Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 64.85.214.134 (talk) at 14:13, 3 April 2013 (→Oversight?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User	Talk	Articles	To Do	Toolbox	Subpages	DYK	Awards

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Welcome to my talk page. Leave me a message!

I am probably offline and am unable to respond swiftly. I will respond as soon as I can. Please feel free to send me an email, where I will likely respond faster.

This user is stalked by friendly talk page staplers.

This user replies where s/he likes, and is inconsistent in that respect.

Please see this

Please take a look at this. Thank you very much. --Lecen (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

According to your and other Arbitrators' suggestions, I tried again mediation, even though I really believe that the problem goes far beyond a mere content dispute. Obviously, as I expected, this and this occurred. Take a look at this too. For them, this is all a joke. They are aware that the community has no interest on settling this matter and are playing around while they harass me (see the link on my first message to you). --Lecen (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The joke here are all of the accusations of fascism and nazism made by Lecen. Am I supposed to take them seriously?

Lecen's behavior has been noted as both childish () and exhibiting WP:OWN issues () by independent editors. The whole problem is efficiently summarized in WP:DIVA.

Furthermore, as I wrote in the Mediation talk page (), the WP:BRD process has not even taken place for this user to take the matter to mediation (much less ArbComm).

I may not have the 12 FA stars that Lecen constantly brags about, but I am a user with an integrity certified by a handful of barnstars. However, if you agree with Lecen's perspective of things, then perhaps my two GA's (Pisco Sour and Peru national football team), should also be thoroughly hounded for their pro-Nazi bias.

Heil Pisco!--MarshalN20 | 22:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your work

We have a problem with user https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Ronz and https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Dougweller

They are stopping honest debate at https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Bosnian_pyramids

My recent addition on the TALK page was deleted. There was no discussion - just deleted. I have a copy for proof. Their violation of[REDACTED] rules jeopardises everything you and all Honest[REDACTED] editors DO.

What can we do to stop their bad behaviour? Perhaps this may be their last chance.

Thank you for your work. Your honesty is your saviour. Aaron Sanders (edits as Sovereign SoEvReigns and GBCIR and SoPhi'A) 82.127.43.154 (talk) 09:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Sovereign SoEvReigns

Hi Aaron. You talk a lot about honesty and debate, but looking at your edit on the talk page - it starts from a very

Table/chart question

Hey Dave. I want to show the giant table on C3 Picasso as a {{Brick chart}} to simplify it. But if i'm going to do that then i could remove half of it by removing either the fuel economy or CO2 figures. Neither sways me one way or the other so i'm here for your opinion on what to delete if anything. Thanks ツ Jenova20 09:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. Not really sure to be honest. I don't know how a brick chart would fit for something like that - it's more likely to be used for say - the make up of a government. Worm(talk) 09:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Well if i used just CO2 figures i can use 5 colours for the 5 types of engine and just stack each model on top. Opinions? ツ Jenova20 10:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

As I said, it's not really right. The idea of a brick chart is to show the breakdown of a whole, like a pie chart. It doesn't really fit with comparing different values, like a bar chart. Worm(talk) 10:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh...Do you have a recommendation then? I'm tempted to delete the fuel economy figures either way but if i'm going to do that i figured i could also make the table simpler. What about a bar chart? Thanks ツ Jenova20 10:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Some sort of graph/chart might be a good idea... the question is how best to represent the data. Possibly a {{bar box}}, but making the table simpler at the same time would be a good idea. It's really not my area of expertise though... Perhaps asking a question at Misplaced Pages talk:Graphs and charts would be a good idea? Worm(talk) 10:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks like we're sorted then Dave. I can strip out the fuel economy and represent the CO2 as a range on a bar chart or scatter graph of some kind. The only thing left to do is choose a suitable one. Thank you very much, you've been very useful ツ Jenova20 11:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

And my best bet appears to be a Gantt chart ツ Jenova20 11:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I think of Gantt charts as project charts, to allow the best organisation of time. If you can use it to display the data, I'll be impressed! Good luck Worm(talk) 11:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot! You and Stacey have a nice Easter! ツ Jenova20 12:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been thinking about what someone at the help desk said and i've stripped out the mpg figures too. They're difficult to cite, easily confusing and disputable in some instances, and there's the fact that i can simplify the article by removing them. Now the table just says which engines are available to each model. My question now is do i need to cite them as available at all? Or should i just do it if anything is later disputed? Thanks ツ Jenova20 15:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Attempt to hide the edit history of U.Thaniyarasu

Hello. I suggest you have glance of this edit history page. Till yesterday the article was nearly wholly in Tamil on en:wp. I move it to the user's sandbox with a note on his talk page to this effect.

This user then used Twinkle to move the page again to the article section.

Since the article had the subject's crucial contact details such as the phone number, another used tagged it for speedy deletion. A hitherto unknown IP removed the speedy-tag. But I guess that once speedy tagging is done, a decision to delete or keep the article should be by the admin rather than an arbitrary decision. Hence I restored the speedy tag with a note that it's upto admins to decide on the article.

I guess an admin removed the speedy and the article is accepted as a stub.

