Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs) at 22:43, 10 August 2009 (→Sanctions log: copy-edit). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shh...this user is observing The Fourth Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout during March 1–6 and is probably busy creating content or WikiGnoming. If you have a question, please leave it on the talk page but it is possible that this user may not get back to you until the Dramaout has finished. Join us! Signup is here. To include this template on your talk page use {{User:Berean Hunter/shh!We'reBusy}}

click here to leave a new message.

Talkback

The Earwig 21:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

— raeky  01:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

GA review of Tom Vilsack presidential campaign, 2008

Hello - I have reviewed Tom Vilsack presidential campaign, 2008, which you listed at the Good Article nominees page. My review of the article can be found here. As you can see, I've raised quite a few issues with the article. Before you panic/become depressed/burn me in effigy, though, here are some things to bear in mind:

• The points I raise are not necessarily all things that need to be addressed before I list it as a GA. Instead, they are things that I think could improve the article. In my view, the actual GA status is of secondary importance in the GA process; what's more important is improving the article, and I think that goal is best served by making as many suggestions as possible.
• In my experience, I'm among the most stringent GA reviewers out there, especially in the "well-written" category, where I tend to review GA and FA candidates in essentially the same way. Again, I do this because I think it's best for the article; however, if you think the points I've raised are too nit-picky or minor and you'd rather not address them, I may be willing to promote the article without them all being addressed.
• The opinions I express in my GA reviews are just that - my opinions (I also express some things, like grammatical rules or the requirements of WP:V, that are not my opinions). If you disagree with any of my opinions, please say so; you don't need to convince me that you're right, just that your position is a reasonable one. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You're it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Eugene McCarthy presidential campaign, 1968

On June 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eugene McCarthy presidential campaign, 1968, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Evan Bayh presidential campaign, 2008

On June 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Evan Bayh presidential campaign, 2008, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 08:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for One Iowa

Hello! Your submission of One Iowa at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

Re: Wikiproject invitation

Thanks, but I think I'll decline. What edits have I made that led you to invite me? Nyttend (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll decline as well, I'm afraid, as I don' have any particular interest in working on such articles (I focus more on Canadian politics, generally). I'd be happy to provide copyediting or peer reviews of such articles on request during periods in which I'm not too busy, however. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for One Iowa

On June 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article One Iowa, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Backslash Forwardslash 20:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

3RR Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ronald Regan. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Thanks. Mattnad (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I am currently awaiting information on the appropriateness of the above warning. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Edit_war#What_is_edit_warring.3F. If you think I'm unique in my interpretation, see this other editor's warning to your counterpart on his talk page. Anyway, I'm not planning to debate semantics of what constitutes a "content dispute." You can do whatever you want, but think about it. Mattnad (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Geraldine Ferraro/archive1 section headers

I won't press the issue any further (because it's a silly thing), but please see WP:FAC instructions: "Please do not split FA candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings)." The FA delegates may remove them anyway, though. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see what you did. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Public_image_of_Barack_Obama

Strange that you are lecturing other editors about possible 3rr violations given your behaviors on other pages. Just a friendly reminder.RTRimmel (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Why? Because I made one revert? --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• ]
• ]

There are two. And against consensus and the talk page because you believe a policy is being violated when 4 editors have told you it hasn't. One more and are you could be blocked and that would be unfortunate. You may want to read up on Disruptive_editing#Signs_of_disruptive_editing to avoid future problems. Just as a friendly reminder. Have a nice day. RTRimmel (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The initial edit is not a revert.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

But wholly against consensus, which is a sign of disruptive editing. Just as a friendly reminder. RTRimmel (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. It was an attempt at compromise. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ice Cube 2000

Alright, I'll report him now. Thanks for the heads up. → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 18:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

routine notice of Obama article probation

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Public image of Barack Obama, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- guyzero | talk 00:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I accept it. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Hubert Humphrey presidential campaign, 1968

On July 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hubert Humphrey presidential campaign, 1968, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC) 02:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:USPE tagging bot

Sorry about the long delay in completing this task, but it's finished. You can review the pages modified by the bot here if necessary. Thanks, The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 16:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. --William S. Saturn (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Giuliani debate.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Giuliani debate.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 22:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Rudy giuliani larry king.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rudy giuliani larry king.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 23:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Thompson june debate.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Thompson june debate.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 11:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Tommy Thompson debate.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tommy Thompson debate.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about that image can now take place at the deletion debate, so that the closing administrator/others wishing to voice an opinion can see both of our points. The fact the article is a GA is not important; I've seen FAs with horrific violations, and the fact not everyone is well versed in our NFC policies means that GA reviewers will inevitably miss images. J Milburn (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-free debate images in campaign articles

