Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Humanpublic (talk | contribs) at 15:22, 2 March 2013 (→Inflammatory reverts). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user is in school. This user is taking a wikibreak and may be away or inactive for varying periods of time. Although he may occasionally be able to do some editing, messages left for him may not be replied to for a while. He will be back on Misplaced Pages when school is over.

Welcome to Misplaced Pages... please join us at the Teahouse!

Hello! RedSoxFan2434, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse, an awesome place to meet people, ask questions, and learn more about Misplaced Pages. Please join us! Rosiestep (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi!

Hello!

Just thought I'd drop you a line since I saw that you edited this article, which I also frequently edit, and if you plan to edit that article often as well, I thought you should be made aware of the fact that our usernames are very similar in order to avoid confusion, especially on the edit history page! (I actually thought I was somehow being credited with an edit I hadn't done until I noticed the difference in numbers in the usernames.)

Further questions? Write back here.

Thanks! And welcome to Misplaced Pages. :)

RedSoxFan274 _{(leave a message~contribs)} 08:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Note

Please see Talk:2012 Boston Red Sox season#Boxscore links in the game log.

Thanks! :)

RedSoxFan274 _{(leave a message~contribs)} 00:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

NBC's Must See TV

You are invited for the discussion about Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Proposals/NBC's Must See TV, intended for broadly shows in the Must See TV and Comedy Night Done Right lineups. --George Ho (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:THE OFFICE

I have proposed a conversion of this Project into a task force. Join in if you are available. --George Ho (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:village pump (idea lab)#Creating a guideline about naming a fictional character

There is another discussion about fictional character naming, but it is an idea of a proposal. You may join. --George Ho (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

PC backlog

Hi RedSoxFan2434,

I noticed your comments at ArbCom. I agree with you that the potential for backlog is one of the biggest issues with PC. However, I think having a time limit before automatically making edits visible has potential problems of its own. What do you think of adding something in to the policy along the lines of the following?

"Administrators should try to keep the number of pending-changes-protected pages to a level that is manageable by the active reviewers. As a rule of thumb, if edits are frequently waiting longer than an hour to be reviewed administrators should not apply PC protection to new pages and should instead look to reduce the number of pages under this type of protection."

Yaris678 (talk) 10:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that could work. Yes, time limits have problems - and while I don't know a whole lot about bots in general, would it be possible to have a bot that automatically integrates helpful edits and deletes unhelpful ones at the end of a time limit? At least for BLPs, where time limits are necessary to keep a page up-to-date, would we need this bot. An hour, though, could be too short an amount of time... plus we must also define at what level the ratio of PC-protected pages to reviewers becomes unmanageable. Would it be 10:1? 15:1? Is there a discussion about the policy's specifics like this going on somewhere that I can join? As the RfC close stated, all potential changes to the policy must reach consensus by November 1, or the original draft policy will go in place with no time limits nor restrictions on how widely it can be used. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Well the point of the rule of thumb is so that we don't need to specify a ratio of PC-protected pages to reviewers. If there are frequent delays then we try to reduce the number of pages. Simple. That means that if it turns out that a lot of reviewers get bored of reviewing we don't get massive backlogs but if we improve the software and enable people to review more quickly we can actually take on more pages... so it even reaches out to the "improve it first" people slightly.

I think the hour should be changeable by consensus but remember that we are talking about a period above which admins should avoid the delay being frequent. I think most edits will get reviewed pretty quickly. I'm happy to change the time... although I don't think it will have much practical effect and 1 hour is easy to remember.

In terms of discussion about policy specifics, check out Misplaced Pages:PC2012. A number of different users are writing proposals in subpages and I think the idea is to bring the ideas together at some point. At this stage you can write your own draft policy or possibly tweak someone else's. I did stick the "rule of thumb" idea I mention above in Misplaced Pages:PC2012/Adjwilley although he did ask my opinion... so I guess discussing on the talk page before making any big changes would be polite.... Yaris678 (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper straw poll

There is currently a straw poll taking place here. Your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc 00:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Cheers and Frasier task forces

I have combined Cheers and Frasier into one taskforce. I hope it doesn't affect your support, does it? --George Ho (talk) 02:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Some free advice on context and civility

Regarding your comments at the email RFC, I thought I would attempt to clarify a point about civility. Calling a proposal that was clearly made on the spur of the moment with no planning "poorly thought out and frankly stupid" is not incivility. If I said the user making the proposal was incapable of thought and was stupid, that would be incivility. One is a comment on an idea, the other is a personal attack. Context is important, it is frustrating to see how many Wikipedians these days react to honest, blunt descriptions of things with cries of "incivility" when all that is taking place is discussion of an idea. If I think an idea is stupid I have every right to say so. You may disagree and that's fine, healthy debate is good for Misplaced Pages, but if a person says an 'idea is stupid that is not incivility. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your intentions; I understood "poorly thought out" to mean that you were insulting another user's intelligence, which would be incivility. Evidently, you did not intend to do so. I also probably should not have responded in the snide way I did, but I had become quite frustrated by that time due to, among other things, another user's assumption that I was arguing against EmailUser without reading WP:EMAIL first, which is untrue. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Modification to May PC be applied to pages to protect against violations of the policy on biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)?

