Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:31, 20 January 2009

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 00:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

A request for arbitration has been filed with the Arbitration Committee that lists you as a party. The Arbitration Committee requires that all parties listed in an arbitration must be notified of the aribtration. You can review the request at ]. If you are unfamiliar with arbitration on Misplaced Pages, please refer to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration. Idag (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

Since you're the filing party for the mediation request, would you mind removing Drmies from it? (He requested to be removed from all of the dispute resolution stuff) Idag (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

We're also missing ChildofMidnight (I think you forgot to remove Drmies from the agreed list even though you removed him as a party). Idag (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand

Thanks re suggesting I be part of the mediation/arbitration process. Also, how did you create the flying (humming?)bird device? Syntacticus (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That issue

I take it that the most important point is how the issue was subsequently not dealt with so it's probably minor, but when you say in the RfC "The edits are now oversighted and attributed to the next editor, an anon IP", I was under the impression that PD was wrong on that particular detail. Aren't OS'd edits simply removed, not reassigned to the next editor, or have I misunderstood how it can be used? I had assumed there was initially no 'cover-up' (because FT2's edits were something else), but a latter mishandling of the situation, Is this incorrect? Misarxist 09:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There are different ways of oversighting, as I understand it. The quick way (as with admin deletion) is to attribute the edits to the next editor, which is how it was done in this case, so that diff does show what the edits were — there was more than one edit, by the way, but they're compressed into one edit by the oversighting and attributed to the anon. SlimVirgin 10:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That is correct, yes. If the edits are oversighted to the point where they are removed - like if a phone number is oversighted - it'll just disappear. However, if the text is present subsequent to the revisions oversighted, the extra text is just pushed along onto the next revision in the history of the article. It's hard to explain. For example, SlimVirgin's comment above was the last one before mine here. If I oversighted her diff (here), it would look like I'd written the comment just before mine here. However, if I blanked her comment above with my edit here, then oversighted her diff, it would magically 'disappear' - Alison 10:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

And for a real-life oversight example, see this edit of mine. I've actually blanked some text revealing non-public information on an editor (not the talk page owner, BTW). If done right, there will be zero bytes in the diff and the in-between edit will look like it never happened - Alison 10:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This is more of a tangential point just for my curiosity, but isn't the other method technically not in compliance with the GFDL, as the edits are not attributed to the person who made them? Sticky Parkin 11:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thx for explaining that. Misarxist 13:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, SP. Well, yes. There are two issues, really; the removal of GFDL-licensed edits and the attribution to others. The removal can be justified somewhat if they're done for extreme reasons (as oversight edits usually are). However, the latter scenario - the attribution to others of edits someone else did - is also problematic. This is more of a quirk of the database, and oversighters strive to avoid that where possible. But yes, it's technically not in compliance, IMO - Alison 20:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. The GFDL really requires only that the major authors names be recorded. Since we don't have any systematic way of determining that we just record all of them. But unless the edits made were massive any minor change in attribution of this sort would be still GFDL compliant. (disclaimer: IANAL) JoshuaZ (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

FT2

Slim, I feel obliged to say I find it odd to see you pushing this issue about FT2's comments, considering it appears that you have yourself made significantly inaccurate statements about oversighted edits, then stonewalled and refused to answer basic questions about it from multiple editors. I believe you'll recall that I asked you several times if oversighted edits showed that User:WordBomb had attempted to out an editor after being informed that this was prohibited and agreed not to, five hours before you indefinitely blocked him. I suggested that he had not here, asking you to "please correct if this is mistaken." You responded here, but did not correct the point. However, only shortly later you then posted arbitration evidence specifically stating that he had, in 7 oversighted edits including three during the relevant time period, "added to the article that Weiss was editing Misplaced Pages as MM, and that an anti-naked short selling group had 'launched a campaign' against Weiss to show that he was posting to certain message boards." Following many questions about this and much discussion by multiple editors, and at least one admin requesting information from the oversight list here, only then you said that you did not actually know the contents of the edits despite having made specific claims about their contents in an arbitration case.

I thought it was relevant then to find out whether your evidence was correct, considering that you had presented it as relevant. It didn't occur to me to suggest that you resign your adminship over the issue. But then I wouldn't have expected you later to demand that another editor resign as arbitrator and checkuser for not answering your questions, or based on the assumption that he must have known something he says he did not know. Is this reasonable? Mackan79 (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow any of the above, Mackan. I remember you asking about WordBomb's oversighted edits, but I don't think I responded to you, because I have no access to oversight, and they were irrelevant. WB was blocked for trying to out someone, and for responding to a request to stop, by doing it again. Period. That's miles away from an arbitrator actively misleading people about when he himself learned about his own edits being oversighted during his own election to the ArbCom. If I didn't know you better, Mackan, I might think this was an attempt to sidetrack and derail. Happily, I know you would never do that. :-) SlimVirgin 11:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm just seeing some striking similarities. I linked your initial response to me above, here. Following your evidence submission, the issue was then discussed at length on the arbitration pages here and here.