Before I go on a nomination spree, is there anything I'm missing about the "This is X at Y debate, as shown on Z news network" images you've uploaded for the campaign articles? They seem to be in obvious violation of our non-free content criteria, in that they add practically nothing to the articles. Specifically, I am referring to File:Baldwin debate.jpg, File:Bob Barr on Fox News.jpg, File:Dodd december debate.jpg and File:Dodd november debate.jpg, which seem exactly the same as the two images already deleted, and the two I have just nominated. J Milburn (talk) 12:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Bullshit like this is the reason this website is in the state it's in. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll take that as "no, they do not comply with the non-free content criteria, but I don't really care"? J Milburn (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This is simply a waste of time. It is taking away from article quality by forcing editors to stop everything they do and defend images. And then once you delete the images, you leave it in the article as a redlink. This causes one to question the purpose. Is leaving a bunch of redlinks lying around helping the encyclopedia? Or is it proper to led an inquisition against a simple rationale such as "the debate is important, and this shows the person in question, in action" wasting everybody's time and ending with a red link and a caption?--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Look, we're Misplaced Pages, the 💕. We aim to promote the use of free content, and aim for the creation of an encylopedia that can be freely used and distributed. We do allow the use of non-free content in specific circumstances, as not allowing its use would detract seriously from the informational value of the encyclopedia. However, this is not one of those cases where we should be making an exception to the rule- using this content does not improve the encyclopedia in any real way, but it does detract from our mission. Basically, your issue appears to be with the rules themselves. If you're not willing to "waste" your time complying with our non-free content rules, I advise you avoid the upload of non-free content altogether. J Milburn (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Explain how the images are in conflict with each facet of the fair use law:

• the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
• the nature of the copyrighted work;
• the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
• the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Then explain how you can determine if it would be detrimental or not. I am the main contributer to the article, and I see that the absence of the image hurts the reader's understanding significantly. Perhaps you have a problem with fair use images, but they are lawful on this site if used correctly. I don't see your crusade as noble, I see it as detrimental unless you can actually explain yourself and not leave behind a huge pile of red links. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't care about fair use law. Not only am I not American, but, philsophically, I am not massive on law anyway. I am working from our non-free content criteria. I am, however, a very reasonable person- if you can explain to me why removing these images would harm the readers' understanding of the article, I will not only leave the images alone, but I will be happy to defend their use against any one in the future who calls for their deletion. I certainly have no problem with non-free images (many articles I have written contain them), and agree strongly that redlinks to images should be removed post-haste. J Milburn (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I explained on the MFD page. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and nominated the four other images for deletion. The discussions can be found at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2009 July 17. J Milburn (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

And all have been given a valid rationale. Please withdraw. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You're kind of missing the point of the Dramaout. I chose not to participate, and even explained why on the talk page, so I will continue to clean up non-free images with invalid rationales. To be honest, I think you may have already broken the terms of the "Dramaout" by contacting me on my talk page. I will not be withdrawing these nominations unless I am convinced that the images are required, and I am not. If you don't want drama, tag them for speedy deletion, or just wait out the discussions. If you do want drama, go and fight, or go and make demands of me. Your choice. J Milburn (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It's ironic that somebody who "doesn't care about fair use law" believes himself to be the authority on fair use images. I can only laugh and leave it at that. No drama, just a word of advice: you do yourself more harm when you waste other's time. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA reminder

Thanks for signing up for the Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout. Misplaced Pages stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at Misplaced Pages:The Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 21:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!

Thank you again for your support of the Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout. Preliminary states indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:

• T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
• WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
• WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
• WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
• WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

		The Anti-Drama Barnstar
		Thank you for participating in The Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout 2009, avoiding drama for a full 5 days!--Sky Attacker 04:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Presidential Election 2012 article

Hi there,

Myself and Timmeh have had a strong discussion about major change to this article. Before we did anything we wanted to get feedback regular editors of this page, William S. Saturn, Hysteria18, Jerzeykydd, Ratemonth, JayJasper, GoodDay, Qqqqqq, GageSkidmore, Reywas92, and FallenMorgan. Please send this to anyone else I may have left and please read the thread on Ruled Out and give us your feedback.

