Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:08, 23 June 2008

Home	Talk	About me	Awards	Articles	eMail	Contributions	Images	Notebook	Sandbox	Todo	Toolbox

Archives

15 Nov 2005 – 28 Feb 2006 01 Mar 2006 – 30 Jun 2006 01 Jul 2006 – 30 Sep 2006 01 Oct 2006 – 31 Dec 2006 01 Jan 2007 – 31 Mar 2007 01 Apr 2007 – 30 Jun 2007 01 Jul 2007 – 30 Sep 2007 01 Oct 2007 – 31 Dec 2007 01 Jan 2008 – 31 Mar 2008 01 Apr 2008 – ...

George Thomas Coker

It seems as if you're trying to turn the article into a hagiography, with blatant disregard for NPOV, removing properly sourced material without any good reason, as seen here and here. Why would this be? -Oreo Priest 07:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Oreo, the Arbcom just examined this in nauseating detail at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes and didn't see any problems. MBisanz 08:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• While "nauseating" is remarkably accurate, Arbcom made no determination whatsoever on the validity of Rlevse's actions regarding the Coker article. Somehow, Arbcom decided that it had no interest in addressing the issues of Rlevse's actions (or tagteam editing, etc.) but somehow used it anyway as a justification to address the whole BLP issue. Any attempt to use the Arbcom case as a justification for the use of the magic letters "BLP" to justify keeping sourced material out of the Coker article is baseless. Alansohn (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I have not edited that article in almost two months. Back in Jan I made a mediation offer which no response was received to nor was a counter offer to settle it made by the other parties. I do not have blatant disregard for NPOV, but there are other policies in play here. Just because parties do agree on an issue like this does not mean they have "blatant disregard". You may want to keep in mind that there are several sources that show Hearts & Minds is a very biased film. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

OP...did you look at the whole case, article and talk, arb case in question before you posted to my talk page? — Rlevse • Talk • 14:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't, I don't usually check talk pages unless directed there. Having looked at that and the ArbCom decision, it changes little. You did remove properly sourced material without any good reason (we can leave the quote out of the reference if you want), and you do have a conflict of interest, as you claim Coker himself has asked you to remove it from the article. The added material, or some trivial variation on it, is well sourced and not in violation of BLP, and as I have explained to MBisanz, it certainly is not of undue weight. Please explain. -Oreo Priest 18:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

On top of that, the onus is on you to show that Hearts & Minds is biased, and even if it is, the fact is he was shown saying that. I do not believe it was taken out of context, and even if it was, the fact is that he said it, and it has shown up in a number of publications as such. It still merits inclusion. -Oreo Priest 18:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the long term problems with BLP is it tries to mesh conflicting policies and any look at the BLP board will show vast differences in interpretation. Properly sourced does not merit auto inclusion when it comes to BLP, but I see no reason to belabor that which has been gone over multiple times. The onus is on you, not me. The arguments on both sides have been made already, what is needed is resolution. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, regardless of who has the onus, you're stonewalling, and using your admin powers and friendship with other admins to back it up. I can't contribute effectively with the block threat MBisanz has given me. -Oreo Priest 06:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't used my admin powers once during this, I haven't edit the article in a couple months,--so how is that stonewalling, and as for other admins taking actions on there own, that's on them. These statements by you are not exactly an accurate portrayal. I proposed mediation on the Coker article back in Jan. Alansohn did not respond til May and he refused mediation and made no counter offer to settle this. Looks to me like he's the one who stonewalled. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) You claimed that "In BLP it refers to ArbCom tending to defer to the living person's desires in such cases." If you don't mind could you point out that policy to me? Thanks, -Oreo Priest 18:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall where I said that. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