Hello. Because the "Yes" section was split between one group in favor of applying protection to all articles and one group in favor of applying protection to articles only when there has been a problem, I have split the section to reflect this difference. Please go back to that page and make sure that your vote is still in the section that most closely reflects your views. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

It still is; thank you for doing this, it was clearly needed. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Sandy

It was me, copy/pastying from talk and unknowingly including a nowiki tag. Sorry for the troubles. Steven Walling • talk 04:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 14:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

I was really impressed when I read on your userpage that you are a former vandal. I think that you have evolved amazingly since then, which I deeply respect. Turned vandals is an extremely rare sight here. By your contributions, I think you are more than deserving of this barnstar. I could not think of a fitting barnstar, so I hereby give you the Original.  :) Altaïr (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Reviewer

Hello, following a review of your contributions, I have enabled reviewer rights on your account. This gives you the ability to:

• Accept changes on pages undergoing pending changes,
• Have your changes automatically accepted on pending changes level 2 protected pages, and
• Administrate article feedback.

Please remember that this user right:

• Can be removed at any time for misuse, and
• Does not grant you any special status above other editors.

You should probably also read WP:PROTECT, since this user privilege deals largely with page protection. As the requirements for this privilege are still in a state of flux, I would encourage you to keep up to date on the WP:REVIEWER page. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions! Happy editing! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Reaper! I promise to use it wisely and monitor changes to reviewing policy. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Documents from the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum

hi

I work at the Gerald Ford Presidential Library and Museum, and we are uploading materials to Wikimedia Commons. We have a number of documents that might be of interest to you - they are located at Wikimedia, Category:Documents at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum.

If you are interested in writing articles/stubs, I may be able to provide you with pictures from our archives as well. We have a limited number of artifacts, to also at Wikimedia, Category:Artifacts at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum.

Let me know if I can help in any way, and please feel free to pass the word about these docs; I'd love to see some content generated around them....thanks! Bdcousineau (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits on Rape and pregnancy controversies in the 2012 United States elections

Just wanted to stop by and say thank you for the edits on Rape and pregnancy controversies in the 2012 United States elections. They are very helpful and have advanced the article greatly. Casprings (talk) 03:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing! I would like to contribute more, but unfortunately I am entering a WikiBreak of about a week or more due to vacation and work piling on top of said vacation. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Question

Why did you accept this edit which removed sourced content from Beneath Your Beautiful? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 22:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The WP:Reviewing guideline says that edits should only be rejected if they conflict with WP:BLP, or contain vandalism, copyvios, or legal threats/attacks/libel. This was determined to meet community consensus at WP:PC2012/RfC 2. That edit to Beneath Your Beautiful did not fail any of those requirements. I then attempted to revert the edit normally, but a slow browser failed to do so. I apologize for any inconvenience. I am glad to see the sourced info has been re-added. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Spence BLp

Hi RsF. I'm actually removing porrley and unsourced material from this BLP per guidlines. I've also added the afd tag as this page seems to focus on a subject other than it's namesake. Any assistance would be appreciated. Thanks. 108.172.114.141 (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the material you removed (that she is on a hunger strike) was sourced, well your claim that she is eating soup while on this supposed "hunger strike" was unsourced. Additionally, a deletion nomination was not necessary, as the article has none of these issues, and attempting to receive "assistance" in getting an article deleted is WP:Canvassing, which is also a violation. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Giovanni Battista Armenini

If you are ever unsure about whether or not an article should be brought to AFD, don't hesitate to ask myself or anyone else who is active over there. I also recommend going over WP:BEFORE if you haven't. We all appreciate anyone who is interested in participating in the AFD process. Again, don't hesitate to ask. Cheers. §FreeRangeFrog 20:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I did complete the "basic due diligence" of nominating for AFD, and I could not find secondary sources not related to the subject. I'm sorry of this was apparently not true. This was also not my first AFD, having previous withdrawn one where I had not done the correct procedure, and nominated this one which ended in no consensus. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 10:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect Non-Admin Rationale at WP:AIV ()

