If you're here because I deleted an article you think should be undeleted, please read this first and remember--Most of the time, I didn't write the text that appears in the deletion summary.
N.B. I don't respond well to either fawning or abuse. Talk to me like a peer, assume good faith, and you'll find I reciprocate in my helpfulness.

Functionary Assistance My ability to help as a checkuser, oversighter, or arbitrator in individual matters is currently limited by my positional and non-Misplaced Pages obligations. For non-trivial assistance, especially that which requires extensive consideration of private correspondence, you will likely get a faster response by asking another functionary.

Position Essays may help you understand my point of view with regard to...

• Notability of Fictional Topics
• Articles for Deletion
• Blocks
• My RfA Standards

Administrator Goals Doing my best to improve the tiny little wedge in the top center:

Transwikification question

Hey there. I recently had Geordie dialect words moved to Wikibooks. I'm trying to figure out the next step. Is the local article a candidate for A5, or should I do a cross wiki redirect, or is there another option? I've never done this type of move before, and it's been a fairly confusing process thus far. Thanks. —Torchiest _edits 01:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

You know, I wish I knew more about the process myself. I've never actually done any transwikiing myself. Can any TPS help out? Or does anyone know anyone else who would know better? Jclemens (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Just for anyone curious, I ended up redirecting the article, as that will be the easiest to undo if circumstances change or someone suggests another method of dealing with it. —Torchiest _edits 19:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Fluke votestack

I suggest the DRV is fatally flawed by caspring's WP:CANVASS actions made on a non-random and incomplete basis. For the nonce, I suggest the "controversy" article which remains is more than sufficient. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I already voted on it, so I can't act as an admin... I was just looking at the end result, not the process, at any rate; rarely will the particular course of an AfD/DRV alter my opinion, since I tend to ask "Does this belong in the encyclopedia in this form?" rather than "were all the rules followed?" Jclemens (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I know - just needed to make sure the issue was clearly raised at this point, as right now the DRV is not addressing what DRVs are supposed to address <g> Collect (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

CANVASSer (Casprings) blocked 48H for edit war to boot -- I think we have a problem, Houston. Collect (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah... but if I stick to the facts vs. personalities and conduct, I can politely disagree with anyone. Or agree with anyone, for that matter. I get enough personalities and conduct working on ArbCom! :-) Jclemens (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

As the blocking admin, and in the interest of clarity: Casprings was blocked for a 3RR violation on a different article, not for canvassing or other activity at this DRV. I haven't looked into the canvassing allegation. MastCell  19:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

D&D redirects

Other users apparently already support my contributions, and unless you want to fully commit to the edit-war you've started (which wouldn't look too good coming for an admin, I guess), if you still disagree with what was done you will have to get your hands dirty and actually discuss instead of mass reverting and bypassing an established consensus. We have several AfDs and discussions on the D&D wikiproject that support standardized redirection of articles on D&D fictional elements, which have been deemed non-notable as a whole, and keeping to brush that away and reverting every redirect that you see is not going to be seen as constructive. I don't mind good-faith disagreement to my edits, but since I'm merely implementing the consensus that was reached in these AfD, I think immediate reverts of my edits without discussion, if they keep occuring, could eventually be seen as POV pushing. Surely editors who disagree are perfectly capable of refraining themselves from immediately jumping on my edits and reverting them before having discussed the fact that my course of action is fully supported by several AfDs.

As a proof that massive reverts of my edits without discussions are unconstructive, you've restored articles that had been redirected per their own specific AfDs, and I've immediately reimplemented the redirects in these cases.

Also, please don't use misguided essays in my talk page, or on the topic of D&D redirects. You refer to WP:Fait accompli, yet what it refers to, ie "Fait accompli actions, where actions are justified by virtue of being already carried out, and difficult to reverse" is merely called a consensus on Misplaced Pages, and I hardly see how having a consensus and implementing it would be inappropriate.Folken de Fanel (]) 23:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Which articles had their own specific AfD's? I did not see any of them, but it's entirely possible I missed something because of the volume of non-consensus redirects I was reverting. (I'll get to your other points after we ascertain this one--I don't want it to get lost) Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 23:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see the two, from 2008 and 2009, from your history. In neither case was the AfD notice on the top page of the history. That is, they were un-redirected, and enough work had been done on those two articles that to see the past AfD would have required scrolling past a good number of intervening edits. I'll address your other points next. Jclemens (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

So, the problems I see with your response are as follows:

1) You mischaracterize consensus. Certainly, some people agree with you. Others do not. If you want consensus addressed, you need to get an uninvolved administrator to do it for you.