BUT WHAT SURPRISES ME IS THAT MANY EDITS ARE HIDDEN IN THE HISTORY OF THE ARTICLE INCLUDING MINE, THE ARTICLE-CREATOR'S AND OTHER USERS'. I DON'T SEE ANY REASON FOR SUCH A MOVE AND HENCE REQUEST YOU TO UNHIDE THE HIDDEN EDITS WHICH ARE 30-40 EDITS. AN URGENT ACTION IS REQUESTED. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC).

The deleted revisions are the ones that have the personal contact details in. This is a valid deletion under the policy Misplaced Pages:Revision deletion. I don't understand why you feel such a strong need for the contents of those revisions to be publicly viewable? Anyway, I think the place you'd ask about it is the talk page of the administrator who (I think) deleted the revisions, which would be User talk:Boing! said Zebedee. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The article contained what looked like personal contact details - addresses and phone numbers (but the text was in Tamil, so it was hard to be sure). I rev-deleted those versions to be safe (at the same time as I removed the Speedy Deletion nomination) - we don't publish contact phone numbers in Misplaced Pages articles, and they should not be retained in the history. I then requested Oversight, and an oversighter suppressed those versions. As an aside, there seems to have been a few people recently trying to turn the U.Thaniyarasu article into what looks like promotion - repeating the same information in different formats and adding needless photos to the article. For a stub that short, we really only need one photo to show what he looks like. If any further material (supported by reliable sources) should be added which needs to be illustrated, further photos might be appropriate then, but Misplaced Pages articles should not be used as promotional photo galleries -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Btw, my only concern was the untraceability of the edits in the history - and to this was the first time on en:wp. I was never concerned with the pictures.Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC).

Wikipediocracy

Considering the reasons for Cla68's recent block, could you take a look at this post on Jimbo's talk page, as well as the fact that he restored it after someone removed it? The post links to various articles on Wikipediocracy that reveal the personal details of Misplaced Pages editors. Just wondering if you find this to be a blockable event, and if not, what the difference is between this event and Cla68's event. I would have blocked him already, but there is probably a reasonable argument that I'm too involved. Thanks. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 17:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Scotty, I sent ArbCom a link to the most recent blog post some days ago and they are well aware of the others (despite their lack of action). I think that (Redacted) says far more about himself on his userpage than I put in my blog post - have you looked at it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I haven't looked at it. But, I just took a look at it and I didn't see any part of it that says that he is addicted to kiddie porn, and his hobby is distributing porn DVD's to minors. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 17:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Scotty, you should be careful what you say on-wiki about other users. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so you agree that your blog post reveals quite a bit more private, personal information than that user has provided on-wiki? ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 18:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean the "personal, private information" which (Redacted) discussed on various public forums and I quoted in my blog piece (which was published off-wiki)? That information? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I mean the "personal, private information" which (Redacted) may or may not have discussed on various off-wiki forums, which you quoted in your blog piece, and then linked to on Misplaced Pages. In other words, the exact same thing that Cla68 was indefinitely blocked for. Your blog connects some dots to make accusations that may or may not be true about this user. If they're not true, your blog post is defamatory, and linking to it on-wiki is highly problematic. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 18:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

And the exact same thing that MZMcBride was blocked for. And then unblocked. And then blocked again. And then unblocked again. I guess I will probably be blocked then. By the way, why is Cla68 still blocked? I thought everyone agreed that block was over the top? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, Cla68 has not been unblocked because everyone hasn't agreed that the block was over the top. My opinion is that you should be blocked unless and until you agree to refrain from posting links to the article about (Redacted) as well as any similar articles that reveal private information about editors that hasn't already been divulged on-wiki. If that's something you can agree to, then I'd be willing to drop this request that you be blocked. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 19:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I can agree to that. I will not post links to the article about (Redacted) or any similar articles. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. WTT, consider my request withdrawn. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 19:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The issue is that these kinds of allegations against another editor, especially one who is identified on-wiki, is a serious problem and it is prohibited by the relevant policy. You guys should stop mentioning this individual by name.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, we have an editor who cannot be named, who links his user page to his Facebook page, where he states "Information about me that is highly controversial (relates to child pornography): http://www.webcitation.org/". In said link he tells a story about being arrested for "having made illegal pornography available to minors", and talks about setting up an FTP server for "...nude photos of prepubescent boys (aroused or not), photos showing such young boys engaged sexually with each other, or pictures of adult men having sex with these young boys...". Am I missing something? He's not ecactly hiding it, theres a link right there on his user page. Kevin (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Having reviewed everything, I'm worried that this wasn't an immediate block situation from ArbCom, but I am confident that they will come to the decision to block him. Should that not occur, for example, if they determined that WP:CHILDPROTECT only applied to onwiki identification, it would necessitate a community based discussion on the issue with everything out in the open. That is clearly a bad situation, so ArbCom won't go there. Ryan Vesey 02:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Kevin was right to block the user. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Am currently looking at this. Worm(talk) 08:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Oversight?

Hello, this user posted on Jimbo's talk page; can you take a look at their user page and see if some oversighting needs to be done due to their age -- specifically the external links to family websights. Once reviewed, I guess remove this thread from your talk page, too, for privacy's sake. Rgrds. --64.85.214.134 (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)