Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:39, 4 April 2009

Input request on interpreting WP:SPS

Howdy. I came across a discussion you contributed to on the WP:V discussion page. Hope you don't mind me quoting you in one I'm involved in here. We're discussing something similar to what you were involved with regarding different ways of leveraging SPS for and against content in that article. It's an article about a religious leader who's sorely lacking in WP:RS to begin with due to the fact that the main group ex-communicated him early on. I'm one of his supporters, and believe a couple of the self-published sources written by some of his followers warrant inclusion per how me and the contributors to my RFC have interpreted WP:SPS and/or WP:QS. In a nutshell this biography, and a selfpub'd bio called Charles Mason Remey and the Baha'i Faith have been deemed "OUT" by the interpretations of two editors on the article (who consider him an enemy of their religious beliefs). My RFC brought forward 7 impartial editors who said basically it is relevant "about itself". Those two opposers claim it's not a majority rules situation, and that policy doesn't allow the biographies usage, as Remey himself didn't write them. Is that how you interpret SPS and QS? Hope I'm not bogging you down on the details, but I would be forever grateful if you might share your thoughts on the discussion unfolding (and unfolding) either there, or even on my talk page if it's more than you're interested in getting involved in. _Disarray 10:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Please help with your comments

Hi SlimVirgin, I appreciate any advice, and comments that you can kindly provide on here. Since the Guity Novin article had a starter stub on its discussion page, inviting editors to write a bio of the artist, I decided to do that. I read the instructions, and accordingly opened a subpage and rewrote the above article. I have used some new references and some of the old one as well. Would it be possible to give me some comments? Is this ready to be published? This is my first attempt to write a biography, but I have written history of graphic design and Few bios in the Fa.Wiki. I intend to write some more bios in en.Wiki. Thank you very much--Artaxerex (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

WT:NOR

FYI, I responded to your last message of 03:33, 5 March 2009 at WT:NOR . --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I left a message for you at WT:NOR at 17:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC). I would appreciate a response there. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Your comments on plagiarism on the Tolstoi article

...were right on. All that you said should happen - but won't. I really appreciate your comments, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levalley (talk • contribs) 21:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael Riconosciuto

Hi. I noticed that you made several sweeping alterations to the Michael Riconosciuto page. As one of the primary editors of that article, it concerns me when someone does not participate in the article's talkpage before making changes such as those you made. For example, you removed the {{underconstruction}} tag without discussing that removal with the editor who placed it. I believe that User:Hag2 may not appreciate the removal. Then you combined the subsection Notes with the References. I believe that it would be appropriately polite for you to discuss these changes on the talkpage with User:Hag2. —ThsQ (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand

The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.

• TheJazzFan (talk · contribs) is banned from Misplaced Pages for a period of one year.
• Stevewunder (talk · contribs) and Kjaer (talk · contribs) are banned from editing Ayn Rand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles (broadly construed), including talk pages, for one year.
• SteveWolfer (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed), including talk pages, for six months. TallNapoleon (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed) for six months, but is free to constructively contribute to talk page discussions.
• Snowded (talk · contribs) and Idag (talk · contribs) are banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed) for three months, but are free to constructively contribute to talk page discussions.
• Brushcherry (talk · contribs) is reminded that article talk pages are for content discussion and encouraged to broaden his content contributions.

In the event that any user mentioned by name in this decision engages in further disruptive editing on Ayn Rand or any related article or page (one year from the date of this decision or one year from the expiration of any topic ban applied to the user in this decision, whichever is later), the user may be banned from that page or from the entire topic of Ayn Rand for an appropriate length of time by any uninvolved administrator or have any other remedy reasonably tailored to the circumstances imposed, such as a revert limitation. Similarly, an uninvolved administrator may impose a topic ban, revert limitation, or other appropriate sanction against any other editor who edits Ayn Rand or related articles or pages disruptively, provided that a warning has first been given with a link to this decision.

Both experienced and new editors on articles related to Ayn Rand are cautioned that this topic has previously been the subject of disruptive editing by both admirers and critics of Rand's writings and philosophy. Editors are reminded that when working on highly contentious topics like this one, it is all the more important that all editors adhere to fundamental Misplaced Pages policies. They are encouraged to make use of the dispute resolution process, including mediation assistance from Mediation Cabal or the Mediation Committee, in connection with any ongoing disputes or when serious disputes arise that cannot be resolved through the ordinary editing process.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 03:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello

You don't know me but I'm 16 years old and writing the Animal treatment in rodeo article. One contributor who has given me something of a difficult time (sometimes deserved) has suggested the article be deleted. It was the final blow, and I sent the article to AfD. I'm crying now. I spent so much time and love on the article. I notice you are a member of the animal rights project. Could you take some time and glance at the article? Make your recommendation to keep, delete, or merge. The article will swamped with the Rodeo crowd who have opposed the article from day one. I had great trouble finding high grade reliable secondary source material for the Pro-Rodeo stand and the article is top heavy with the animal rights/animal welfare stand. Of course, it should be deleted -- it's unblanaced. I'm so confused. Thank you! Buttermilk1950 (talk) 06:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Courtest note

. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Marshalsea

Hello, you were kind enough to respond to a query I made on the Marshalsea talk page some while back. I didn't end up contributing to the page, but having gotten interested in the subject thanks to Dickens's "Little Dorrit," I've continued watching the page. NIce to see what you're doing with it; the sort of thing that[REDACTED] is best at. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You're most welcome. I really enjoy seeing these (to some people arcane) subjects on wikipedia, where folks like you (and I) have a real interest and enjoy fleshing them out. I enjoy watching people do that, and seeing how they develop these things. The Marshalsea, like many things that some people consider 'history,' seems to have such a vivid past that it deserves a presence today. You're doing that, and it's enjoyable to watch. Take care and continued good luck with it. All best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

--VS 06:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, hello

SV, I figured that you are one of the people to talk to. I seem to be dealing with a quite small cadre of users who are super-determined to cause some strife. Would you apprise me as to how to get your input? Comingattractions (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Marshalsea etymology

I don't want to revert your change without having some sort of dialog with you, because I hate pointless edit wars, but my change was correct and the "information" currently presented is wrong:

"Marshalsea" means the seat or court of a marshal, or keeper. "Marshal" is derived from the Old Germanic marh ("horse") and scalc ("servant"). It originally meant "stable keeper," and came to refer to those presiding over the courts of Medieval Europe. The Old English word "sea" means "seat."

