Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Toddy1 (talk | contribs) at 20:13, 1 September 2013 (→SPI: Thanks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Administrators - if you need to contact me urgently, consider using the hotline instead.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

RfA

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Talkback

Tb

Happy Holidays!

Vacation is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Semi-protection of some articles on chess gambits

Thanks for semi-protecting Englund Gambit. I'm afraid that Four Knights Game, Halloween Gambit‎‎ also needs semi-protection if you would like to help again. The IP editor is very persistent but not malicious, I think. As you well know, some people find the WP:RS policy difficult to understand. Others understand the policy but don't agree it and refuse to play by the rules. In this case it appears that the editor is also the author of the web site he is trying to insert into the chess openings pages, so there's WP:SELFCITE and WP:NOR as well. Quale (talk) 08:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. Would you mind clarifying something for me though? Is the stuff he's inserting actually wrong or is it just the source we're getting fussy about? Basalisk ⁄_berate 10:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Another admin has semi-protected the article, so I hope we're OK for now. Thanks for your help.

It's difficult to know if it's right or wrong, and it's certainly possible that it is correct in whole or part. He has spent quite a bit of time examining some obscure but entertaining chess openings, primarily by using a strong chess-playing computer program to examine them deeply. The theory of popular chess openings such as the Sicilian Defense or the Ruy Lopez has been tested in tens or hundreds of thousands of games, but the openings he specializes in are very rare in top-level play. The openings are not commonly played by professional chess players as they are thought to be inferior, but they are the sort of gambits that amateurs often find appealing. You could compare it to new research done by an amateur in some backwater of mathematics, say compass and straightedge Euclidean geometry, that might be correct or might not but isn't published. This kind of thing can be difficult or perhaps even impossible for Misplaced Pages to determine whether it is correct. The ultimate truth in chess is hard to find, so we have to stick to what respected experts have written. (In this case the respected "experts" are usually grandmasters rather than chess experts. Some of the assessments that the IP editor disputes are from Max Euwe, former world champion and well-known chess theorist, and Pinski, who has written several books on chess openings. Pinski is "only" an International Master, although that is a higher chess title than the IP editor holds today.) Quale (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that makes things a lot clearer. Thanks for that summary. Let me know if there are further problems. Basalisk ⁄_berate 16:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration motion proposed

Hi MarshalN20, the Arbitration Committee has proposed a motion in response to an amendment request in which you were named as a party. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Help Me

A few editors decided to include a clause about a controversy regarding box office collections of a film. We did it in a previous occasion and the overwhelming majority agreed. This user keeps on vandalizing the page by deleting the content even after the consensus. He doesn't understand English maybe, I don't know. What can I do? You tell me. Ashermadan (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Fideliosr (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Chennai Express Box Office Collections

All the news sites and almost everyone is reporting the collections to be 33.12 crore. But the[REDACTED] page for CE shows that it's Box-Office collections are 29.12 crore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.32.196 (talk) 03:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this on the article talk page with the editor(s) who disagree(s) with you, not on my talk page please. Basalisk ⁄_berate 07:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration motion passed

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Not withstanding the sanction imposed on MarshalN20 (talk · contribs) in Argentine History, he may edit Falkland Islands, its talk page, and pages related to a featured article candidacy for the article. This exemption may be withdrawn by Basalisk (talk · contribs) at any time, or by motion of the Arbitration Committee.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you again for serving as my supervisor Basalisk.--MarshalN20 | 15:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Your quote

I just wanted to let you know my Talk Page features a line that I read in a comment you made to Apteva on his Talk Page. I kind of stumbled onto the page and when I read the remarks, your words really summed up a situation I'm following right now. Also, I'm probably spending too much time on the noticeboards and it is amazing to me how some people refuse to consider that their approach might not be working, despite advice for other editors. I guess the idea that they are not always in the right is considered unacceptable to some individuals.

I didn't ask your permission but I hope you won't mind. If you do, I will remove it. I took it out of its context so now it just appears as general advice to Misplaced Pages editors. Cheers! NewJerseyLiz 20:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I'm glad at least some people think I make some sense! Basalisk ⁄_berate 22:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Now that I'm spending more time looking at the business side of how Misplaced Pages works, I frequently see Admins swatting down troublesome editors for various forms of "disruption". I'm very grateful for the ones I've come across who take the time and care to explain to the editor why their behavior is causing problems. The advice might not immediately be appreciated by those who belligerently think they are right but I see it as planting a seed. NewJerseyLiz 22:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

speedy deletion

Dear, i would appreciate a reconsideration on the speedy deleting of http://en.wikipedia.org/Joost_Vandebrug I have read the notability in the wiki guidelines and I realise im bordering with the current entry so I will be more conclusive, thorough and add more independent resources, among them wiki pages in where he is mentioned as a director. 31.116.213.128 (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

If you register an account I'll be happy to userfy the article for you. You can then work on it as a draft and if you can clearly demonstrate the subject is notable then I can move it to the article space when it's ready. Basalisk ⁄_berate 18:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Please go here:

Misplaced Pages:AN#Regarding_Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations.2FVictor0209.2FArchive and give your opinion, as it involves a case where you blocked some users for sockpuppetry. Thank you. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

SPI

Do you have any evidence to back up your comments at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/XMattingly? If so what is it?--Toddy1 (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Toddy1, thanks for the message. I think the fact that Numazls was created, immediately made 10 nul edits to break autoconfirmed, and then immediately made grossly inappropriate comments on the talk page of a semi-protected article, on which heated argument was ongoing, is pretty good indication straightaway that the account is a sock of someone. The fact that XMattingly later restored this comment (twice) is suggestive of a link. All this evidence is provided in the case. Basalisk ⁄_berate 19:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

XMattingly has sent me an email and I've unblocked per what he's said. Thanks for your help. Basalisk ⁄_berate 20:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I had also reverted Richard BB's deleting of Numazls's comment, and added a signature.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)