In your initial explanation to me of why you removed my first mention of the film (this diff) you stated that "Yes, I personally know Coker and he's asked that no reference be made to the movie. This was by a phone call to me. In BLP it refers to ArbCom tending to defer to the living person's desires in such cases." That was my eye-opening introduction to the whole WP:COI issue and your determination to keep any reference to the film out of the article using BLP as a justification. This still seems to be a rather slim reed to hang a groundshaking policy change on. Alansohn (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, WP:BLP said then and still says "The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to the subjects of biographies who try to remove what they see as errors or unfair material:". There are several arb cases on this topic, such as Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Does the bare reference to Coker's appearance in the film Hearts and Minds fail the "error clause" or the "unfair clause"? Alansohn (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd really be interested to know why we are still at Rlevse's talk page discussing this. He hasn't edited the page recently, his behavior was placed before Arbcom and they found nothing to criticize in it, and they actually criticized the person who was on the opposing side of the edits for policy violations. What gives? MBisanz 21:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It was Rlevse who created the BLP issue and pushed it before Arbcom, despite his conflict of interest both in the article and in the Arbcom process itself. Rlevse could not be any more involved in the issue and has repeatedly inserted himself into the topic, despite the clear pattern of questionable actions. Arbcom studiously ignored the actual article, neither praising nor criticizing Rlevse's actions at George Thomas Coker. It is in extremely bad taste and bad faith to use Arbcom's results on entirely unrelated issues to excuse Rlevse's actions. Does anyone have any actual policy leg to stand on, or will the defense solely rely on ad hominem attacks. What gives with your involvement in this article? Alansohn (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, in case any onlookers assume impropriety on the block I just made, I'd never heard of George Thomas Coker before seeing this Arbcom and Alansohn's subsequent trolling of it through unrelated pages, I quit the Boy Scouts when I was 12-ish cause I had other interests and was bored, I never served in the military, and I was born after the Vietnam War ended and the memorial had been built, so I have no connection to the political happenings of that era. MBisanz 06:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, assumed no such thing. I also had never heard of the subject before seeing Rlevse's objectionable reverts. I think it's unfair to characterize Alansohn's actions as trolling, so please be civil. -Oreo Priest 06:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

A last salute

Rlevse, I believe you are one of the few honest and impartial admin in wikipedia. I wish to salute you now that I understand that I will never get my justice in wikipedia. All the mess around the ban of every italian who opposes the ring of croats is astonishing. The croats do all they want and never get punished, not even for a simple 3RR, while admins like Moreschi and others attack quickly only the italian side. What a delusion is wikipedia to me. Did you see how fast came the admin Moreschi to satisfy the requests of Direktor and Alasdairgreen27? Unbelievable (and he never punishes the croats, very strange indeed). To me his uncivil "Cheerio" to the poor Luigi 28 means the end of wikipedia. With these partialized admin there its no future -soon or later- for the enciclopedia! BTW, I am sure the slavs created the strange user (Ciolone) from Venice needed to ban Luigi 28 in a few days, this is a typical Tito-era trick! user:Ciolone has served only to the croats, but admin Moreschi is the only who cannot -or doesn't want- understand this reality. Now the slavs, thanks to Ciolone/Moreschi can do whatever they want with dalmatian and istrian related articles on wikipedia:bingo and cheerio! What a delusion from this encyclopedia. I too will stay away from Misplaced Pages from now on. Again, what a delusion from this encyclopedia that has no future with these rings of fanatic nationalists and not impartial admins. A totally disgusted Marygiove —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.21.16.9 (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliement. Sorry things didn't work out for you. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

possible sockpuppet of Atari400, 71.107.84.105

I think I may have come across a sockpuppet of User:Atari400.

This edit lead me to my accusation, along with the fact that many of this IPs edits seem to be similar to those of Atari's. The IP is hesitant to Afghanistan being considered South Asian . Atari has made similar pages many, many times. Their edits also coincide with Atari's interests as per his userboxes . They both have edited regarding slave trade, Middle Eastern military, and various Middle Eastern and Central Asia articles.

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for replacing a couple of uploads/duplicates of mine over at Wikimedia Commons ], very much appreciated. The job is almost done: there are two more photo's that will be replaced with better versions so bear with me one more time...