This is not true. I don't know where you got it from, but I'm quite sure the OED trumps it. The word is simply another form of "marshalcy"; as the OED says, the "marshal see" (not "sea") etymology is a myth from a couple of centuries ago. I am going to restore the correct etymology, but I would like to hear from you that you understand and accept this, since you seem to see yourself as the "keeper" of the article. Languagehat (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm somewhat baffled by your response. You say: "Also, the way your addition was written made it flow badly with the rest of the text. I think you're taking it word for word from the source." Well, yes, of course I am, that's what the quote marks mean. I wrote:

Marshalsea means "a court (abolished in 1849) formerly held between the steward and the knight-marshal of the royal household of England (latterly before a barrister appointed by the knight-marshal), originally for the purpose of hearing cases between the king's servants, but after with wider jurisdiction. Also, a prison in Southwark under the control of the knight-marshal (abolished in 1842)." It is a different spelling of the word marshalcy, "the office, rank, or position of a marshal," and derives from Anglo-French mareschalcie.

Perhaps you're not familiar with the Oxford English Dictionary; it's the ultimate go-to work for lexicography. Your sources are Grimm, which is irrelevant, being about German, not English, and 150 years old to boot, and Chambers. I don't have Chambers to hand, but I'm quite sure it doesn't take the word back to "marshal" plus "sea," because that's completely wrong. I am going to rewrite the section based on the correct etymology; I won't quote the whole definition this time and will try to make it "flow with the rest of the text," but I can't let false information stand. Languagehat (talk) 00:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, the etymology of marshal is given at that entry and does not need to be repeated here, and there is no Old English word sea meaning 'seat.' Languagehat (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope the above doesn't come off as too snarky. You obviously know a great deal about the prison and the cultural and historical background, and I deeply respect that and would never dispute you on those grounds. But I know a great deal about language and etymology, as you can tell by looking through my edits or checking out my site, and I would hope you would recognize that the facts here are more in my area of expertise than yours. Languagehat (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your gracious response! Languagehat (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll/Autoformatting_responses

Regarding your comments in opposition to date autoformatting, I'd like to point out that date autoformatting and date autolinking are two different issues. They were historically connected to each other because of the way the software was designed, but a recent patch by User:Werdna allows for autoformatting without linking, and several other proposed patches and a demo system were produced that would allow logged-in users to specify their formatting and linking preferences independently, as well as providing additional benefits for unregistered users (such as automatic enforcement of a site-wide or optional per-page default format.) --Sapphic (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hey, I've noticed how well you've handled some protocol questions around here. I've been on here about a year or so (at least with a registered name), and there is a situation that is frustrating to me, and which I could use some guidance on, at your convenience. Many thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me, Slim. The gist of it is that in two separate instances, articles I'd created (both rather obscure subjects) were heavily edited by two new users. In the most recent case, here , a new user inserted information that I felt was something of a distraction to the thrust of the article. I reverted the changes (which I almost never do), and attempted to give a reason on the talk page. (I noticed subsequently that after making the changes, the user posted to the talk page, but that was after I'd reverted.) So the presumably angry user simply added more information, all of it tangential to the subject of the original article, and reverted my 'revert.' At this point, I left two messages to the user's talk page, both in an attempt to establish a rapport and also to attempt to iron out the differences. As happened in a previous case, there's been no response. I am loath to revert again (really don't care for edit warring), but honestly, as a former journalist, I find the changes quite distracting to the thrust of the initial piece. (As you'll see, I suggested that the user create a new and separate entry.) As I say, with longstanding[REDACTED] users, this sort of thing (in my experience anyway) doesn't really happen as much, as they respond to messages left, and a dialogue can begin. But in these two cases. new -- and presumably 'drive-by' -- users don't engage in dialogue and simply want to revert the changes. I've respected your diplomatic handling of other controversies on here (observed from afar), and wondered if you might have any advice? Many thanks! Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Fur Institute of Canada

Hi Slim. Could you have a look at this new article? Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

You really are very kind and thoughtful, Slim. Thank you indeed for the barnstar. Tony (talk) 04:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Jeffpw on Happiness

Hi Slim. A picture of deceased Misplaced Pages editor User:Jeffpw laughing as he tries to balance three birds on himself was placed on this article. His mother sent the photo to us. It was quite a collaborative effort between three different editors to improve the image. I put a caption that directly referenced the section it is found under. There are few graphic illustrations on the article, yet one editor is edit-warring to remove it. Could you take a look and offer your opinion? --David Shankbone 14:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Additional information needed on Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Buttermilk1950

Hello. Thank you for filing Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Buttermilk1950. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Check User

Hi. I'm Angela's mother re: the issues at Montanabw on the Noticeboard. We have one computer at home. I logged on and after Angela and I discussed the situation she wrote under my account. I hope there isn't some sort of WP rule about mothers and daughters using the same computer at home. If there is, then I am truly sorry. No need to go at great lengths to track this down. Angela and I are using the same computer. ItsLassieTime (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)