Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pascal.Tesson (talk | contribs) at 20:47, 31 July 2007 (typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

If you want to find some historical talk please go here and use Ctrl F but be warned its a huge archive page and may mess with your web browser.

This user is not an administrator on the English Misplaced Pages. (verify)

Murder Victims

Not surprisingly, I agree with you for the most part about moving entry's from "Victim's Name" to "Murder of Victim's Name," unless they have enough verifiable and encyclopedic biographical information to warrant an entry on their own. I reached out to El_C for advice on how best to accomplish a mass move like that, and am waiting to hear what he has to say. To me it's obvious, but as you've no doubt seen, murder victims (especially kids) really incite people's passions and they can put on blinders and refuse to see logic. Anyway, I think I'm going to be working on this for the next few weeks, and hope I can get your support if I'm able to get the proposal off the ground. AniMate 01:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I certainly wouldnt dream of suggesting we move Ian Gow to Ian Gow murder et al but for unnotable people I think it shows respect and we need to do it if we are to construct a serious long-term online encyclopedia. And its the poor departed kids who are the most important. El C has my full confidence as an admin. You are on my watchklist and lets stay in touch, SqueakBox 01:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome message

Sorry about that - I didn't realise it was templated like that. You may want to think about subst: ing your welcome template in the future to avoid hassles. Sorry again, WilyD 22:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I always subst it when adding it to new user talk pages, SqueakBox 22:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. It wasn't you who did it. I hope you can understand why I was confused. Cheers, WilyD 22:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I was somewhat concerned you didnt like the template content but I see that wasnt the case, SqueakBox 22:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

BLP

Just because the person is living doesn't mean the user name has to be removed from the title of a subsection. If you notice her user name was used more than four times throughout the discussion. I didn't see you remove those mentions. Why not? Your rationale would seem to apply to those as well. Also, Jimbo along with a number of admins commented there and had no problem with the title. I think you are overreacting. I would like you to put the title back to its original state. KnightLago 02:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Axl Rose again

Hi Squeakbox, I noticed you removed the cat we discussed from the Axl Rose article again, claiming it was "unsourced and not even in the text." I was under the impression we'd already talked about this. If you had taken the time to read the very first paragraph in the "Early life" section of the article, you'd have noticed that the information is right there, and that two references from reliable third party publications, in which Rose describes his abuse in his own words, are listed. The editors who have worked on Axl's article have made a concerted effort to ensure that everything written, linked or categorized has been sourced. I do appreciate your zeal against unfounded claims of abuse, but please take the time to actually read the article and check the references before you say something is unsourced and delete it out of hand. Thanks. DanielEng 03:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I read it and could find no specific reference to this event, so instead of telling me to do what I have already done please poin t out where specifically in the text it says he was molested, SqueakBox 17:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

NAMBLA article

This is a controversial article, and a controversial and abhorrent group to many (including me). However, this is an encyclopedia, and they are notable, and boldly redirecting it just because you feel like it is not acceptable. Please don't do that again. Georgewilliamherbert 19:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Its going to afd, I had to try the redirect first though, SqueakBox 19:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can AFD if you want, but I predict a speedy keep. You're not doing yourself any favors here... Georgewilliamherbert 19:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball, nor are you, and we are not here to promote pedophilia. You are not doing yourself any favours is much closer tot he mark esp if you find this group abhorrent, I know exactly what I am doing which is trying to puirge pro pedophilia POV from this encyclopedia. If you want to oppose that toppth and nail people will draw their own conclusions, and I hope you actually also support our NPOV policy SqueakBox 19:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If you start deleting encyclopedic content out of process, I'm going to block you, as much as I hate the pedophiles myself. What you're doing is not NPOV. Stick to AFDs, please. Georgewilliamherbert 19:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You what? Blocking me would be a very bad idea, especially for inititating an afd, please stop. It appears you hate me more than pedophiles, eh? and that makes you very biased, and blocking me for being BOLD woulkd aloso inevitably lead to a review of your admin actions. You cant just go around blocking good faith users or threatening to do so, now please back off. IMO your threat is letting power gop to your head but you are taking on the wrong person because of my good faith in all my edits and my good understanding of our policies and my considerably greater experience of[REDACTED] than yourself. But if there is a specific policy that prohibits redirecting articles while invoking WP:BOLD please let me know, SqueakBox 19:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't do anything to anyone for doing an AFD. That's letting the community be heard. You appeared to threaten above to take further BOLD actions. I told you, and am telling you again, that you overstepped with the first redirect/deletion, and to be careful in further actions here. It doesn't matter how much you or I hate the organization and pedophiles - they're famous and imfamous, and their notability is clear. We don't censor Misplaced Pages. If you start taking your personal bias to delete the encyclopedic and accurate content, without taking it to community review, that's bad for the encyclopedia. If you start damaging the encyclopedia, it's a blockable offense, and I'll block you and submit the block to ANI for review. If you stick to AFD and talk pages for proposing stuff, and don't damage the encyclopedia, there is no issue.

