Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:53, 24 June 2010

Arbitration notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Catholic Church and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,. Please add others to the party list if you think it is necessary. Karanacs (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Archbishops palaces

Thanks for your contribution to my new section on palaces on the Archbishop of Canterbury page. I agree completely with your modification of the heading. Vidoue (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sam

Hi, Thanks for your comment. I admit that my "archiving" of the talk page was quite possibly outside WP guidelines. I was fed up with that troll constantly abusing other editors who were working within policy. I personally think it best that he be starved of attention, so I hoped that collapsing the discussion might just put it to rest. If you feel that the discussion should remain visible, then by all means revert me. If we all just ignore him, maybe he will go elsewhere to "blow his whistle". Regards, WWGB (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, my fellow "truth hater". It's obvious that trying to reason with nutters like him is pretty pointless. I suggest that we just revert or edit as necessary and just cite the relevant policies without trying to engage in any discussion. I don't feel strongly about the recent discussion remaining visible so I am happy to leave things as they are. Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 05:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

W. S. Gilbert

Thanks for cleaning up the headings. Good work. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Kathryn Bonella

Hi, I'm new to new page patrol so I'm the first to admit I don't know what I'm doing. I nominated the above for copyvio, but now see that the text is under CC but there's no outside sources so I put it in Afd. How can I check to see for previous deletions and was there a category of CSD it was eligible for? It's related to the Schapelle Corby autobiography. - Stillwaterising (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Howdy. I can't really answer you as I'm not an administrator ( although I sometimes behave in ways that might suggest that I am ) and am not on top of these kinds of policy and process issues. But thanks for what you have been doing regarding this article. Afterwriting (talk) 07:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm still learning how to find a balance between trying to help the newcomer and being efficient with my efforts, like by letting articles (and there creators) stand on their own merits without too much interference. - Stillwaterising (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Good luck - it's a thankless task, especially with all the nutters out there who misuse articles for their own ideological purposes. Afterwriting (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Walter Gorlitz's campaign of abuse and harrassment

As can be seen above, an editor by the name of Walter Gorlitz is currently involved in restarting his recurring personal campaign of incivility, abuse, harrassment and stalking of me on Misplaced Pages. Anyone reading this talk page can expect to read further examples of his abusive behaviour in response to this statement - or, instead, he will present himself as an innocent saint and hypocritically accuse me of the same things ( and, for the record, I do admit that I have at times been very incivil in response to his bullying and other abuse ). Afterwriting (talk) 08:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Afterwriting, please don't get into a tit-for-tat notice war or flame-fest. Editors are given wide latitude to manage "their" user and talk pages. It doesn't matter whether Walter Gorlitz leaves the admin notice on his talk page or not, once someone removes a post from their talk page, they are considered to have read it. There's no doubt Walter was wrong to restore a warning on your page, he completely misread policy on that. But by the same token, he can remove whatever he wants from his own talk, so long as it doesn't distort the meaning of a long thread. Also, your last sentence here seems a little inflammatory. If someone else is behaving badly, that doesn't mean you have to behave badly too. Franamax (talk) 09:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I have no intention or desire of getting into an ongoing tit-for-tat dispute with Walter. The point about my comments about his removal of an administrator's comments was that these comments directly contradicted his claims about the matter on my talk page. I wasn't disputing his right to remove the comments but I found it - to say the least - interesting that he would choose to do this. I should also point out that there have been many times when I would have been well within my rights to add an incivility warning to his talk page - and would have done so except that I haven't yet discovered how to. As far as I am concerned, however, his placing of such warnings on my talk page is in keeping with his history of vindictive and provocative incivility towards me - all of which he denies and has never taken any responsibility for. I agree that I shouldn't be incivil in response to his incivility and that my last comment above was more than a little "inflammatory". Afterwriting (talk) 09:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, we have a template for everything but I don't see civility in there. But since templating anyone with more than 100 or so edits is often seen as incivil in itself, maybe it's good that it's not there. If a discussion is becoming incivil, it's best to just quietly say there "Please be civil" and then let it go. Throwing shots on user talk pages really doesn't help to calm things down. There are several avenues of dispute resolution you can pursue if there's really a problem.