--Diamond Dave 16:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by David1982m (talk • contribs)

revert

I honestly thought I was using the "undo" (and NOT the rollback) feature. I left an edit summary. I do not understand why my autosummary was not included in the action. All I can say is that i was endeavoring to take your point seriously. Ny edit summary: material that conflicts with NPOV cannot be allowed in; I explain myself on the talk page." I hope we can continue to have an GF discussion on the talk page. I believe that you believe the section is saying something important. I believe that at best it is not saying what you want it to say clearly and effectively; I believe it is actually saying something else. As to what you wish it to say, I am not at all sure there is a need for the policy to have a section saying so. Our policies will be easier for newbis to learn and for people to follow when they are concise and clear. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

moralizing

"I think you're reading too much into it, but let's ask Karada for a clarification. Honestly though, I will continue to edit with my interpretation of the policy, because I feel it is important that editors not moralize. This policy removes the urge to label a subject as a "racist," "pervert" or any other label, and instead state the facts of the subject, such as their participation in lynching or alleged sexual assault. It's good to point to, when a new user insists on using such a label on a subject"

I know you are making good faith points. I genuinely believe you profoundly misunderstand NPOV. You seem to be responding to editors who wish to add labels, at least about people - I hope I am understanding you correctly, you are asking what do we do when someone adds "The evil Saddam Hussein." Here is my problem: when you point to Kadara's statement in the NPOV policy as an explanation for why they should take out evil, you are giving them a reason that is (1) unnecessary, because NPOV already covers this, and (2) wrong, because Kadara's reasoning (and yours I say with respect) contradicts NPOV.

Here is what I think any editor should say to a new user who insist using a label on a subject. We say: NPOV (and V and NOR as well, they all unite on this point) forbids any editor from putting his or her own view into an article. Period.

That is all one has to say. That is why I think Kadara's statement is unnecessary.

But there is a reason why we do not add our own views. That is because we are not supposed to use Misplaced Pages articles to argue for or against any view. Neutral Point of View means that we provide a neutral (judgment-free) account of all significant views from verifiable sources.

• If there is a significant view from a verifiable source that someone who committed sexual assualt is a pervert, we add that view, make sure it is identified as a view and not as "the truth," and provide the verifiable and reliable sources.
• If there is a significant view from a verifiable source that someone who committed sexual assualt is psychologically ill, we add that view, make sure it is identified as a view and not as "the truth," and provide the verifiable and reliable sources.
• If there is a significant view from a verifiable source that someone who committed sexual assualt is a sinner, we add that view, make sure it is identified as a view and not as "the truth," and provide the verifiable and reliable sources.
• If there is a significant view from a verifiable source that someone who committed sexual assualt is justified as the so-called victim was asking for it, we add that view, make sure it is identified as a view and not as "the truth," and provide the verifiable and reliable sources.

According to NPOV, none of these views are true, and we do not care to argue that any or all of them are true or false. We present all of them, as views, and neutrally.

If the advocates of these views (must I remind you, only those that are demonstrably significant and demonstrably verifiable) provide explanations and evidence to support their views, we can add that too. Now the crucial point: we add them as views and not because we editors want to support a given view.

We do not state the facts because fact are better than labels. We state the facts because - really if - a verifiable source expressing a significant view is using facts. We put in stuff because it is significant and comes from reliable sources.

Kadara seems to be saying that if an editor believes Hussein to be evil, the editor will convince more people if instead of using a label, the editor provides the evidence.

William (if I may), if I could scream I would, and it is nothing personal against you or kadara but this reasoning - if I am interpreting it correctly - is just the most blatant violation of NPOV and it stabs at the heart of Misplaced Pages. No editor should be using Misplaced Pages to advance a viewpoint This is also the heart of WP:NOR, another core content policy.

In all the discussion surrounding my deletion of this section, I seem to be getting two criticisms. First, that I am trying to tell readers what to think. Given what i have just written, do you still believe that of me? I am not trying to tell readers anything other than what other people ("signiicant views/reliable sources") think. Second, that facts are more effective than labels. But effective at what? Arguing a point? Supporting a point? Wikiepdia editors should never be trying to argue or support any point in an article.

A final point about moralizing - and a spoiler, all my comments are about what I think NPOV demands of me as a Misplaced Pages editor, not what I personally think if you and I were hanging out at a bar. The first question is, who is moralizing. (It cannot be a newbie or even an established editor, because no wikipedian ever puts their own view into an article (I do not have to say Wikipedians cannot moralize - it doesn't matter whether it is moralizing or any other view; we editors simply do not put our views into an article). Maybe moralizing is good. Maybe moralizing is bad. I have just expressed two views. One of them is mine and I will not tell you which because my view never can go into a Misplaced Pages article. We put the view in only if it is significant and from a verifiable source.