2) You are the one doing the blanket removals. The editor(s) who created and augmented those articles created specific sources. After a redirect is reverted, the appropriate thing to do is to discuss at the talk page or at a centralized location such as AfD. I don't recall seeing any of that for anything I've un-redirected. WP:BRD is the appropriate guideline.

3) Fait Accompli is indeed triggered by mass reversions. If you'll look at it carefully, that's not just an essay, it includes a summary of a relevant ArbCom principle, which has been applied multiple times since against editors with behavior patterns similar to yours. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing edit number for actual work on article. I can include each word from this very sentence as seperate edits so that an actual AfD outcome implementation will eventually pushed back in the history and hidden from contributors, that doesn't mean the reasons why the article was deleted in the first place have been adressed.

1) Which as already been done in various AfDs which outcomes and rationales have already been evaluated by uninvolved admins.

2) I'm merely implementing the consensus from these AfDs. Except in one case, I have not seen any discussion following reverts of my edits. I don't think BRD is relevant here since we already have a consensus, but I don't see how BRD would have been respected here in any way since reverts of my edits were not followed by discussion.

3) I'm implementing a consensus, which is hardly inappropriate. If you're really looking for cases of fait accompli, if I were you I'd rather look in the direction of these massive reverts-turned-articles that have been done by anonymous IPs that have repeatedly ignored requests of taking notability issues into considerations (see also the ratio of deletion vs conservation of these article, and tell me that these mass-creations are still warranted), edits that are often hiding specific AfD outcome violations.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

No, you're not implementing any consensus, and repeatedly stating that you have a consensus is disingenuous: consensus exists per article. What you've been doing is actually called "Edit warring" or "disruptive editing". Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Fine, you want the last word, as usual, so again write whatever you want after my message and I won't answer. That won't change the fact that a consensus exist, however. But enjoy yourself nonetheless.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

If consensus existed, you would be able to point to a single discussion, closed by an uninvolved administrator, that explicitly stated such a consensus. You have yet to do so. While I don't dispute that you may in good faith believe that such a consensus exists, in such a case you should yourself be questioning how I can in good faith assert that it does not. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that there are, by my count, at least twice as many editors opposed to these mass redirects as there are those that support them. —Torchiest _edits 00:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

