Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:04, 16 June 2009

I'm about to get made redundant at work and I'm not in the mood for anything at the minute so I'm taking a little break from Misplaced Pages. Apologies to everyone as things may go unanswered for a little while, but I'll be back soon enough raring to go! If it's important, your best bet is to try emailing me. If anyone needs any Mediation Committee advice, please contact Daniel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Ryan Postlethwaite 22:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Mixwell/scrolling

Archive

Sathya Sai Baba article

Sathya Sai Baba is a living person, who lives in a small city called "Puttaparthi", in South India, state of Andhra Pradesh. Thousands of people gather everyday to see him, in a place called Sai Kulwant Hall, inside a complex called "Prasanthi Nilayam", where Sai Baba's residence is located. This people believe he is a saint.

On the other hand, there is a group of people who believes he is a criminal.

So, we have two radically opposite points-of-view.

The article in Misplaced Pages is being used by the group with the "anti-Baba" point-of-view to do theirs propaganda. This group is engaged in a strong effort to avoid the article to be a truly representative of NPOV.

Currently, the article suffers from:
- lack of NPOV
- offends Basic Human Dignity
- suffers from Information Supression

Link to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Sathya_Sai_Baba

In the brief description of the case, above, I myself have assumed a neutral point-of-view.

Below, a link to my first comment about the article. There, I write with my own POV feelings, but using NPOV arguments, so neutral editors could follow and, with common sense, agree: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#What_if_Sai_Baba_is_really_an_Avatar.3F

But, after that, I found many unpleasant things:
- trying to edit results in "removal of large-scale vandalism", and the edit vanishes from the history; (thus, the history itself is biased)
- there is an editor, "White adept", acting as policeman to maintain biased, not-NPOV status quo;
- there is another user, "Andries", faking a positive POV; (thus, you are mislead)
- their combined actions drive anybody who arrives to read all negative-POV references;
- also, they managed a pack of ready-made arguments that classifies the huge amount of positive-POV references as "not reliable";
- making, in this way, extremely difficult, if not impossible, to restore or improve the article's quality.

This article constitutes a very serious issue for Misplaced Pages itself. Millions of people around the world support Sai Baba's efforts (six million, in the negative-POV estimate; from 50 to 100 millions, in the positive-POV estimate). The current article is an offense not only to Sai Baba himslef, but also to all of them.

Thank you.

Moved from your userpage

I tried to use the mediation window but couldn't. My concern is simply that the article "Pro Se Litigation in the United States" is missing essential information. Most particularly the Rules of Conduct for U.S. Judges and its changes in March 2009 that affect pro se litigants. This information has been deleted and should be available to the public

The current code of conduct for United States Judges requires "A judge should accord to every person who is legally interested in a proceeding, or the person's lawyer full right to be heard according to law". On March 17, 2009, a new code, going into effect on July 1, 2009, was announced requiring "A judge should accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, and that person’s lawyer, the full right to be heard according to law." The wording was changed from a person "or" their lawyer to a person "and" their lawyer.

Cooling my jets

Mediation Committee/Policy

I read somewhere a policy that say, in effect, the results of a mediation is not the same as consensus in the larger Misplaced Pages community. Can you help me find this?--Carlaude 10:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Carlaude. I think what you're looking for can be found here, specifically the line (near the bottom of the section) that reads "Mediation is not a forum for policy decisions. If the locus of the dispute is not covered by current policy, the matter must be referred to the Misplaced Pages community as a whole. Under no circumstances will mediation between a small number of parties be substituted for a valid community-wide exercise in consensus building." - Hope that helps! Ryan Postlethwaite 10:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

For your viewing pleasure >> User_talk:Pete_Postlethwaite   «l| ?romethean ™|l»  (talk) 11:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Are your ears burning?

Hi Ryan, your name has come up as a precedent for using caustic/humourous block notices on user talk pages. You can find the discussion here. Could you comment on your historical use of these notices and whether you would still advise that such usage is appropriate? You would of course be well-served by reading the other subsection above, where the dispute was first raised, but I bet you already knew how to do that. ;) Thanks! Franamax (talk) 02:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Date relinking by Avalon

Hi Ryan. Could you please have a look at the editing activities of Avalon (talk · contribs) (e.g. this edit—which is just one of many). There is an awful lot of date-relinking going on. Is that okay in the current climate? Thanks.  HWV258  03:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I've noticed this, too. I'd be pleased for a nice note to be left to back up the injunction. Tony (talk) 08:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Jenah Doucette

I have nominated Jenah Doucette, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jenah Doucette (3rd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ApprenticeFan 14:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to tell 1989luke (talk · contribs), per this edit, not Ryan who merely created the initial redirect. Bencherlite 14:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Signpost: 15 June 2009

• Book review :Review of Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes
• News and notes: License update, Google Translate, GLAM conference, Paid editing
• Misplaced Pages in the news: In the Google News, London Review of Books, and more
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Chemistry
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate Forum

Ryan, I found you from the Formal Mediation page. I'm not sure if that is the correct forum for my problem, so I'm asking your advice so as to not waste resources by filing formal mediation.

The issue is that in the past I was found guilty of being a sock (yes, I know that was poor judgement), but have now repented and am a new user. The issue is that as a new user, this one admin keeps blocking me saying that I was a sock. I'm not aware of any wiki policy that says "once a sock, you are forever banned from wiki". So I would like to file a request to have this problem looked at so the admin will cease blocking my new usernames. Thanks. Farmhouse0000 (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)