Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RAN1 (talk | contribs) at 20:52, 15 December 2014 (→For reference: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

2012-2013 April 2013 -

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

WikiCup 2015 is just around the corner...

Hello everyone, and may we wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2015 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. We have a few important announcements concerning the future of the WikiCup.

• We would like to announce that Josh (J Milburn) and Ed (The ed17), who have been WikiCup judges since 2009 and 2010 respectively, are stepping down. This decision has been made for a number of reasons, but the main one is time. Both Josh and Ed have found that, over the previous year, they have been unable to devote the time necessary to the WikiCup, and it is not likely that they will be able to do this in the near future. Furthermore, new people at the helm can only help to invigorate the WikiCup and keep it dynamic. Josh and Ed will still be around, and will likely be participating in the Cup this following year as competitors, which is where both started out.
• In a similar vein, we hope you will all join us in welcoming Jason (Sturmvogel 66) and Christine (Figureskatingfan), who are joining Brian (Miyagawa) to form the 2015 WikiCup judging team. Jason is a WikiCup veteran, having won in 2010 and finishing in fifth this year. Christine has participated in two WikiCups, reaching the semi-finals in both, and is responsible for the GA Cup, which she now co-runs.
• The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. While it may be impossible to please everyone, the judges will make every effort to ensure that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Misplaced Pages.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk), The ed17 (talk), Miyagawa (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 50, 2014)

Game design is the art of creating rules and mechanics to facilitate interactions between players in a game. Hello, ChrisGualtieri. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Game design Previous selections: Mexico–United States border • Tourism in the Caribbean Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Nominate an article Review nominations Have your say in future selections Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions

DYK for Greens Ledge Light

On 8 December 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Greens Ledge Light, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Greens Ledge Light (pictured) is a typical example of a sparkplug lighthouse? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Greens Ledge Light. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Help with Blackboard Inc

Hi ChrisGualtieri, I'm looking for some help with updating the Blackboard Inc. article's History section and adding a new Mergers and acquisitions section (in place of discussion of mergers being spread between the existing History and Products and services sections). I saw that you'd made a helpful edit to the article late last year, and wondered if you would be interested to take a look? I should clarify, I'm working for Blackboard Inc. to propose these edits and due to my financial conflict of interest, I will not be making any direct edits to the article. Instead, I would be very grateful if you could review my proposed changes and make them in the live article, if they look ok.

Here is the full draft of my proposed History and Mergers and acquisitions sections in my user space, and here's a diff between the live version and my draft History section, to help show the changes I'm proposing. Your feedback would be most welcome! Thanks in advance. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll reply on your page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Flaxcombe, Sask. article

I'm not knowledgeable about Canada census reference, but stuff in the article might not be actually from ref although claimed to be.2601:7:6580:5E3:C400:A898:177A:98B8 (talk) 13:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

20:44:12, 10 December 2014 review of submission by CaliforniaDey

• CaliforniaDey (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Innovative Hearth Products (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to have my article re-reviewed. My original submission was very short and did not give enough context. I have spent time adding additional information, references and linking to other Misplaced Pages articles. I am excited to re-submit this article and I hope it meets the community standards. Thank you for your time. CaliforniaDey (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Covered Bridges Today

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Covered Bridges Today you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
505		Gift (talk)						Add sources
2,201		Odin (talk)						Add sources
997		The Karate Kid (talk)						Add sources
8		Grigory Spiridonovich Petrov (talk)						Add sources
154		Isaiah "Ikey" Owens (talk)						Add sources
14		Bradley Palmer State Park (talk)						Add sources
300		Viz Media (talk)						Cleanup
458		Miami University (talk)						Cleanup
3		Rhode Island Route 122 (talk)						Cleanup
3		American Legion State Forest Trails (talk)						Expand
538		Yo-Kai Watch (talk)						Expand
3		Nehantic Trail (talk)						Expand
2,337		Badminton (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
15		Toonami (Australia) (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
73		Strafing (gaming) (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
8		Indore - Bhopal Intercity Express (talk)						Merge
5		Religious life at Stonyhurst College (talk)						Merge
14		Saito (Ghost in the Shell) (talk)						Merge
4		Climate change in Montana (talk)						Wikify
11		CourseInfo (talk)						Wikify
30		ANGEL Learning (talk)						Wikify
3		Alan Clemetson (talk)						Orphan
2		's Nachts (talk)						Orphan
3		Anton Loeb (talk)						Orphan
11		Songs of Kristofferson (talk)						Stub
19		Ballades, Op. 10 (Brahms) (talk)						Stub
2		Main Street Bridge (Pawtucket, Rhode Island) (talk)						Stub
1		Lorenzo Crandall House (talk)						Stub
5		Sylvania Mountains (talk)						Stub
2		Pawtucket Elks Lodge Building (talk)						Stub