Hello RedSoxFan2434, it would be good for you to know that the account I reported (User:Yourmom123456789123) is explicitly a vandal and troll only account (just look at their massive disruptive edit filter log). And no, the username and the multiple attempts to make abusive edits counts as a persistent vandal account and are mostly blocked as per Misplaced Pages:Vandalism-only account and Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy#Disruption-only. So try to reconsider your rationale from next time. Thank you. ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that this matter has been dealt with. However, as a friendly reminder, WP:AIV is for vandals who have been given either a Level 4 or Level 4im vandalism warning and continued to vandalize beyond that point. Otherwise, the request is typically rejected for the reason of "insufficient warnings." WP:UWUL gives the generally accepted warning practices. However, my point is made moot by the fact that he/she was blocked for having a bad username. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

No, you seem to have misunderstood. It is not necessary for every account to receive a level 4 or 4im warning before reporting them to the relevant noticeboard when it is clear that the account will be used for disruption only. I suggest you re-read the policy pages I have provided you. The account which was reported was a typical vandalism-only account, they don't need prior warnings/notices to be blocked. ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware of what a vandalism-only account is, and that WP:VOA (which, to be clear, is not a policy, although it is a consensus) says that VOAs can be reported to WP:AIV. In fact, I believe that they should be reported to AIV. However, it does not say that VOAs can be reported to AIV without first being warned, while the AIV page itself says that "the user must have been given enough warnings to stop their disruptive behavior."

However, I am in no way protesting the block, as this account should have been listed at WP:UAA (which you did) and then blocked for its username (which it was). So, it seems like discussing further would be beating a dead horse. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Demba Ba

The article is currently being requested for semi-projection as IPs/Users have continuously introduced incorrect additions of cup stats to the infobox which is intended for league stats only, a long established convention. Attempts at adding hidden notes & talking to IPs have fell on deaf ears. Your last reviews have been incorrect (yes as a reviewer your not expected to be an expert on the subject) but you still should have looked at the page history given you have made a number reviews on that page. The last IP correctly reverted MadeInChina who has already been spoken to & you wrongly rejected. Please don't take this as a criticism I'm just informing of the situation, to avoid further confusion, Regards. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was not aware of this consensus, but I will follow it from now on. Thanks for letting me know. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem, it's such a pain that WP:RFPP always seems to take forever, if one of the footy admins was awake they would semi-protect but unfortunately not. Happy editing ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I've added my side to this debacle at the RFPP for this article. Hopefully something is done soon. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, now protected. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Spence ANI

Thanks for notifying me. I think you should make some recommendations within the ANI discussion to focus it. You might also want to add a bit more on the editors wanting to delete the article, which for me is almost always a sign of bad faith editing.

To me, this is a typical cultural dispute on a current event. I'm not sure what can be done given so many of the editors involved are simply here to insert their personal opinions into articles, or if they cannot, then attempt to delete the relevant articles or otherwise disrupt proper editing. --Ronz (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

An invitation for you!

	Hello, RedSoxFan2434. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's article for improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members. Happy editing! Northamerica1000 10:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Rolling Ball

Hello, The page is up and running. We also have a Misplaced Pages:Rolling Ball/Hang Out Zone for everyone to discuss whatever they want. You are also requested to watchlist/keep and eye on the Hangout page so you can keep track of whatever everyone's talking about. Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Please stop vandalism

Please refrain from insisting on placing outdated and irrelevant information concerning family members on Dan Shaughnessy article. Your name implies a bias, moreover, the use of stale facts concerning an arrest is irresponsible, inmmature and, if done with the purpose of denigrating the subject of the article, reprehensible. If you want to include information about past arrests, the failure to also include the results of any prosecution is beyond reprehensible, it is a hideous disregard for the basic principles of wikipedia and you ought to cease and desist from revisions to wikipedia until you have attained agreater sense of basic maturity. 98.229.11.248 (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Let the record show that all I did was reject this IP's removal of sourced content (diff). What I did, most Wikipedians will agree, is not vandalism. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I find it utterly irresponsible that you would insist on retaining in a Misplaced Pages entry a reference to the arrest of a relative in a case that is two years old without researching and also printing the adjudication of the charges against him. Outside of the complete irrelevance of the issue of a private person's arrest for something that had nothing to do with the focus of the piece, it is irresponsible to do so, and without the full story, your insistence on retaining this information is is irresponsible and contrary to the objective nature of Misplaced Pages. The charge of assaulting a police officer is something that is used by many cops on the slightest provocation and rarely results in a conviction in Massachusetts. Either get the full story or stop vandalizing this entry to include irrelevant and incomplete information. 98.229.11.248 (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

