Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Will Beback (talk | contribs) at 20:07, 27 May 2009 (→Prem Rawat 2: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to my talk page!

Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:

• Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.

• Do you have a question about arbitration enforcement? Please read my FAQ at User:Sandstein/AE.

• If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: ].

• If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.

Kitten

62.194.6.92 (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

ANI on AfD closures

I was mistaken in assuming Docu was not an admin and have apologised to him/her for that. Docu, never answered my question when I asked if he/she was an admin, and they didn't answer that question. nor is there any mention of being an admin on their user page. also I cannot view Special:UserRights/Docu as you mention, on my account. However, my ANI report was not seeking a deletion review, I agree with the decision that the articles survived deletion, however it was no consensus outcome not a keep in my opinion. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

concerning the above, you would be interested in seeing the deletion review I requested here Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2009_May_20. LibStar (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with edit by edit war situations

I understand that arbcom has come down hard on edit warring in the I/P articles, and since I have a hard time counting my reverts anyhow, I am interested in finding a more effective way to edit articles in the I/P area.

The problems are a little complex. For instance, today I made this edit to the Self-hating Jew article (which by its content is very much an I/P article). The sentence I moved is problematic, and needs at minimum to be attributed. User:Rd232 reverted this edit before he got around to replying to me comments on the talk page . The talk page discussion is here . So what do ,I do? Discussion has produced mostly accusations against me, and nothing about correcting a problem in the article. The move to the talk page was reverted. Another edit, attributing the source, was reverted. Is this something that can be taken to WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement? I would be happy to discuss the issue on the talk page, but other editors do not seem open to discussion.

This sentence referring to the term "self-hating Jew"

The term is currently most common in debates over the role of Israel in Jewish identity,where it is used by right-wing Zionists against Jewish critics of Israeli government policy.

In my view, without attributing it to its author, this sentence gives the appearance that WP stands behind the statement, as though it was scientifically established laws of thermodynamics or evolution. I do not think that is responsible editing.

Suggestions of how to deal with an editing impasse, and this is a pretty typical example, would be much appreciated. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll not express an opinion about the merits of the content at issue, but contrary to what you say above, the sentence is attributed to the source "Finlay" with a footnote. Whether it would be desirable to label it more clearly as this man Finlay's opinion, e.g. "According to Finlay ..." (as per your second edit) or to move it around, or to remove it altogether (as per your first edit), is a matter for which editorial consensus must be sought.

I agree that much of the talk page discussion is less than helpful because it addresses your perceived motivations and so forth. In your position, I'd attempt to obtain some outside opinions through WP:3O and continue discussion. A noticeboard report would not be helpful here. The reverts by Rd232 of both of your edits is not edit warring (yet), despite the somewhat contentious tone employed, but normal editorial practice per WP:BRD. Should the change-revert cycle continue, we would enter edit-warring territory, but most edit wars involve two editors, not just one. I advise you to let another editor make whatever change, if any, that you may find consensus for.  Sandstein  04:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. But this pretty much confirms my view that the recent arbcom decision will change nothing. The reason that nothing will change is because arbcom can not generate collegiality where that is lacking....although it would be so very nice if it could. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

AFD:Robert Williams

Hey Sandstein, could I get a oopy of the now deleted article Robert Williams (robot fatality) please? I don't know how that evaded my watchlist but these things happen. That was some pretty lame consensus for anything, but I don't hang out at AFD much, maybe that's normal. It was after all the first person crushed to death by a robotic device, so I don't exactly buy the ONEEVENT or "delete as pointless trivia" arguments.

It's unfortunate that I didn't catch this as it happened. I'd like to review the article and I have a convenient localwiki where I can do so. I'll shoot you a mail now in case you need a target to send attachments. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The article was not deleted, just redirected. Its content can be seen here: .  Sandstein  07:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh haha, I was very recently discussing "stupid things" I've done, this will go on the list I suppose. Yes, I could have made that one extra mouse-click. Dang. Could you help me instead with making that cherry-cheeked embarassed icon? :) Franamax (talk) 07:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh, no problem ;-)  Sandstein  08:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Lessie Wei

Thank you for closing out the Lessie Wei case. I would just like to add, as I am sure you did not notice (I also left a note at WP:ANI) that an editor (User:OlYeller21) added Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Rms125a@hotmail.com to the proceeding, which was not removed and now is a part of the permanent archive. The category was not there until User:OlYeller21's edit at 17:23, 22 May 2009 (see diff). Could you please remove this bogus category from the archive and warn this editor about such acts of vandalism. Thank you. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 08:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If you would like to have that category deleted, you can submit it for discussion at WP:CfD. I may not delete it unilaterally. Do not accuse others of vandalism, please, unless you are sure it meets the definition at WP:VAND.  Sandstein  08:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I don't think you understand what I am trying to say. My fault I am sure since I am not always articulate. I am writing to you just because you happen to be the one who closed the pending AFD. Let me explain. The category in question (Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Rms125a@hotmail.com) existed during the period of my ban, which ended in February 2009. I am not seeking to whitewash history; I am simply asking that the category be removed from the saved final version of Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Lessie_Wei, where it does not belong, but no one apparently noticed due to the heat. This is a case of pure vandalism and I reported it to the WP:ANI as such. This editor (User:OlYeller21) had no business inserting this expired and false category at all. Did he ask approval from anyone? How can User:Rms125a@hotmail.com be a sockpuppet of/for User:Rms125a@hotmail.com?? Please feel free to respond on my talk page. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, it has been taken care of. Thanks anyway. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 09:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black/Workshop.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK 17:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Request: you can remove, perhaps, http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Michel_Deza because all requests done there are addressed. I am a new user; so, sorry if something is wrong. Mdeza (talk) 13:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Mind if I use your signature template?

Just thought I'd ask, as I like its format. It would be  Fyyer . Thanks :-) ├Fyyer┤ 19:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and do go ahead if you like, of course.  Sandstein  20:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Mimaki

Dear Sandstein,

By removing the 'Mimaki' article , some links went to nowhere, like those: http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:WhatLinksHere/Mimaki

You can discuss that this company is not the most important to put in a general encyclopedia and I would agree to that, but then again, in what is this company different to for example Kawai, Sanyo or Ricoh. And why is there a new article at http://en.wikipedia.org/Mimaki_Engineering_Company which is not removed yet.

I can repair all those links manually (I guess), but I don't understand why the last version of the removed page is nowhere to be found or any discussion regarding the removal. In my opinion a piece of interlinked information is thrown out the window seemingly at random.

Best regards, Ingunda —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingunda (talk • contribs) 13:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request

Just to let you know, it is here. Syn 23:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Prem Rawat 2

FYI: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Prem Rawat 2.   Will Beback  talk  20:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)