And consensus does nor require unanimity, neither is it a head count. Last time such IP-created D&D monster article came up at AfD, it was specifically pointed out that an AfD wasn't required and that the initial redirect shouldn't have been reverted. If people who "don't support the redirects" are just going to recommand a redirect in AfD, as it happened for cyclopskin, then there is no need to go through an AfD. If people who don't support the redirects or revert the redirect can't substanciate their opinion (no redirect = article is notable = where are the sources ?), then they shouldn't be taken into account. Rejecting bold redirects out of pure ideology, when another AfD pointed out the merits of this solution, is not an option, unless thoroughly argumented, which I haven't seen here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 03:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You keep posting here, and keep not coming up with a link to the consensus I pointed out that you can't document. If you can't do that, but instead just try to Wikilawyer away an entire group of articles based on a series of presumptions about their content potential while strenuously objecting to individual examinations of that potential... Yeah, I'm just not seeing good credibility here. Jclemens (talk) 04:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cyclopskin in which it has been specifically pointed out by a variety of users that such articles on minor D&D creatures shouldn't have been made in the first place, and that AfDs are not needed to deal with them. We have consensus on a specific course of action, and 21 AfDs on similar articles with the same outcome to substanciate it. I don't see any valid reason to oppose further immediate redirects, I had previously tried to redirect all the articles nominated in the "Deatch watch bettle" AfD, and all these articles were subsequently redirected per AfD outcome. There is no credible argumentation here that the artiles I just redirected wouldn't have the same fate in AfD. This is the same case as Cyclopskin, were redirects are proven more appropriate than AfD, and again, you have not provided any sensible reason why the consensus at Cyclopskin AfD shouldn't be taken into account. I'm merely asking those disagreeing with the redirects to provide reasonings based on our content policies and guidelines like WP:GNG as to why these articles shouldn't be redirected, or why the Cyclopskin consensus should be ignored. I'm still waiting.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I only see you and one other (Snow) in general agreement about that. While most people there suggested redirecting, I don't see them saying that should necessarily be the default position. As we've seen, the amount of coverage varies greatly from one creature to the next. —Torchiest _edits 14:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Nominator Drmies agreed with default redirect, since he tried to redirect the article first and was reverted. sgeureka argued that it is "unneccessary bureaucracy and drama to revert the redirect telling Drmies to take this to AfD , and then immediately saying deletion is unnecessary" (if any of the articles I have redirected go to AfD, can you assure me you won't recommend a redirection ?). Salimfadhley states that "I cannot see how any of these minor D&D monster articles pass GNG". Rorshacma "can't understand why the redirect was reverted to begin with", and even Hobit agreed that "this doesn't belong at AfD as others have noted above". We have a discussion at the D&D Wikiproject that also supports this course of action. We've had 21 AfDs (including Cyclopskin and Death watch bettle) on these similar IP-created, primarily sourced articles on minor D&D creatures, the outcome was consistently redirect for lack of notability. Your statement that "the amount of coverage varies greatly from one creature to the next" is completely unconvincing and doesn't adress the fact that each of these IP-created minor D&D monster article that went to AfD was redirected per lack of notability. The articles I've just redirected are similar Ip-created and primarily sourced, and I haven't seen you providing reliable coverage for these. The cyclopsin consensus is still valid and I've seen no credible reason in your argumentation not to implement it. I would not insist on redirects if such articles had previously been kept at AfD, but the ratio of AfD redirections (21) vs conservations (0) is glaring evidence against your opinion. Unless you actually provide sources that would ensure an article among those IP-created and recently redirected could survive an AfD (again not forgetting the consensus on valid sources in the "Dwb" AfD), I'm afraid I see no credible reason not to implement the course of action suggested in the Cyclopskin AfD and the D&D Wikiproject.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't have time to personally source dozens of articles in the span of a couple of days. I have worked on one article, Dwarf (Dungeons & Dragons), and even you have tacitly admitted that it now passes WP:GNG. So my point about varying amounts of coverage stands. —Torchiest _edits 15:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

That you have found content for an article on one of the major player character races is nice. However that has little to no relation to the articles such as Crawling claw. Thats like saying that becuase there are sufficient reliable sources for this dog we should accept your claim that there are sources out there that just need to be looked for to support the creation of my pet dog Fido and that we should just wait until someone decides to take the time to look for them. When (if) reliable third party sources providing significant content about the particular critter is found, THEN then a stand alone article can be created/recreated to be based on what the sources have to say about the subject.-- The Red Pen of Doom 15:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

TRPOD is right, I thought I made it clear that I was refering to the myriad of recent redirects-turned-articles by IPs on minor monsters.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Gentlemen, the problem with all this is that none of it answers the question I asked, which I repeat here for clarity: Is there any one discussion, closed by an impartial admin, where consensus was that any such D&D creature should be automatically and permanently redirected rather than being independently discussed? All that's been given is a bunch of examples, which, per WP:OTHERSTUFF are not normative. Likewise, lumping a bunch of dissimilar creatures together at one AfD and getting one result is not normative for other, non-nominated creatures. Jclemens (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I think here and here and the various links above show that the real question is where is there any consensus that they should not be subject to WP:N? -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No one here has advocated that N does not apply, merely asserted that each creature might separately meet it, due to sourcing that varies from creature to creature. You've just committed a talk page foul; please apologize for doing so, cease doing so in the future, or excuse yourself from posting on this topic at my talk page. Jclemens (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