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Reception section

Hi, It's been restored to it's previous heading, "Controversy". --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bob K31416: I am using it older section as I list in the top. To keep my "concerns" together. "Controversy" for a title still doesn't mean it can be an attack piece. Especially in topic with BLPs in all directions. Some of the comments are not only false, but are carefully crafted to appear even worse. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I only mentioned it because I wasn't sure that you noticed the change back, and because editors might try looking for the section on the article page as "Reception". Do what you think is best. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Eh, true. I'm trying to wade into this, but yeah if anyone mentions it I will point it out. I haven't looked at the article page since I started this when the NPOV tags I added were repeatedly removed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I just put it back. I think I addressed the last reverter's point in the edit summary.--Bob K31416 (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

And it was reverted. The edit summary of the last revert essentially says that the tag is prohibited from ever being used for the article, or any contentious article. diff --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I have held forth in favor of the tag on the talk page, but I'm too weary to survey the opinions for a possible consensus. I'm also not convinced that the presence or absence of a silly tag is that important in the greater scheme of things, anyway. It says the neutrality is in dispute, so what. Anyone really interested can find the debate without the help of the tag, and I'm not interested in attracting casual opinions. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 21:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

In addition to various reasons for using the tag, it might motivate editors to look for and fix any POV. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blackboard Inc., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Brown

I suggested yesterday that you get consensus before making changes. I thought I heard you agree, but I see you're already moving without consensus. HuffPost 2 has no comments, yet, from anyone but you and Cwobeel. That's not consensus for change. In my experience, "per talk page" in an editsum means "see talk page for the consensus for this change", but your meaning is "I explained my reasoning on the talk page and that's all that's required". I was prepared to support you, but if you continue on this course you'll have to do it without my support (if that matters to you). It's not collaborative editing by my interpretation of that term. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mandruss: WP:BLP is clear. The source is circular, its reference and the fact they are using a false statement and making a whole article out of it that is not in any other reliable publication warrants the immediate removal. And per WP:BLP claims of lies are to be removed first. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

If it's that clear, then there should be no problem convincing other experienced editors, including Gaijin42, of that fact in talk. The idea that you're the only one present knowledgeable enough to do this is the root of the problem. That's why WP:CONSENSUS was written, and that's why it is a policy, not a guideline. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 23:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I've waited many hours when I showed clear falsification of sources, POV pushing and the fact WP:BLP is invoked gives reprieve. I am not damaging the article and I am replacing and strengthening the sources when possible. I replaced a BLP issue with a copy of the actual statement in my last edit. This is important because a Huffington Post attack piece should not be used simply because it contains a copy when the same copy without an irritant title and opinion piece exists. Just because he agreed to Huff 3 doesn't mean HUff 2 needs consensus to remove. It is a BLP matter. It is making the statement and allegation that something originally stated and known, retracted by the chief, returned as a fabrication which is not what any other reliable source says. Clearly, Huffington Post is not the best source given the claims are repeatedly circular. And Vox is even worse, most citations were "this too" and not actually of any real value save to establish a POV. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so you don't want to hear my previous comment, let alone respond to it. I'm out, and good luck to you. I have popcorn to make. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 23:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri, you're effectively spinning your tires by going at articles with an axe. You deleting large chunks just to be reverted by another editor is no way to go. This should tell you something. Suggest you ratchet it down a little. – JBarta (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I explained for over a day why the information was false and simply drafted some changes and removed just the BLP and RS matters. I also was replacing them with neutral or proper sources as I was doing so. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Per Misplaced Pages principles, we don't explain, we debate. And we wait for consensus. We respect process because without process there is chaos, and good articles don't arise out of chaos. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 23:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Question: Do you not see that the Knafo source being used in the article after it was proven to be false here? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