Example: George Bush says Saddam Hussein is evil. We have a discussion on the talk page. Some people say the president of the US is not a significant view. Some people say he is but even if he weren't others share this view. People look for sources and after much discussion come up with some kind of sentence that basically expresses this: Many people have publically agreed with Bush's denouncement of Saddam Hussein as evil." This view may be right or wrong. Thinking it right or wrong is itself a view. i happen to hold one of these views, but i will not tll you which because it doesn't matter because my job as editor is not to put in my own views. Bush is moralizing - I certainly agree on that! But that is not a reason to keep that sentence out of the article. IF we agree the view is significant and IF it comes from verifiable reliable sources, we HAVE to put it in. Now another editor comes to the discussion and says "Move.Org just put out commercials on all major networks saying Bush is wrong." We have a discussion, we decide whether this is significant and verifiable and if we decide yes, we can put in the article the fact that some people hold the view that Bush's view is wrong. And if Amnesty International or the Secretary general of the UN issues a press release saying that "Bush's moralizing rhetoric is not only ineffective, it is inflammatory and dangerous" we have the same discussion: is this a significant and verifiable view/ If so, in it goes.

1. NPOV demands we add all significant views from verifiable and reliable sources
2. NPOV and NOR forbid us from adding our own views
3. NPOV and NOR forbid editors to use Misplaced Pages to further a Wikipedian's own argument or view.

These are the only responses you ever need to give to a newbie who inserts the word "perverted" or "evil" or whatever into an article. You can keep deleting the word pervert as long as the newbie does not establish that it is a significant view found in reliable sources. But as soon as (IF) the newbie demonstrates that it is a significant view from reliable sources, William, honestly, you have to allow it. The only other question from an NPOV perspective is, are there other significant views from reliable sources? if so, we have to add those too and the newbie cannot stop you. But this - this paragraph - is as far as I can tell the only thing you need to know when a newbie slaps on the moralizing label "pervert."

The problem is never labels, the problem is never moralizing. The problem is one of the three points I just listed. And the section I keep removing is offensive to me because it violates point 1 by saying a view should be excluded on grounds other than lack of significance ofr lack of reliable source, and it is offensive to me because it violates point 3 by encouraging an editor to put in facts that support the editor's views.

I have bent over backwards to be as clear as possible about my position. Do you think my interpretations of NPOV and NOR in pts. 1-3 are wrong? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

3RR Warning (again)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Public image of Barack Obama. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. UnitAnode 22:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

A report has been filed at WP:ANI about this dispute and the ominous band of Obama page protectors. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Richard Nixon presidential campaign, 1968

Hello! Your submission of Richard Nixon presidential campaign, 1968 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The answer to your question is frustratingly simple - I leave the assessment to another editor. Unfortunately, this is a common style at DYK - we cross-check various nominations, often merely pointing to technicalities like hook length. Length is Ok, the whole nom is Ok as far I'm concerned, but I am no specialist in this topic at all. Specialists often come from other angles (assessment of neutrality, copyvivo, overlap with other WP articles), sometimes even crashing the article. If I were you, I wouldn't worry at all. The nomination is stable, you'll either get a comment later from someone, or it will simply be accepted by a DYK admin. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I respect your WP experience, but my observation of DYK for the last 2-3 months I'm assessing there tells me things go normal - there is no "one-editor assessment rule", some threads get >3 at a time. It is just summer vacation time, and usual lack of manpower at DYK. Technical comments like hook length neither count as assessment (after all, most hooks are reformulated by the DYK admins before posting, especially if too long) nor repel others. That said, technical comments do help sorting out problems there. Materialscientist (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Solution to Ruled Out Debate NEED YOUR FEEDBACK!

Proposed solution to ruled out debate on ]. Please submit your feedback. Thanks. David1982m (talk • —Preceding undated comment added 14:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC).

Sanctions log

Hey, WSS. I reverted your addition of Tarc to the sanction log. This wasn't done on the merits, per se, but just because having you and tarc edit war over the sanctions log was unproductive at best. In the future try to avoid logging sanctions for an editor who was recently in a dispute with you--it will likely do nothing but inflame the issue. Protonk (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'll be more clear. Don't add people to the list when you are party to an immediate dispute with them. Protonk (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you point me to a policy on that? --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:UCS? I can't believe I'm having this argument. You do not need to shepard the sanctions log. If this were an action undertaken due to the sanctions (which is debatable), a neutral editor is free to edit the log. The last person who should be editing that log is the person in the dispute because all that will happen is Tarc will get mad unnecessarily. I'm not going to wikilawyer about this. Protonk (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see how the reverts could even be construed as not falling under the sanctions guidelines. The action is simply logged, no commentary is added. There should be no dispute here. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Protonk has a history of being rather one sided on issues related to this subject. If he doesn't want you to add the sanction to the list then he should simply do it himself. There's no controversy about the violation. It's cut and dry. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)