You need to re-read WP:Vandalism. Did I deliberately attempt to compromise Misplaced Pages's integrity? Even if I did compromise its integrity (which you think I did, and I think I didn't), it certainly wasn't deliberate. It was an edit in good faith, which you don't seem to think I have. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Inflammatory reverts

Please do not revert controversial edits without participating in the discussion. Your edit to Jesus, reverting my sourced addition, confuses me. You flagged the source as non-neutral. I agree, but his bias, if anything, is towards Christianity. More importantly, you claimed the source says the opposite of the text I added. It does not. The two sentences I added are directly supported by the source. Humanpublic (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I removed it because the actual content was biased, saying that "there is no physical or archaeological evidence... however, virtually all scholars of antiquity agree..." which implies that the scholars are wrong/foolish to think Jesus did not exist. My edit summary was also attempting to point out that the source was biased towards the Christian viewpoint on Jesus (that I did not point out well). Basically, I agree with what Jeppiz said on the talk page. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You should discuss controversial changes first. Both can be true: There is no physical evidence, which is very relevant, and something readers might want to know. That is relevant to readers making up their own minds. It is goes on one side of the scale. There is a lot of other evidence, however, and that goes on the other side. According to many theologians, that evidence for existence out-weighs the evidence against. That doesn't mean we downplay the evidence against.

I would appreciate it if you would self-revert, to minimize edit-warring. Thanks. Humanpublic (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You are aware of WP:Synthesis, correct? Because that's what your edit was. You took a fact from one source, a fact from another source, and used the word "however" to imply that the latter is invalid, without any source saying that it was invalid. So based on your argument, you should have initiated a discussion before your edit. Did you? RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I stated a fact about the subject that is well-sourced. As I just said, there was no implication about validity. Yes, the matter has been discussed extensively. Obviously, you didn't look at the Talk page. Humanpublic (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding? I said above "I agree with what Jeppiz said on the talk page." What else could that mean to you? And it did imply invalidity of Jesus' existence because of the word "however", as I already explained. I have really nothing more to say on this matter, although if this ends up at ArbCom or ANI or wherever I will gladly reiterate this. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Jeppiz said a lot on the talk page. You could be a little more specific. As for the rest, you are simply wrong. THe material I added is black and white fact reliably sourced to someone who believes Jesus existed. Obviously, he doesn't think it implies anything. I merely added those facts--sourced. If you think something about the context in the article needs to be improved, improve it or discuss it. Do not revert on a controverisal article when you've never even participated in the discussion. Humanpublic (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Overcategorization

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Overcategorization. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:General sanctions

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:General sanctions. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Extant organization

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Extant organization. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 07:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Bad faith editing and Dan Shaughnessy article

Good faith in reverting inappropriately made deletions of edits was assumed. However, the insistence on repeatedly including outdated information about a family member of the subject of the article raises substantial evidence of lack of either good faith or malicious intent.

If you want to bring up alleged criminal escapades involving an unnamed relative of the subject of the article, you have an obligation to make a good faith effort to make sure the information is current and accurate. Allegations by police officers are just that, allegations. To insist that mere allegations be part of the article when a reasonable person would conclude that the period of time from the date of arrest is sufficient for a denial (not guilty plea) to have been entered at a minimum, and when such lapse of time makes it likely that a complete adjudication has occurred to be, is a level of irresponsibility that rises to the level of bad faith.

Moreover, someone with the name including a reference to "Red Sox fan" is plainly aware of controversies involving the subject of the article which have offended some "Red Sox fans" which resulted, inter alia, in certain Web sites which generally oppose the subjects publicly offered opinions on matters involving said baseball team. Such Web sites used the allegations against the relative of the subject of the article as a means of heaping scorn on the subject; thereby making the reference without the context provided by adjudication (or at least the mere entering of a plea!) to be pejorative in intent.

RedSoxFan2434, through repeated defense of including information that fails to convey the totality of the circumstances, is clearly not responding to this article in an objective fashion and the edits offered and/or endorsed by this user are, ipso facto, vandalism as they detract from the objective nature of the article based on the editor's point of view, which is never acceptable.

Finally, the excuse that the original entry was "sourced" is unavailing. By that logic, an article could convey the notion that Adolph Hitler is alive by citing his birth but not his death.

I would suggest that if this user is so intent on having this peripheral information concerning the subject of the article included, that he pick up the phone, call the Brookline Division of the District Court Department of the Massachusetts Trial Court and obtain the update needed for this entry to be worthy of inclusion, or at the very least, provide evidence that sufficient secondary sources have been accessed and searched.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.11.248 (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2013 RfC/2

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2013 RfC/2. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)