Sander Rapturerider (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eyrian

I have started a follow up at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tottering Blotspurs. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

South African Scout Association GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed South African Scout Association and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages for other editors and a related WikiProject to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Totophi

Could you try closing this? If I may summarize:

• Totophi tried to pretend an anonymous user in a discussion was a different person. They are the same person according to checkuser.
• Totophi used uncivil language against his opponent in that dispute, Nrswanson.
• KieferSkunk is mediating that dispute and does not think a block is necessary.
• I am uninvolved in that dispute (aside from my role at SSP) and suggested a block of one month on Totophi.
• Nrswanson asked me if Totophi will be blocked. Not being an admin, I cannot execute a block, though I think one is justified.

Bottom line: I'd suggest a compromise given KieferSkunk's leaning toward leniency to block Totophi with an expiry date of June 30, noting that anyway he has not edited since June 13, and allowing him to resume editing next month.

You decide. Yechiel (Shalom) 02:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

note for u

there is a note for you here --talk-to-me! (talk) 10:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:CrystalCityGirlScoutsDrama.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:CrystalCityGirlScoutsDrama.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Rfa thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA. The Rfa was successful with 64 Support and 1 Neutral. None of this would have happened without your support. I would also like to thank my nominator Wizardman and my sensei/co-nom bibliomaniac15--Lenticel 09:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Terry Sanford

Worked on this today, see Talk:Terry Sanford#Education and Lead JGHowes - 18:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Documentingabuse

Hi,

I would like my Documentingabuse account unblocked please.

I am very sorry but it was a piece of nonsense to connect me with some guy from Canada.

I am have been open and upfront that I was editing from Japan (Although not Japanese) and that my ISP was dynamic. I made clear that on all my edits. I only made Documentingabuse at the very end to file a report for all the other reverting my work.

Thank you, Documentingabuse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.16.244.243 (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The other problem with that account, as I mentioned before, is that the username is problematic. It'd imply every edit you make is to fight abuse, which would be highly unlikely. Would you consider another username? — Rlevse • Talk • 12:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment needed

Hi Rlevse. There seems to be a small problem regarding "see also" and sourcing on a WT:SLR related article. Can you please comment on this situation under two specific places here and here. I know some admins do not like to get involved into edit war debates but I think a comment, or at least a suggestion, could really help in this problem. Watchdogb (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Can you comment in that section again because a user seem not to understand what a WP:RS is and so it would be really helpful if you can comment if you think the shown citations here are indeed WP:RS or not. Thanks again Watchdogb (talk) 18:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Moldopodo, again

Hi. I wonder if there's any chance I could receive an expedited hearing of this "case"? Of course I could wait, but I don't appreciate having my name at the top of the AE board, especially for no good reason. Anyway, thank you for your consideration.

And by the way, Moldopodo, despite being under a final warning regarding his conduct, including a specific injunction against disruptive page moves, has been merrily doing more of the same. Perhaps we have reached the at wits' end stage? Biruitorul 18:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I indef'd him. He had a final warning two days ago and continues. I suggest you take a short wiki break or go edit other areas to chill out. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's all fixed now - thanks! Biruitorul 23:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Xasha is his evident sock. Pls fix him also. 2scalesoon (talk) 05:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

By my reading, the Digwuren restriction only applies to edits that are "uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith"; Moldopodo's infraction was disruption, which fits into none of those categories, it followed a last warning that was not given under the Digwuren case, and it came after an ANI thread in addition to an AE one - and ANI threads have been known to lead to indefinite blocks. Nevertheless, a month is a month, so maybe it will bring back a reformed Moldopodo... Biruitorul 14:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I see your point and almost made a similar call today, but I went with the one I made. If he continues in this vein after the month is up, let me know. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Baltimore Steam Packet Company