That sidesteps the point, which I already made above and you just don't want to hear: If what you claim is so clear, you will have no trouble convincing other experienced editors of that fact. The U.S. Congress has parliamentary procedure because, as difficult as it is to accomplish anything in the legislature, it would be utterly impossible without some rules of engagement that everyone is required to follow. If anyone refused to respect the process, I think they would necessarily be booted forthwith. The very same thing applies here. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 23:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mandruss: It is not sidestepping. Every issue was clear and reasoned, it was just done all at once and reverted by the editor who inserted the false material in the first place. If it is false we remove it, I do not need to debate for hours that we should remove it because it is false after proving it is false. Procedure is fine, but I got criticized for not making edits and I got criticized for doing what I said I would do when I did edit. Cases were even agreed upon and that was reverted as well. Sometimes you need to just fix it because it is the right thing to do. At RSN, @MastCell: said: "I'm really uncomfortable using the Huffington Post—which is ultimately a partisan blog, albeit a high-profile one—as a source in general, but particularly for contentious material with WP:BLP implications. I would strongly favor removing it here and instead prioritizing higher-quality sources." Our standards should not appear when it goes to GA or FA or peer review. We must always maintain high standards for the inclusion of material in the article. That which is poorly sourced or dubious is best removed immediately and sorted out after the fact. Though a day prior I gave warning, I think the removal was well within reason. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I call bullshit. You got "criticized for not making edits" by Cwobeel, and I immediately came to your defense, and I know you saw that. Don't use Cwobeel's spurious tactics for any part of a rationale for your misconduct. Whatever shortcomings the article has, it cannot be improved by rogue vigilantism. You're not the first experienced editor to use that kind of reasoning to effectively justify ignore all rules, or to cherry-pick certain rules they wish to cite and twist them as necessary, declaring disputed things as absolute facts. But clearly we have fundamental philosophical differences that make it pointless to try to communicate, so let's stop wasting our time trying. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 00:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I see it now, I didn't recognize it was you. Thanks. Tell you what... I like you. I don't like to edit so slowly, but this is a big article. I want to deal with the dozens BLP issues that I see and quickly. I want this article at GA or FA, but I can wait. To better understand me, read WP:DIRT. It reflects my stance on WP:BLP. I'm not used to such editing environments, so I'll have you mentor me in this. I'm strict, but you could balance me. Will you work with me still? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

LOL. Of course I'll work with you still, if you'll follow one simple rule: Don't make a disputed change without consensus for it. In some cases it takes a week to arrive at a consensus, so it does require some patience. As I said yesterday, plan to be here awhile. That's the only way to do it, as I see it. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 00:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I detailed the whole situation with the Huff Post 1 on the page in response to his inquiry... Slow and steady I guess... I got a new book on rural road designs to read. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Think of it as walking down and f**king them all – JBarta (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Cwobeel

Abusing warning templates is not the way to settle content disputes, even if you are sure you are right. Please point out the defamatory content. I see content sourced to CNN, Fortune, etc. --NeilN 15:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: I did. Talk:Robert_P._McCulloch_(prosecutor) and Jbarta agreed it was a lot of piling on. Cwobeel copied these additions from the Shooting of Michael Brown controversy page and slapped them on this article. Yes there is a need to be clear, but dedicating a section to negativity criticism of the person to be longer and more vitrolic then his career. That's an issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

"Piling on" or undue emphasis does not equate to defamatory content. Is there any? --NeilN 16:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: Cwobeel added all the pieces originally to the Shooting of Michael Brown article and has demonstrated an Anti-Police bias. Some others. Then he copies the entirety over to McCulloch's page here. The page got better, but is no need for more than 25% of the article to be commentary on it. Also

In 1997, in the so-called "Kinkogate" case, McCulloch gave a subpoena to the police – using the power of the grand jury, but without informing it – in order to identify a whistleblower who was acting lawfully. He first claimed the fax contained a threat but later conceded that there was no threat and no crime, but denied any wrongdoing. The whistleblower had to quit his job.

Should be better sourced because it represents a criminal act and an abuse of power, so this is defamatory and Cwobeel readded it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

This material was not in the text you removed, is still there, has been there since October, and is sourced to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. I fail to see how this is in any way defamatory. --NeilN 16:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I intended to remove the Kinkogate mess as I had done prior, but you are right. The edit section I removed was not defamatory, it is just a bulk of opinions tacked on to the article to make the prosecutor's action seem unusual or more awkward. Their is no supporting or counterpoints to the negative POV. The opinions should all be balanced, and the lengthy quotes removed.