And could you then strike out the last sentence above ("By the way...go figure")? That would help to show some goodwill. Franamax (talk) 11:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and advice. This ongoing saga has been very tiresome. It's interesting, indeed, about there not actually being a (in)civility warning template. I don't think that I need to make any further comment about this. As I don't know how to strike things I will just remove it instead. Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Upon further checking of the warning template page ( which I had never seen before ) I noticed that the template WG used was for the one for "personal attacks". I could have used this and various other warnings myself numerous times in response to his recurring incivility had I wanted to - but I prefer to resist such hypocrisy as I'm aware that I can be incivil at times, especially when provoked. I have removed the offending comment as discussed before. Afterwriting (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. For your future information, you do a strikeout by putting "<s>" before, and "</s>" after, the text you want to strike through, like this. It's a good way of showing that you've rethought something you said earlier. Franamax (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you finally read the the page about no personal attacks. I am not engaged in a campaign of incivility, abuse, harrassment, and stalking of you. Someone made several edits on the Reverend‎, a page on my watchlist and you reverted all of them. I then restored one edit that I felt was deleting distinctive information. You took offence to that and accused me of stalking. I tried to be civil on its talk page and you dropped into ad hominem attacks. I responded to the edits. You attacked me again personally. I then responded with comments on the content. I researched the matter and found that personal attacks are not permitted and placed the template here. This is what should be done. It was only a level-one warning. You commented again on me personally in your reverting of the comments as is permitted in specifically allowed and I restored the warning as is loosely permitted in that same guideline since you obviously had not taken WP:NPA to heart. You then attacked me again, on my talk page this time, and I placed a second level-one warning. You are most free to revert any warning placed on your talk page. It is your right and privilege. I will never place a warning on anyone's page unless I hope it has a corrective effect and as such, any warning should be investigated before being deleted.

Please, dear brother in Christ, I am not attacking you. You may feel that I am being uncivil, but I have never once in this debate uttered an uncivil word nor taken an unkind action toward you. I am not abusing, harassing, nor trying to provoke you, I am simply trying to teach you to be civil, non-abusive, and non-harassing when dealing with other editors. The edit war on the Reverend‎ article has ended and thanks to your work on that article, it's really shaping-up nicely. Thanks for your effort in improving that article and the many others on Misplaced Pages that you assist with. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you please - and finally ( ! ) - take some responsibility for your own incivility. All you ever seem to do is seek to justify yourself - it's always my fault as far as you are concerned. In your mind there is always some valid reason or excuse for your incivility. But unlike you I actually recognise that I am sometimes far from civil in my dealings with other editors. So just stop it with the denials and shifting the blame on to others. Your comments above are riddled with untruth and do not fool me at all. Your "warnings" have been vindictive and you are only making them to try and make yourself look good. Just stop the nonsense. The truth is that you have a longstanding history of unjustified incivility towards me. Your denials of this only make matters worse. I have already asked you to stop your incivility numerous times - so please finally do so. Afterwriting (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI - from the Misplaced Pages policy on harrassment

User space harassment

• WP:HUSH

Placing numerous false or questionable "warnings" on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them, placing "suspected sockpuppet" and similar tags on the user page of active contributors, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space is a common form of harassment.

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Don%27t_restore_removed_comments

Have a nice day. Afterwriting (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for weighing in on the Robert Hughes article. I think it will be a tough weekend to keep the deniers under control. Regards, WWGB (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. And thanks for your efforts as well. I will be away much of the weekend but will keep an eye on it as possible. Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Basil Osborne Page

Afterwriting, you have added a disputed tag to the Basil Osborne page, "due to the contentious claim of 'defrocking'". But the article does not at present say that Osborne was defrocked. It says rather that, according to one report, he was defrocked. But this is not contentious, as it can be verified from the link. So I don't see why you have added the disputed tag to this page. Could you please give your reasons on the Basil Osborne talk page? Regards, Girevik24 (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

RE

Not a problem ;) Aaroncrick 08:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Catholic sex abuse cases

If you remove a portion of text - it will remain buried under the subsequent changes and will not be visible to the reader not willing to browse the history of changes. If not willing to fix a not perfect text, please, leave note on the article talk page suggesting improvements.--71.191.26.127 (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Your request is actually contrary to policy. All unreferenced contentious edits are required to be removed immediately if they concern living people. There is no obligation to either "fix" it (even if that might be possible) or first discuss it. The contentious text that was removed was almost completely unreferenced and some of it was written in inadequate English by someone for whom it's obviously not their first language. Also, if you want to be taken seriously by other editors then you should use your username instead of an IP address. Afterwriting (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That isn't totally reasonable. He shouldn't have to have an account. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You are perfectly entitled to hold and express an opinion on this matter as, of course, am I - and have done so. As with many other editors, it is my very definite conviction that it is entirely reasonable that only people with accounts should be permitted to edit articles. Although WP still allows people to do so without them, I very much hope this will change sooner rather than later. Editors who hide behind anonymous IP addresses, in my experience, are responsible for the vast majority of vandalism and blatant policy breaches and unjustifiably waste the time of responsible editors. Afterwriting (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Good luck and happy editting with this article. I requested protection as it has become a battleground filled with recentism, reverts and general uncivil name calling both in edit summaries and talkpage discussions. It would be nice to see this article become concise and stable versus its present status. --Morenooso (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