But we have consensus at the Cyclopskin AfD and the D&D Wikiproject discussion that minor D&D creatures are unlikely to be notable and that redirects are prefered over unnecessary and time-consuming bureaucracy that are AfDs. By the way, no "dissimilar creatures" were lumped together at AfD, all the articles nominated for the "Death watch bettle" AfD were similar minor creatures from a similar franchise, all similarly primarily sourced, all similarily massively created without considerations for our notability guidelines by the same IPs in early 2012 or during 2011, from similar redirects initially pointing to lists of D&D monsters.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Cyclopskin is not normative per WP:OTHERSTUFF, and the D&D Wikiproject discussion not only lacks the consensus you ascribe to it, but has not been adjudicated as such by an impartial admin. You've been told this repeatedly, but continue to repeat the same arguments--this is the behavior that reminds me of Otto4711 and other sockmasters: rather than actually trying to GET consensus, he routinely pretends as if his interpretation is normative and refuses to attempt to actually garner consensus or engage with good-faith editors who see things differently. Until you alter your repetitive arguments, you are not contributing to a constructive dialogue. Jclemens (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF is an essay and thus cannot supplement a consensus that establishes a course of action for specific articles. The D&D Wikiproject discussion does feature a consensus which has already been implemented. Adjudication by an impartial admin is not required, but if you're really intent on using that argument, then no impartial admin has adjudicated a consensus on reverting redirects. Blame of WP:IDHT as much as you want, it is not because you disagree that it means you have consensus with you, consensus does not require unanimity. And it is preposterous to imply that until I agree with you I'm "not contributing to a constructive dialogue". You want to be constructive ? Then find sources that would prevent the articles to be redirected. Otherwise you have no reason to revert the redirects.Folken de Fanel (talk) 02:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You should probably read WP:ONLYESSAY, which is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. You've failed multiple times to bring forth any actual precedent, despite being invited to do so and told what it would look like, yet you persist in pretending that one exists. You are welcome to post on this topic on this page again once you have found such a consensus. Failing that, you're still not being constructive here. Fact is, if you want things redirected, you need per-article consensus, which you do not have. To recap, you have been specifically warned that re-redirecting articles without a consensus is edit warring, that doing so en masse is disruptive editing per WP:FAIT, and invited to take specific articles to AfD if you believe it appropriate to have the sourcing reviewed by the community as a whole and the consensus judged by an uninvolved administrator. Jclemens (talk) 02:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The actual precedents are Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cyclopskin and D&D Wikiproject. That you want to turn a blind eye to it doesn't change facts, and you are unable to link to any consensus preventing redirects. Since redirects are defined as perfectly acceptable alternative to deletion per policy, and are supported by consensus in previous AfD and discussion on the relevant wikiproject, you are hereby warned that reverting redirects without adressing the editorial reason why they've been redirected is edit warring, that doing so en masse is disruptive editing per WP:FAIT. You are invited to use article talk pages and present argumentation based on editorial policies and guidelines if you believe articles have appropriate sourcing to guaranty them notability.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The former is a single AfD in which the closing statement makes no mention of dealing with anything beyond the one article in question and the latter is not even an RfC. You've been citing the same two "precedents" inappropriately for quite a while now--it's clear that no such actual precedents exist, and that you do not desire to actually seek such a precedent. You can try the warn-the-admin-for-the-same-thing-he-already-warned-me-for schtick, but I don't think it will have the desired results. Until and unless you have something substantially new to add to the discussion, I'm considering it closed. Jclemens (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It is pretty clear to me that there is no established consensus that all of the articles redirected by Folken de Fanel should be redirected. It may be that some of them lack sufficient sourcing, but this is not the reality in every case. I have never seen a policy which read that a few AFDs and a few discussions on talk pages could proactively determine consensus for any and all similar type of articles and allow a user to redirect dozens of articles without engaging in further discussion. Even if that were true, this argument does not apply to every article that Folken de Fanel redirected on August 21. Dwarf (Dungeons & Dragons), Bruenor Battlehammer, Basilisk (Dungeons & Dragons), Nymph (Dungeons & Dragons), and Marilith have all been subsequently restored, and sources were added; in the case of the first two, independent sources already existed in the articles before they were redirected. If these can be improved, then I have to wonder what can be done with the rest. Additionally, the argument that Folken was merely reverting anything which started off as a redirect and that he restored to a redirect is also misleading, as all of those I mentioned above and many of the others which Folken de Fanel redirected this week did not start out as redirects, including some that this user has edit-warred over to keep as redirects (see the edit history of Abyss (Dungeons & Dragons) for an example, which does have at least one independent source). Some cases, such as Aboleth, had a previous AFD where no consensus was determined, and as we know from the example of Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons) it is possible that an article can remain as an article if there is no consensus to delete or redirect. I have never seen "discussions on the D&D wikiproject that support standardized redirection of articles on D&D fictional elements, which have been deemed non-notable as a whole" (emphasis mine) – to my knowledge there has never been such a conclusion reached, as some D&D fictional elements have proven to be notable, so such a blanket statement is blatantly false. Therefore, I am restoring the D&D articles that Folken de Fanel has redirected without determining consensus first. For what it’s worth, I did not assess each of them individually before restoring. Any user who wishes to discuss these articles further on a case-by-case basis may of course do so; such a discussion need not take place at AFD, although a user talk page is probably not the best place to continue this. Also, remember that tags such as notability, primary sources, and refimprove are far less controversial than redirecting or deleting an article, and may produce positive results. BOZ (talk)