Using the text it supports that "(Through Roger Parloff) assumes that McCullough innately believed Wilson to be innocent and he did not seek indictment. "Other legal experts" is actually the next two commenters in this case. Ronald S. Sullivan Jr. essentially calls it manipulation and deception. Jeffrey Toobin criticizes the release of documents as unusual but they were promised in during the rioting and McCullough kept his word. Nothing to that effect but negativity. Eric Citron and Rudy Giuliani mirror the above, less eloquently.

As for that Kinkogate a claim: "They continue to claim they were victims of an abuse of power that included use of a grand jury subpoena to find out who sent the anonymous fax even though the grand jury had no role in any investigation." I still do not see a claim that warrants charging on McCullough's biography that he personally violated the law as claimed. That is defamatory and the assumptions advanced by Parloff is not rising to the level of defamatory, but is over stepping a line. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: Given that the Kinkogate matter conclusively and unequivocally says: "...McCulloch gave a subpoena to the police – using the power of the grand jury, but without informing it – in order to identify a whistleblower who was acting lawfully. He first claimed the fax contained a threat but later conceded that there was no threat and no crime, but denied any wrongdoing. The whistleblower had to quit his job." When this is unsupported and unproven that McCulloch did this, and all by himself it would read, how is that not defamatory? It may be sourced, but it is sourced to an attack piece in the middle of the riots surrounding the Brown case? It should not be used. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

And all this is a matter of sourcing and what you think is appropriate or not. "Should not be used" does not a warrant a third-level defamatory warning for material which you now agree is not defamatory or for material that appears in a reliable sourced but that you feel isn't adequately enough sourced. --NeilN 16:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: Cwobeel readded "Kinkogate" after its removal twice. The first time, and the second time. I did not warn him just for that, but for numerous issues already present at Shooting of Michael Brown. The editor has a clear POV to advance and has been picking sources which contradict the New York Times. I asked about this matter at User talk:Drmies#Sanity check and help requested because Cwobeel added the incorrect information and even referenced the correct information as a "counterpoint", but didn't actually read anything. Cwobeel has been taking information and leaving out supporting or redeeming details to push a clearly Anti-authority POV while reinserting gross characterizations and questionable sources that do not mirror reality. Maybe I failed to explain it well on the page, so I'll remove the warning. Though I feel the issue still stands given the the user is abusing sources to advance a POV. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri, thanks for removing the template. --NeilN 20:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

For an experienced editor, it is outstanding how clueless you seem to be when it comes to the core content policies of Misplaced Pages. Your attitude, behavior, and arrogant approacj, including daring to template me falsely, is just the last straw. Listen to what others are telling you, including NeilN, and get off the silly horse. Now if you want a Anti-authority POV , here is one for you: buzz off. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: This isn't helpful. Instead of templating and name-calling, take it to WP:DRN if you are stuck on the talk page as you are both constructive editors or start a RFC. --NeilN 20:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN:, I hear you, but this guys is testing my patience with an inordinate amount of vitriol, personal attacks, and lack of WP:AGF. I would expect that an experienced editor like him will know better. Sheesh.- Cwobeel (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, I've worked with you on this article for four months, and you are in no position to complain about how other editors treat you. Clean up your own act, then complain. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I really like to see where these personal attacks are. Even that case is not particularly bad, I mean "silly horse"... really? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is a proposal, as it is likely we will continue editing the same articles: Let's start again and WP:AGF; no characterizations, no accusations of "POV pushing", always follow WP:BRD, look for compromise, if we disagree and can't come to a compromise, w ask for help from other editors, and follow WP:DR. Do I have your agreement? - Cwobeel (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. We can work together, but I do hope we can come to a simple understanding first? If you do not understand the argument I am making on the talk page, please ask me for clarification. Just a simple "Chris could you clarify X and Y?" If it is something really basic, I tend to go right to the conclusion and ignore what I see as verbose explaining. Ok? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 51, 2014)

A plate of spaghetti and meatballs. Hello, ChrisGualtieri. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Spaghetti Previous selections: Game design • Mexico–United States border Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Nominate an article Review nominations Have your say in future selections Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:ChrisGualtieri's behavior at Shooting of Michael Brown. Thank you. --RAN1 (talk) 03:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah. Thank you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Beaver Brook State Park

On 15 December 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Beaver Brook State Park, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Beaver Brook State Park's name may derive from a beaver pond that was once present? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Beaver Brook State Park. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mike V • Talk 08:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

For reference

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33

--RAN1 (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)