Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:34, 10 July 2008

Desk * Dashboard This user is an administrator on the English Misplaced Pages. (verify) en This user is a native speaker of the English language. ru-2 Этот участник неплохо знает русский язык. da-1 Denne bruger har et grundlæggende kendskab til dansk. 10,000+ This user has made more than 10,000 contributions to Misplaced Pages. Were this admin to act in a foolish, trollish, or dickish way, he is open to being slapped with a large trout.

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

User:Spartaz/blah

User:Doc glasgow/BLP watch

OK...

...so now that I can delete pages, how do I decline a CSD that's not warranted? Richard Moss may not be a great page, and perhaps it could or should be deleted, but publishing six books, at least a few of which are available on Amazon, is enough for me to decline speedy A7. (Right?)

 Frank  |  talk  19:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• <--- Just remove the tag and leave a note in the edit history confirming the speedy is declined and why. I always like to offer the nominator an option for the next step like suggesting a prod or an AFD. Spartaz 19:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks!  Frank  |  talk  19:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

So, it begs the question

Why the heck should we even bother showing up at IfD, if some admin with an agenda can decide to ignore the arguments presented and simply close arguments they way they would prefer them to be? Honestly, I really don;t understand the admin mentality sometimes. - Arcayne () 03:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• What exactly was your question or were you just venting? Spartaz 05:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Logitech95's 3RR violation

Logitech95 is now edit warring with another editor at Korea under Japanese rule as using his sock IP 128.120.161.137 (talk · contribs). He violated more than 3RR with and without the IP. I filed WP:RFCU, but the report can be used WP:AN3 as well. The previous warnings given by three administrators appear to be no use. You're also active at AN3, can you take a look at this? Thanks.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Logitech95

--Caspian blue (talk) 11:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• not right now, I'm at work and trying to sort out some stuff AN. Perhaps later. Spartaz 12:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, OK, I will report it to WP:AN3. --Caspian blue (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Edward de Bono

I am afraid it's you who is skating on very thin ice. I have certainly read WP:BLP and have plenty of experience in its application. What we are dealing with here does not violate the policy. If you read the policy, primary sources are not totally excluded in cases like this. We are not saying "Edward de Bono stole the idea from Michael Hewitt-Gleeson". We are saying that Michael Hewitt-Gleeson made a claim (fact) and that Edward de Bono responded to this claim (fact). There is nothing that violates WP:BLP in any of this. Please unprotect the article or I will seek third-party involvement, especially in light of the comments on my TP in which you seem to feel you have special powers in this regard.. Harry the Dog WOOF 07:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking this to ANI now. Spartaz 07:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. BTW, have you looked at the Michael_Hewitt-Gleeson article? It would be a lot easier to accept your edits on de Bono if you were as eager to clean up that article. Either we mention the controversy in neither place or in both. But the fact is, both men have acknowledged the controversy (without of course agreeing on who is right or wrong), and so to mention that controversy using primary sources (which is acceptable under WP:BLP when the primary source is the subject of the article) is perfectly OK if there is no POV as to the merits of either party's case. Harry the Dog WOOF 07:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That other article is next but I need time to work out if there is an acceptable version to revert to. Its also a mess I agree. The case is now up at ANI. Spartaz 07:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Harry you need to chill here. I don't think its very helpful. I have reverted the other article back to a relatively safe version but still had to hack at it. However, if you chech my contribs you will see I was not very active yesterday (you know, wife, kids, life 12 hour day at work) so its a bit mean of you to cast aspersions about my motives when I have limited time to handle stuff. Spartaz 07:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Life Between Lives Regression Article deletion

Hi Spartaz, A revised article is in your sandbox here . Perhaps you can let me know if it confirms to Misplaced Pages standards and if not, any changes I need to make. Andy 81.139.204.247 (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at this report I filed at AN/I

Thanks for putting the Obama page on your watch list. Please take a look at this report I filed at AN/I: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Scjessey lying, gaming the system, POV pushing

Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 3

Obviously I feel the close of Image:Last of the Time Lords.jpg was the wrong decision, since criteria 1 cannot apply to any visually artistic medium to which copyright applies, since no free alternative is possible, and criteria 8 is a subjective decision as to what may "significantly increase". You appear to have committed the same error in your close, and enforced your own interpretation of what may "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". If you can show where the foundation has stated exactly what constitutes a significant increase in readers' understanding of the topic I would be most grateful. Otherwise, I do not understand your close nor the basis on which it is made. Consensus determines which images are significant to our readers. My apologies for troubling you with this, I simply feel the wrong decision has been made twice, and am now left with no recourse less asking you to reconsider. Hiding T 11:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• And also, point of order. The Foundation did not dictate the wording of WP:FUC. They dicated that we have one. We are free to amend it as we see fit. Therefore your claim that there is a "tension between foundation led policy and what the community wants" does not hold water, since all the Foundation require is that "In addition, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons, each project community may develop and adopt an Exemption Doctrine Policy ... that recognizes the limitations of copyright law (including case law) as applicable to the project, and permits the upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the context of the project, regardless of their licensing status." The Foundation allow that copyright images be used "to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works". Our FUC determines what the community has decided as being our EDP and what our narrow limits referred to by the Foundation are through consensus. So the tension exists only between certain sections of the community who wish (a) and those that wish (b). In the face of no consensus, we do not delete. Your close is inherently flawed in its reasoning. I appeal to you to overturn it. Hiding T 11:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I opposed deletion and felt that the IfD wasn't closed correctly. However I think the result of this review is just a sign that the trend to take our commitment to free content is being taken much more seriously than a year ago, which is no bad thing. The encyclopedia will not suffer greatly from the lack of illustrations in the generally quite well written articles about Doctor Who episodes. I recall last year having to go around and twist arms just to get people to write a fair use case for the pictures. Those days are gone. --Jenny 11:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have asked for review of your closure on WP:AN, as I firmly believe the cosure was out of policy. Please offer any comments there. — Edokter • Talk • 13:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

Is knowing all about Speedy Deletions needed for RFA? I mean, I know a certain amount of Speedy Deletions, but do we still need to go through it? IMO, I'm happy with how it is, and to be honest, I've just past a year since my unblock, so I wouldn't mind heading for another RFA run. I believe RFA's run for 7-days, so it would need to get started by tomorrow night, as I go on holiday a week Saturday (see userpage message). Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, what i the next step of this Merry-Go-Round?

I see that you again closed a DRV discussion that pointed out a mistake by Nv8200p. Since your closure seemed to be one of convenience, and not reflecting DRV policy, I feel compelled to submit the matter at the next level. DRV is not a place for you to decide that an image is or is not appropriate - that is for IfD. DRV is to determine if the closure was inappropriate, and overwhelming response from both editors and admins note that it was handled improperly. Respectfully, if it is your intent to utterly disregard consensus and voting, might I ask you simply formalize said intent to do away with that messy IfD process - with all the icky user contributions and whatnot - so that we can avod such confusion in the future? I mean, its best for the project if the actual contributors are aware of how little say they have in the shape the Project takes.
Please let me know of the appropriate next step, be it ArbCom or something a bit less...final. - Arcayne () 14:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages administrators open to trout slapping