Thanks, BOZ. It's worth noting that several different editors un-redirected and improved the articles you listed. I did the perfunctory work on Marilith to demonstrate non-primary sourcing, but it's not at all clear to me that what I found was ALL that could be found. The large number of folks working on a variety of articles demonstrates that there is no widespread consensus that all of these articles are irreparably unsourceable, and only reinforces my contention that blanket solutions are inappropriate for fictional creatures which have varying levels of mythological origin and adoption in later derivative works. Jclemens (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Fine, AfD it is, then. Two words. One for Jclemens: "varying levels of mythological origin and adoption in later derivative works": these elements don't have any influence on notability. To BOZ: "I have never seen discussions on the D&D wikiproject ....": yes you have, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dungeons_&_Dragons/Archive_30#Consolidation_Proposal.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The level of effort required to get you to actually use the proper methods for resolving contested merges has been unreasonable. Do be sure to nominate the ones you find most problematic individually, so we can actually assess them individually, otherwise I'll be arguing to sever them as unequal in coverage. Jclemens (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS

Please be sure to use warning templates appropriately.

WP:CANVASS states that "On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed. The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it."

The notice for which you have unduly warned me was on TheRedPenOfDoom's talkpage, who is certainly a concerned editor which has participed to previous discussions. To be perfectly neutral, I have also notified BOZ, who, I'm sure, is not known for having a similar viewpoint on the matter.

If you absolutely want to warn people for canvassing, I guess BOZ might be a more likely candidate than me, because of this edit, and I haven't seen him sending an identical notice to someone known for having a different opinion than his...Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You may be right, BOZ probably could have phrased that better. But then, BOZ doesn't have a history of edit warring, misrepresenting consensus, WP:IDHT textwalling, incivility in the form of calling non-vandalism edits vandalism in edit summaries, and making widespread disputed changes, so I think I'll focus on editors who seem to be less interested in collegial editing than BOZ. Jclemens (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, Misplaced Pages doesn't seem to be lacking that, you're gonna have your hands full for a while, then. Good luck in your quest !Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

As to your comment at TRPOD's talkpage, you were already informed that my comment wasn't canvassing in any way, and you as much as admitted it yesterday. Yet now you act as if our conversation never happened, and you try to have TRPOD either remove his comment in AfD or to identify me as a canvasser ? Why didn't you go on with your logic and ask BOZ, whom I also notified, to also remove his statement or to denonce me as a "partisan" who nonetheless notifies his "adversaries" ? Because you know that would have been completely outside the boundaries of WP:CANVASS just as your comment at TRPOD is, that it would have established my neutrality, and of course you would not have requested the removal of a comment that suits you. Stop making false allegations.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if you think I "as much as admitted it yesterday", then you really need to go back and read my response more carefully. The entirety of my response is above, and in no way excuses or exonerates your continued violation of Misplaced Pages conduct expectations, merely agrees that BOZ's could be phrased better. Or, to put it another way, "two wrongs don't make a right". Jclemens (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

You carefully avoid to answer to my main argument: I did not canvass per the criteria of acceptable notification from WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification. I've already explained it to you once, I thought the matter was settled but you continued your false allegations on TRPOD's talk page, I've clarified the situation for a second time, and your only response was to write another false allegation this time directly in the AfD discussion. This has gone too far: I ask you to remove your accusation that I would have canvassed TRPOD, or if you don't want that, to equally request for BOZ's comment to be "stricken as the result of partisan recruitment", since I've also notified him right after TRPOD.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

At some point, this is veering into WP:COMPETENCE territory, I'm afraid. Are you asserting that BOZ canvassed himself to appear and participate? That's entirely divergent from reality, since in the diff you provided it was BOZ who notified Bilby, who has not yet participated in the AfD. On the second part, you seem to have this disturbing habit of believing that whatever explanation you provide will be universally accepted as sufficient and convincing. On the contrary, rarely are any arguments you set forward actually convincing or sufficient, and if they were, I would signal my agreement by saying something along the lines of "Well, that's a really good argument" or "I agree with you". A failure to say "Is NOT!" or some other direct refutation should never be taken as signalling tacit acceptance. This may shed some light on why you have a propensity to textwall by providing rebuttals that have zero new argument, if you're in the mood for introspection. Jclemens (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

1) No, I'm saying that I notified BOZ for the Adherer AfD User_talk:BOZ#AfD_on_D.26D_creatures at about the same time I mentionned it at TRPOD's talk page. I was perfectly within the limits of WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification which recommands that "identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it". I've sent an identical notice to BOZ, who is not known for sharing my opinion, I thus have not been partisan and conformed in good faith to what I read in WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification.