First Amendment

I'd like to tell you that Misplaced Pages is subject of the US Law and all Misplaced Pages rules are null and void if not in full compliance with the law.--166.32.193.81 (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

And I'd like to tell you that you are talking crap. Afterwriting (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: Perhaps you you would care to provide some clear evidence - on Misplaced Pages or elsewhere - that supports your claim that Misplaced Pages is subject to the US First Amendment. Any such evidence must be from a reliable source, referenced so that I can read it online and must also pertain specifically to Misplaced Pages itself. Afterwriting (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

And perhaps you may care to read this from the boss of Misplaced Pages: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046440.html Afterwriting (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

And also this from the following Misplaced Pages policy page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored

"Misplaced Pages is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Misplaced Pages is not a forum for unregulated free speech."

Hardly seems like support for the First Amendment as you seem to understand it. Afterwriting (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Python reticulatus, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Mokele (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

What on earth wasn't "constructive" about my edit of this article? The answer, of course, is absolutely nothing! Honestly, it's editors like you that give Misplaced Pages a bad name. And let me warn you that it's a violation to misuse warnings as a form of harrasment - which is what you have done. Try to grow up instead of being such an eccentric jerk - otherwise you will reported for harrasment. Afterwriting (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at the editing history and the only possible reason for your completely unjustified "warning" is that you've confused me with one of the other recent editors. As you will clearly notice, I only made minor style edits - absolutely nothing of any substance to the actual text. I appreciate that anyone could make such a mistake but an apology from you is still in order - and I expect to receive one. Afterwriting (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

If anyone is remotely interested, have a look at Mokele's user page, the comments he has made in the edit summaries on his talk page in response to my comments about his false accusations about my minor edit and also his history of warnings to other editors. This will tell you all you could possibly need to know about what kind of person I've been trying to deal with. Afterwriting (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Trevor Chappell

Hi, it's been great fun editing the Chappell page with you. What are your thoughts on creating a new Overnights page where the show discussion would move, and keeping Trevors page just for personal facts? Also, could you help with referencing in the first personal details section. Apologies if this isn't the correct are to contact you, I am new to this more detailed stage of Misplaced Pages.

Maybe, once all the fun settles down. I'm about to go to bed so will respond properly later. By the way - new discussions go at the bottom of a talk page instead of the top ( so I've moved it there ). Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. This is M.J.E. whom you just wrote to. Yes, I'm aware of the discussion on Trevor's program - I've been listening to it. But I do think it's irresponsible for people to add flippant and in many cases downright false stuff to what is meant to be an encyclopaedic article. Maybe it's like trying to fight the tide, and it'll all finish within a few hours. I thought I'd correct blatant wrong or unencyclopaedic things I saw - but it might be better to correct it properly once the flurry is over. M.J.E. (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you but I don't think there's too much that can be done at present knowing what people's behaviour can be like online. Best to wait a few hours at least to restore it to an encyclopedia article. I'm off to bed. Thanks! Afterwriting (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Blanking of IP talk pages

This isn't quite right as per WP:BLANKING: "Policy does not prohibit users, including both registered and anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred." --NeilN 13:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Peter Hitchens reference

Hi, you removed this from the Fabian Society article with the comment: Another Wikpedia artticle can't be used as a reference. This also looks suspiciously like spam. Try again in encyclopedia style

However, I am referencing a book, which also happens to have a Misplaced Pages article on it. I also feel that this is a valuable reference, from a respected author and high-profile book. So I'm puzzled as well by your comment "this also looks suspiciously like spam. Try again in encyclopedia style".

Anyway I have reinstated it, as in my opinion it fully conforms with Misplaced Pages guidelines on notability, is a RS and is a good addition to the criticism section of the article. Best wishes, Jprw (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Motto of the Day

Hi there, Afterwriting! Thought you might be interested in Motto of the Day, a collaborative (and totally voluntary) effort by a group of Wikipedians to create original, inspirational mottos. Have a good motto idea? Share it here, comment on some of the mottos there or just pass this message onto your friends.

MOTD Needs Your Help!