Hi Rlevse, I know you're busy with the FAC review for Terry Sanford, but thought you might like to take a look at this article's FAC, which I self-nom'd yesterday. JGHowes - 20:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

sure, but your promised BSA this weekend too ;-) You still have about 31 hours ;-0 ! — Rlevse • Talk • 20:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Image

Hi, I am not sure if it will be right to ask you, but you once helped me uploading an image for the article Animal welfare in Nazi Germany. I want to use this image for the article Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany under fair use. I am still not well-versed with images. If you help in this case by uploading the image, it will be a great help. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

done, see Image:AntiSmokingNaziGermany.jpg — Rlevse • Talk • 00:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Agnistus Note

Please see this. Yours sincerely, Agnistus (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. If you ever get frustrated again, take a wiki break. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Indef block on Moldopodo

I don't know anything about the the circumstances of the Moldopodo block, but I do know that blocks under the Digwuren remedies are to be no longer than a month . Do you want to review this? Martintg (talk) 05:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, I've changed it to a month. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Indef block on Xasha

Under the Digwuren remedies, Xasha is the same conflictual pattern, same disruptive as Moldopodo. . Do you want to review also this? --2scalesoon (talk) 05:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Build the case, with diffs, and file and WP:AE. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

More socks in the drawer?

Nah. It was only this one, for vote fraud. I think you/we've sent them all into the laundry. Permanently. Shapiros10 _{My work} 15:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Kossack4truth

I tried comparing Kossack4truth to the IP's edits in the Rex sockpuppet case. They are almost certainly two different people judging from the dates and times of their edits. Of course, if the IP is not Rex then maybe Kossack is Rex, but they aren't both Rex.

Regarding the statement that he was "using" Misplaced Pages for four years, that probably means he was reading it, not that he had a previous account. Note that one of our admins, Faithlessthewonderboy, wrote in his second or third edit ever that he used to edit anonymously for the previous two years. Sarcasticidealist, another admin, said on NTWW 18 in a special interview for the WMF Board Election that he first found out about Misplaced Pages in 2004, thought it was a really dumb idea, then joined in 2007. So I think we'll have to judge Kossack4truth on his own behavior, no more, no less. Yechiel (Shalom) 15:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:PeterAgreEagleNobel.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:PeterAgreEagleNobel.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Misplaced Pages uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Misplaced Pages.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Revised Lead - Boy Scouts of America

Hi, with 8 hours before deadline, here's my draft proposed revision. I've tried to give a complete overview per WP:LEAD. There are fairly numerous inline citations because of the contentious nature of the subject that would likely be challenged otherwise.

How does this look? JGHowes - 20:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, too many details and refs in the lead. If you support your points in the body, you don't need details and refs in the lead, or very few at the most. If you want, Ed and I can edit the proposal and btwn the three of us, it should be good. Let me know. I asked him to comment here. I do think your prosposal will get us past our 'deadlock'. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. The part about Mays and Bloomberg could be placed in the "Impact on American life" section JGHowes - 00:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I've trimmed the remainder a little, and removed some refs leaving just those for direct quotes and data figures. Is this better? JGHowes - 18:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Nguyen Van Nhung

The article has been renamed: Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Nguyen Van Nhung as a military bodyguard. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Dagoth Ur, Mad God

Hi Rlevse, in case you're interested the user mentioned above has already been blocked multiple times over at UESP for disruptive edits and harrasing other editors, I see you have already blocked him once for 48 hours but I'm concerned that he may display similar behaviour here. --Volanaro (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Coker self-ban

Hi Rlevse, I wanted to let you know that it seems that the consensus at Talk:George Thomas Coker is that you can participate at talk, and your self-ban will simply apply to actual editing of the article. So if you would like to return to engage in discussion, you are welcome to do so. :) As an uninvolved admin, I will continue to monitor the discussions, and it is my hope that with civil and good faith discussions from all involved editors, that it will be possible to come up with a neutral compromise that will be of benefit to the article. If you choose not to return, I understand, but I just wanted to let you know that the door is open.  :) Best, Elonka 22:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)