2) The direct consequence of this is that if you consider my message on TRPOD's page to be canvassing, then my message on BOZ's page is also canvassing, and you should ask BOZ's comment to be equally stricken from the AfD.

3) I wasn't even notifying TRPOD and recruting him for the AfD, but rather discussing a new course of action with him, anticipating he might have considered reverting BOZ's reverts. And in case this discussion was seen as canvassing, I decided to also notify BOZ of the AfD, to prove my good faith.

4) so when you say "rarely are any arguments you set forward actually convincing or sufficient" and refuse to listen to my explanations of good faith avoidance of canvassing, you are actually assuming bad faith on my part ? Do you consider my similar AfD notice to BOZ as "clear evidence that I'm trying to hurt the project" ?

5) TRPOD told you that "All three articles are on my watch list and the afd posting there is as much or more responsible than the above comment, so no I will not strike my opinion nor falsely state that the notice posted by FdF was responsible", yet you're still asking for his comment in the AfD to be removed. Are you also claiming that "rarely are any arguments TRPOD sets forward actually convincing or sufficient" and thus assuming bad faith on his part when he tells you that ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Can I recommend you take a break for a while? You're making yourself look bad when you assert that this is equivalent to this. The former is clearly partisan; the second a courtesy notification. This underlies the fact that you simply seem not to understand either the spirit or letter of WP:CANVASS. All participation after a CANVASS violation (which your notice to TRPOD was, while your notice to BOZ was not) is akin to a Fruit of the poisonous tree problem. I don't have to disbelieve that you intended the notification of BOZ to balance your canvassing of TRPOD, nor that TRPOD did indeed have those articles on his watchlist, for his participation to be problematic. You see, the reasons we have conduct expectations is that a few very vocal persons can POV-push their way around policies and guidelines by bullying off one side and recruiting editors friendly to their cause to cause a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at odds with larger policy. And, in the big picture, that is why I have a problem with your repeated violations of Misplaced Pages's conduct norms. Jclemens (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

1) No, my notice to TRPOD was not partisan. Absolutely nowhere do I tell him to "please write a delete comment in this AfD". As I told you, I was first discussing a course of action with him (AfDs rather than redirects), and he is a "concerned editor who has participated in previous discussions on the same topic". And my message to BOZ proves beyond doubt that I'm not partisan since I notified someone who was not on my party. You are the only one not understanding either the spirit or letter of WP:CANVASS, and your insistance on protraying me as "partisan" even when I notify people who are sure not to have the same view as me, without any more proof, can only be seen as assumption of bad faith. You are not acting as an uninvolved admin, we are both locked in an on-going editorial dispute and your last 2 sentences are glaring evidence for that, and I ask you to remove all your accusations from the AfD page until a perfectly uninvolved third party judges my actions to indeed be as you chose to portray them.

2) Warning me is one thing, but that you're still trying to get TRPOD's comment removed per a so-called canvassing, after he has firmly told you that neither his participation nor the nature of his comment at AfD had anything to do with my message on his page, is just going way too far. Again, I want to see how this would be handled by a third-party admin not involved as you are in an on-going editorial dispute with both me and TRPOD.Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

