Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:08, 31 August 2009

This is my talk page. Leave a message if I can help you with something.

Archives: 2005-2008 2009 (Jan - Jul)

Re

Its not a "dispute" (no sources, no proposed changes), the guy is simply a sock trying to pick a fight and create a conflict out of nothing. Nobody is "worshiping dictators" on Misplaced Pages. This is simply User:Brunodam or User:Luigi 28, attempting to get back at me for reporting their socks all the time. All posts of User:Sir Floyd should be removed from Wiki. I know its all my claims, and I do intend to file a checkuser, but I'm going on vacation in like 30 minutes :P. And anyway its so obvious you really ought to take my word for it. Among other things, he just announced his "departure from wiki", right after I told him outright that I know he's a sock. Regards --DIREKTOR 07:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Obama article probation, request for enforcement

Just a courtesy note, your name came up in a report at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Obama article probation/Requests for enforcement#User:Simon Dodd. I have not looked into the history enough to form an opinion and I'm unlikely to take sides, but if I may offer some friendly advice, please don't panic! It appears from initial comments that nobody going to be sanctioned based on this report, so the best thing is probably to keep things low-key and friendly, and not worry who started it. Hope this helps. Take care, Wikidemon (talk) 05:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Taitz

Thanks for the kind words on my talk page! It's always good to run across people who can disagree without losing respect for each other. And though I couldn't agree with them in every respect, I likewise think that your arguments on that issue have been well-reasoned and intelligent. Thanks again! --TheOtherBob 15:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

AP as sourcing

Actually, the AP is perfectly acceptable sourcing for when a statement is accurate or not. They're specifically good at that. Your reversion on those grounds is specious, I am sorry to have to inform you. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 17:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Clemens

Sorry to keep beating this drum, but I infer from your surprise at his recalcitrance at the Taitz AFD that you share (even if to a much smaller degree) my concerns about him, or at least, of an admin behaving in that way. If so, is there anything that can be done? I pursued sanctions at ANI, but no action was taken.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless Jclemens makes a habit of inappropriately closing deletion debates (or engaging in other problematic administrative actions), it probably is best to simply move on (aside from addressing the Taitz situation, of course). —David Levy 19:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank You!

It has come to my attention that Misplaced Pages reverted the delete on the Josip Broz talk page. Mr DIREKTOR had already started deleting my work on a another Wiki page (Korcula) even though it was referenced. So again thank you!Sir Floyd (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

NOTIFY

I'm afraid I can't think of a word for that, but I completely see what you're trying to get at - it's a very good metaphor. The text looks good, save for the spelling mistake on "judgement" (sorry, I'm picky like that). Otherwise, it well points out that it's essential to notify in certain situations, but shouldn't blindly be avoided in those which don't require it per verbatim. You're right that a long essay isn't needed, but whether or not others want to add information, your text provides an excellent foundation of the concept. Greg Tyler 16:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting stuff - I've never come across it without a middle e before. But since you wrote it, I'll succumb to your spelling, even though I always argue in favour of BE! Greg Tyler 16:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed an earlier qy of yours about this, and responded at . Sorry for the delay. DGG ( talk ) 19:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Henry Skinner

Before you lecture me about reading WP:PRIMARY again, you had failed to read WP:BLP, especially the part where it says "Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source" since Henry Skinner is relatively unknown. If you consider him famous, BLP still prohibits the use of court records unless it has already been published cited by a reliable source. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Actually, rather than edit warring over this, I'll just pretend he's famous. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That overreads WP:WELLKNOWN. WELLKNOWN is a warning to be scrupulous in the sourcing of claims about high-profile public individuals, and tacitly sanctions careful use of primary sources (its admonition to "xercise great care in using material from primary sources" precludes reading it to forbid using such materials). This dovetails nicely with PRIMARY's concern that "it is easy to misuse" such sources, and we accordingly limit their use to describing the primary source rather than interpreting it. Quite plainly, citing a court opinion from the fifth circuit that says more or less in haec verba "this is a habeas case" for the proposition that that case is a habeas case decided by the fifth circuit is descriptive not interpretative. If you're still confused about this, please feel free to raise it at BLPN.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Real America

Hello Simon Dodd, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Real America has been removed. It was removed by Youngamerican with the following edit summary '(I agree that there will be inherent pov in any target, but prod is only for articles, lists, and dabs, consider WP:RfD)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Youngamerican before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

I nominated it for deletion here. --User:Woohookitty 05:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hank SkinnerDeletion

You might add your comments over at the deletion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hank_Skinner if you want to keep the article. I'm not too familiar as to how the process works, but every comment helps. BTW, nice try undoing Hullabaloo Wolfowitz's edits. I'd lay odds it's his persistent vandalism that got the article a deletion nomination.grifterlake (talk) 04:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Traditional marriage movement AfD discussion

Here is what I was posting to the AfD discussion as the AfD closed; I deleted it from there so as not to have posts after the AfD was closed.