There isn't a policy against BOLDly redirecting. But you didn't just do that; you effectively deleted a whole large encyclopedic page in doing so, and did so out of process, without any discussion on talk pages and without an AFD or anything first. That is not blockable by itself, but it is out of process and damaging the encyclopedia. Talk first, if a deletion action may be, or especially if it becomes controversial. You didn't discuss anywhere.

Your comments and edits in this thread are looking rather emotional and engaged. I don't know what brought this little crusade to purge Misplaced Pages on, but I urge you to calm down and follow procedures and consider that you may be violating NPOV here. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 19:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages did unquestionably get infiltrated by pedophiles promoting their POV, and they are still here. You may not realise it but I have been involved in trying to remove the POV excesses of these pedophiles for months so to describe it as a little crusdae is plain wrong, its an enormous ongoing NPOV promoting crusade and we are being watched by outside interested parties. IMO how we handle this issue is critical to our future as a project, this is something very much ongoing. I have no problemmwith being engaged in this and while I do have emotional feeliongs specifically about the promotion of pedophilia as a cause (rather than say treating it as an illness with therapy etc) that isnt just here today but every day. I am a well known wikipedian, a regular here with 6 times the edits you have and I dont see that I have done anything that would warrant evenm the threat of a block let alone a real one and your warning looks to me not to be in good faith. If you want to help with PAW you would be very welcome, but please dont play into the hands of pro pedophile activists as that would damage the project, SqueakBox 19:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

(un-indenting for readability) If there is a real problem you need to raise awareness and get some consensus behind a wider cleanup. Going after the NAMBLA article like this (it was just closed as a SNOW for keep) does nothing but make you look like a lunatic.

I don't know if there is a problem with promotion of pedophilia here or not; it's not something I pay much attention to in general. I can assure you that if you can show people that there is a wider problem then you'll get support for a cleanup. This was not the right way to do it. You went too far today.

Can you start assembling evidence to support your claim that there is a wider problem, on a subpage of your user talk page or some sort? Once you have something assembled, let me know, and post something to AN. If you have a credible case I'll raise it on the wikien-l mailing list for review as well. Georgewilliamherbert 19:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I have speedy closed the AfD. There's quite simply no valid reason (note that censorship does not count as valid) to have this article deleted. As for your previous redirect it was correctly reverted. You are letting your own convictions get in the way of the project. I should also note that once again you are defending your actions by not so subtly insinuating that anyone who disagrees with you is a pedophile supporter. Please stop. Pascal.Tesson 19:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I just re-closed the AFD because Squeakbox reverted the close. You're not entitled to reopen it after an administrator closes it. You have to take it to Deletion Review. Please don't do that again. Things like this are what are making you look unreasonable and irrational right now and why I warned you. Georgewilliamherbert 19:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Pascual is not an admin, as I am sure you knwow, so dont accuse me of reverting an admins closure. of course it goes rto DRW as you both voted and controversially speedy closed which is completely out of process and a further abuse of your adnmin poowers (as was calling me a lunativc). keep digging! SqueakBox 20:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Pascal is an administrator. i  20:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I am an admin. (and my name is Pascal not Pascual) (oh and I did not vote on that AfD) Pascal.Tesson 20:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, while Special:Listusers shows the admin bit, Pascal isn't on the List of Administrators for some reason. I can understand confusion here. Pascal, you should fix that. Georgewilliamherbert 20:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You may think I look like a lunatic but that merely confirms my belief that you arent being good faith. Doubtless you think El C a lunatic too? That, at any rate is a personal attack which doesnt strengthen your case4, please remain civil if you are going to post further messages to me as otherwise I'll take your insults directly to AN/I. The snowball was out of process and I suggest you threaten to block that user as well. This issue is already being dealt with in an off site arbcom case, I suggest you contact the arbcom for details. I dont want your help in any way, thanks, SqueakBox 19:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not take this to deletion review. This article will not be deleted, and should never have been nominated. Friday (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Be my guest and take it to DRV. I'm not quite sure why you think I don't expect opposition. I do. I also expect experienced Wikipedians like you to know what a frivolous AfD nomination is. Pascal.Tesson 20:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well El C and I are about as experienced as one can get and he certainly did not consider it frivolous. We arent here to promote the fringe beliefs of pro-pedophile activists (who wrote the article) and so at the least this should have been allowed to run 24 hours, not quite sure why you think it was a snowball or how an article like this by a bunch of extreme minority trolls (ie NAMBLA) deserves any consideration here. Misplaced Pages as a corporate sex offender is merely confirmed by your action. And if you think there is anything frivolous about propmoting pedophilia perhaps you would care to explain it, SqueakBox 20:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose two editors can be simultaneously misguided. You are truly deluding yourself if you think you will get this article deleted through AfD and I firmly believe that this is what just about every admin will tell you. Pascal.Tesson 20:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)