By all means, try and find an uninvolved administrator who will pronounce your message to TRPOD "non-partisan". You've got more of a chance of getting an admin to say "no big deal" with respect to TRPOD's involvedment in the AfD despite your obviously partisan canvassing. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I was not partisan due to my notice to BOZ, and I never fed TRPOD with the AfD comment I wanted, even my notice to him was neutral, as per WP:CANVASS, he is a "concerned editor who has participated in previous discussions on the same topic" and I equally notified a user likely to disagree with me. And if you consider it is likely other admins will consider TRPOD's involvment as "no big deal", then I think removing your request in the AfD yourself will always look better and be a good sign that you're willing to compromise and keep things from escalating.Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, you seem to have some problems understanding what is and is not partisan. Your note to TRPOD begins "Jclemens and BOZ have proved their intention to edit war..." and continues in the same vein. You can't balance that with a neutral notification to other parties: it's forthrightly partisan in its content. Jclemens (talk) 01:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"Jclemens and BOZ have proved their intention to edit war..." is mere fact, and as I told you, I merely wanted to discuss the merits of another course of action than following you in your edit warring, because it was obvious more reverts were just not the right solution. I've left TRPOD similar messages in the past , and it is clear my message in itself was not a notice but rather a part of an ongoing editorial discussion. If two users having the same opinion and discussing the best way to do things is "partisan", then you have thousands of other users to warn.
The actual part where I mention the AfD is "I've started the process with Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Adherer by nominating the 3 articles that escaped the "death watch bettle" AfD, because BOZ's reverting spree also touched your redirects on Adherer, Brownie (Dungeons & Dragons) and Caryatid column (Dungeons & Dragons). " This unquestionably neutral, it is clear that my AfD was a result of BOZ reverting TRPOD's edit, this is making him a "concerned editor" whom it is appropriate to notify, and knowing TRPOD would be involved in the matter anyway, I showed him there was another way to proceed than what was done before. Absolutely nowhere do I tell him to "please write a delete comment in this AfD". And in accordance to WP:CANVASS, in order to avoid being seen as partisan, I also notified BOZ. Unfortunately, unless you assume bad faith on my part, there's nothing you can say against that, WP:CANVASS is clearly respected.
You still haven't removed your request in the AfD, while admitting others won't see TRPOD's comment as a big deal.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Michael Blake (musician)

Hi you deleted Michael Blake (musician) as I had reused the bio information that he provided me for his website. I am now starting to chip away at rewriting it but I'm not sure I have selected the right process. The new page is here...http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Michael_Blake_(musician) If you have any advice to give I will be happy to act on it. Regards, Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulgblake (talk • contribs) 20:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a much better effort. There were two reasons the previous article were deleted: lack of significance and copyright violation. Since it's easy for people to cut-and-paste articles from the Internet into Misplaced Pages, we do our best to keep those out unless there's a clear explanation of why the text matches an external website. In your case, it sounds like you wrote both, but we wouldn't have known that. So you can say similar things, but be sure to avoid copying verbatim (except for small quotes), or closely paraphrasing what you wrote elsewhere. The real question is... who else cares about him? An NYT reference is great, but has he received any other industry press? At any rate, you have a good start and I see no insurmountable problems here. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Jjclemens

I'm not sure if it's a coincidence or a problem, but you might want to keep an eye on http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Jjclemens —Kww(talk) 22:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. The name is common enough that I don't guess that there's probably any intent to be a doppleganger, but time will tell. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio help please

Hey, I'm not sure how to deal with this problem I've discovered. I've been working on cellular automaton the last few days, and I just found a reference that looks to have been stolen verbatim. I rewrote part of it a little while ago before realizing that other sections of the text were copied as well. Specifically, the first six paragraphs in the history section are plagiarized. The source is here, the two sections called "The Birth of Cellular Automaton" and "The Zuse-Fredkin Thesis" on pages 5–7. I'd already re-written some other parts of it a few days ago as well, but if you look at this version, you can see it's basically word-for-word. I'm not sure if I can just continue to rewrite it, or if something else needs to be done to zap the history. Thanks. —Torchiest _edits 17:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Continue to rewrite it. I'm doing a few other things, and then I will go through and make sure I agree that you've adequately paraphrased it (and let you know if I disagree), and then I'll nuke the copyvio from history. Thanks for bringing this to my attention! Jclemens (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It may take a while to rewrite everything properly. Meanwhile, I've found where a big piece of the material was added, almost a decade ago, if that helps. —Torchiest _edits 17:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. I'll go read up on best known methods for fixing such messes, but I'm afraid the whole history between then and now may need to be nuked. Jclemens (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Err, wait. That book is from 2011. Did someone plagiarize them, or did they plagiarize Misplaced Pages? Jclemens (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, wow, I hadn't noticed that. Now I'm really confused. That's the first edition of the book. —Torchiest _edits 17:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's get some more eyes on this. How about bringing this up at WP:CP, (feel free to reference this discussion here) and see what other folks who do this as a primary emphasis have to say about the possibility? Regardless, you've clearly done the right thing by spotting the problem and bringing it to someone's attention. Jclemens (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)