I see I also asked you this and one other question here on February 27. You responded to the other question here on February 28, after which I immediately repeated the first about the oversighted edit (12 minutes later). You didn't respond to that, or the subsequent discussion, until two days after Random832 sent the question to the Oversight mailing list on March 7. Only then on March 9 you said that you did not know what was in the oversighted edits, again, despite the fact that you had claimed in evidence what they showed.

I'll note the other part of this is that I can somewhat see why FT2 wouldn't have answered your question in the Peter Damien unblock discussion, since he likely thought you were derailing that discussion as you suggest here. Admittedly I don't know why you're pursuing this with FT2, but if you didn't see the various discussions linked above where editors were trying to determine what you knew about the oversighted edits that you presented in evidence, you might appreciate a similar situation with FT2. I'll try to leave my comments there. Mackan79 (talk) 11:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Dirty hands

Created it. Over to you! PamD (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Rfar

No particular incident, no. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The timing will never be good, as the circumstances of the dispute are not good. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Giano RFC

Classy. You are a nice person, thanks for explaining. Theresa Knott | token threats 03:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand

Hi, I first intervened on the above article as an uninvolved adminsitrator, though I do have an opinion about her, as can be seen from my comments which have made me now involved. Since I have no desire to continue working on that article given the amount of unacceptable behaviour shown on it, I don't think it is necessary for me to be involved in any mediation or arbitration. So, I'd like my name removed from the list. I do not intend to contribute to the article or debate any more, and I will not. As a side effect, I note that Kjaer said he would not join in any mediation attempts if I was involved in it. I find the attitude odd and not particularly in adherence to WP:AGF, but if my removal increases the chance that Kjaer (and perhaps others) get involved, then that is also a good reason to remove my name: the objective of having a negotiated well-structured article that works to the benefit of[REDACTED] is far more important than any one editor's involvement in mediation or arbitration. So, could you inform the rest of the editors on the Talk page about this and remove my name? Many thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed removal of WP:PSTS from WP:NOR

I should let you know that several users have recently advocated removal of WP:PSTS from WP:NOR, using it instead as a guideline on a separate guideline page. This is, of course, in addition to the lengthy arguments in recent weeks about its language. So, in response to at least a couple of recent assertions that no clear consensus has ever been demonstrated for its presence, I decided to take a straw poll to try and find out how strong the opposition really is. It's at ] . ... Kenosis (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Perez.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Perez.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Why Misplaced Pages cannot claim the earth is not flat

I have made a stab at a whole article - 10 commonly encountered arguments to support the inclusion of marginal or pseudoscientific views. I have described the arguments, and given examples, and in certain cases given recommendations about how to reply to the arguments. I would welcome help on this article. Note I extensively plagiarised material from User:ScienceApologist and User:Filll - I am sure they will understand. Peter Damian (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Response

No. The current problems will remain. People will read that someone is Jewish and will think it's a religion. Or that someone was born into a Church of England family and will assume he's a Christian. And the source would have to confirm that the religion is relevant to the subject, a requirement that many editors will just ignore, so this proposal will change nothing. SlimVirgin 13:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Slim Virgin, I shall respond here as I don't want to clutter up the talk page.
a) Jewish: no, if you look at the current infoboxes this has been done correctly. "Judaism" is used in the religion field, and "Jewish" is used in the ethnicity field.
b) What people will assume: it is not our job to second guess the crazy things people assume. It is a given that readers have the full article for expansion of details. We have agreed to always reference the religion field.
c) Sources: we have agreed to add sources. No problem. We will not ignore it. This can be added to the template guidelines, so it won't get ignored. Bletchley (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Continuing WP:NPOV violation on Article linked to WP Main Page

Hi Slim, this article links to the Main Page so I would have thought that at least one admin would have shown up by now to address the problem. Could you take a look and try to fix it or suggest how to proceed? Thanks. Doright (talk) 08:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

RFAR

I just got something that requires me to go AFK for a couple of hours, any chance that you could do the notifications for the ArbCom? If not, I should be able to do them around 7 or so. Idag (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Comment. John highlights the fundamental problem with this template. What it seems to be doing is identifying how a person's parents were labelled, and then labels the offspring that way too, though the offspring may never have given their informed consent. There is no such thing as a "Christian child." There are children whose parents are Christian, but that doesn't impose the label on the child, until he's an adult himself and chooses to accept it. Any sources for this template, and indeed for the articles, would have to state clearly that the subject was a practising Christian, or whatever, himself. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear SlimVirgin, the sources do precisely what you are asking, and therefore I see not problem. See as a random example: Augustin Louis Cauchy. Bletchley (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

New Arbitration Request

A request for arbitration has been filed with the Arbitration Committee that lists you as a party. The Arbitration Committee requires that all parties listed in an arbitration must be notified of the aribtration. You can review the request at . If you are unfamiliar with arbitration on Misplaced Pages, please refer to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration. Idag (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)