Delivered By –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Preston University Pakistan

Hi Afterwriting, I hope you have some time to take a look at the Preston University Pakistan article. I've retired from Misplaced Pages and this article used to be on my watchlist. I know you've fixed vandalism on some of these unaccredited articles in the past. Anyway, this one is a bit tricky because there's a primary source, Pakistan HEC, that list PU as a "collaboration" or branch of Preston University that's approved to operate in Pakistan. Also it has undergone edits by a wp:spa for a couple weeks, in my opinion it has pretty much degraded into an advertisement. Although perhaps some of the recent edits can be left in, you may want to restore some of the critical information from secondary sources that has been removed. Anyway I'm, of course, not trying to tell you how to edit. Afterall I'm here because you've done a great job on similar articles in the past. :-) Thank you and regards, Bill Huffman (talk) 08:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Please, read and respond here--71.163.237.120 (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Support MOTD

Hello, Motto of the Day is currently running out of mottos and therefore we would appreciate your support in this project. Please suggest new mottos or support for others at Misplaced Pages:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review. If you have any ideas for mottos on a special date or anniversary, or you are interested in what other ones of thdse there are please see Misplaced Pages:Motto of the day/Nominations/Specials. Thank you for your time. Simply south (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOCK

Why did you undo the edit that 74.105.185.90 made to Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry? Wasn't the user right, Do not sock or else you WILL be blocked forever. 71.94.158.203 (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, this is a new low in the long history of your bizarre behaviour. Using one of your multiple and constantly changing IP addresses ( in other words you are an anonymous sockpuppet ) you added your own personal "warning" to the sockpuppet policy article ( which in itself could be considered vandalism ) and now you come on here criticising my removal of your comment and pretend that it was added by another user. Everyone else knows that you are using multiple IP addresses - so you can stop pretending that your different IP edits are by various editors. At last an administrator has finally blocked one of your IP addresses for your persistent disruptive editing and BLP violations. So you need to take note of your own words - "do not sock or you will be blocked forever". Your behaviour is very strange for someone who refers to himself as a "devout Christian" but who constantly seeks to intimidate other editors and misuse Misplaced Pages to vilify others. You seem to be full of vindictive hatred. I suggest you do something about this - somewhere other than on Misplaced Pages. Afterwriting (talk) 06:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Baptism

Would you mind looking at this edit in the baptism article. You are more knowledgeable on the Roman Rite than I am. I don't believe that Confirmation (Chrismation) "confers a 'character'" on the soul, but I am only familiar with the Lutheran view were it is considered an affirmation of baptism. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the comment as it only seems to unecessarily repeat information about "indelible character" already included. Whilst there is some degree of debate about the precise nature of confirmation amongst theologians, it is still the official Roman Catholic teaching that confirmation is - in some respects - a distinct sacrament of initiation that also "completes" the sacrament of baptism and that the person being confirmed is "sealed" by the Holy Spirit in their incorporation into Christ. The idea of certain sacraments having or conferring an "indelible character" is not stressed so much these days but is still the official understanding. Confirmation is certainly not considered to just be an "affirmation of baptism". In the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox churches ( and, I believe, sometimes also by Anglicans for members of the British Royal Family ) infants are baptised and confirmed ( chrismated ) in the one ceremony. Hope this helps. Afterwriting (talk) 09:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Merging

Of course I can merge without discussion, it's called being bold. Foo was here is on the same basic topic as Kilroy was here, just with another name. Before reverting, did you check to see how I'd merged it, and whether the material worked better as a single article or three? (see also Chad (graffiti)). Very similar topics are better merged, as it avoids redundancy and provides a better overview for the reader. I left categories on the redirect too. Fences&Windows 18:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course I checked how you merged it and I am very unimpressed. This is NOT just the "same basic topic" "with another name". If you think that there is a case for merging the three articles into one then you need to argue a case why the article's name should be called "Kilroy was here". If there is to be only one article then it should be called something else that that is inclusive of the three. To just merge the two other articles into the "Kilroy" one is totally unacceptable and to attempt to justify it on the grounds of "being bold" comes across as incredibly arrogant - not to mention culturally insensitive. The way you merged the articles only demonstrates an American bias. What if I had merged the Kilroy article into the Foo article on the basis of being bold as it's apparently on the "same basic topic"? There is no valid reason reason why there shouldn't be a separate "Foo" article. You seem to think that it's a variant of "Kilroy" but the available evidence suggests the opposite. Afterwriting (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on the merits or demerits of this can stay at the talk page, but I should note that I'm not American. That was your assumption. I'm British, and I merged in the British "Chad" too. Does that give you a different perspective on my motivations? I merged "Foo" and "Chad" into "Kilroy" simply based on the weight given in reliable sources. Your own national pride seems to be making you project a nationalistic motive onto my own editing when none exists. I've tried to find coverage of "Foo was here" and I almost drew a blank. Perhaps you can do better with local Australian sources? Also, are you still unimpressed with the merged article? I've done quite a bit more work on it and improved the flow and sourcing. Fences&Windows 00:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Misplaced Pages:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)