I read what you wrote. You didn't justify posting a tally. Yes, the tally may be of relevant to how the closing admin finished the debate, but you are not the closing admin, the closing admin should not rely on your tally under the best of circumstances, your tally was both erroneous and posted well before the end of the EfD. For you to pretend that you didn't post that when the AfD was not complete is ludicrous; if today it completes the full seven day run, then it was incomplete yesterday when you announced the votes "so far". And no, what you say does not mean a no consensus close. What the closing admin says is what means a no consensus close.

And as it turns out, it looks like your reading of what the closing admin would do was wrong. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Supporters of traditional marriage in the United States

If it interests you to add to or change the title of the page Supporters of traditional marriage in the United States. Mrdthree (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Al Megrahi

Hi. I undid your edit here as it contravened WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. Please ensure you are familiar with these policies before editing again. Thanks, --John (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I was in the midst of writing a comment for the article talk page, but this venue is fine instead. I am fully familiar with the policies you mentioned. I am also familiar with WP:CIVIL, and given the condescending, sneering tone of your edit summary and comment on my talk page, you should consider reviewing it too.

In any event, I do not think that your interpretation of those policies to bar the inclusion of a statement that amounts to applying fourth-grade math to two undisputed facts is correct. I can kind of see where you're going with the BLP citation, because it does bar self-published blogs as sources for material about a living person. (Much the same goes for RS, see WP:SPS.) That's of dubious applicability (the blog in question is neither self-published, and therefore per se unacceptable, nor MSM-hosted, and therefore per se acceptable), and we can come back to that point later or have it published by an op/ed columnist. What truly mystifies me, and what I'd like you to address, is how on earth you conclude that it violates NPOV to run the math on how many days this convicted murderer served for each of his victims. What in the letter or spirit of the policy leads you to that surprising conclusion? I could see concerns that the way the point is worded could violate NPOV, but just including the fact of it? That is truly counterintuitive.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if it hurt your feelings to get a note about your edit. However, five years should have been long enough for you to internalize WP:RS. Someone's blog is not a reliable source. An op/ed columnist is not a reliable source either, for the sort of thing you wish to add.

However, if you think this matter contains anything that is "undisputed", you may wish to read up on it a little. Reading our Misplaced Pages articles would be a great way to start, though obviously if you want to get involved in shaping the article you will want to read up on it in far greater depth, as I have done. Good luck and happy editing, --John (talk) 19:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

More condescension. It didn't "hurt my feelings" to "get a note" - I merely noted that an admin charging policy violations is ill-served to be doing so in ways and tones that play fast and loose with AGF, CIVIL, and the admin's code of conduct.

It's also very noticable that your reply is nonresponsive. You fail to engage on the NPOV point at all; the conclusory assertion that it violates RS is no reply at all, and is particularly misplaced when it so entirely misses the point. "Someone's blog," as you note, is not a reliable source. But that is wikilawering over a strawman. Not all blogs are invalid sources under RS, and SPS makes abundantly clear that the rationale is not a ban of blogs in abstracto, but rather to elucidate a particular category of the ban on material that does not come from reliable sources. That is why blogs maintained by newspapers are expressly allowed: because newspapers are reliable sources. It is why blogs maintained by recognized experts are expressly allowed: because if Robert Reich makes a statement in his area of expertise, it is reliable whether it is published by a newspaper or on his blog. Where on the continuum between blogs that are acceptable because they are controlled by reliable sources and blogs that aren't because they're self-published a blog hosted by a well-known and well-reputed think tank that is a reliable source sits, I do not know. I do not know that the community has ever decided that question - but I do know that the conclusory assertion that RS settles the question on its face and so obviously as to require no additional comment is weak.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can see you feel very strongly about this matter, and that you don't seem terribly well informed on the area. Editing Misplaced Pages articles on subjects you feel strongly about but don't know much about is getting into dangerous waters, I find. Why not calm down, pour a nice cup of tea, and start here, with a well-balanced treatment from The Economist? Happy reading, --John (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

That continues your use of an inappropriate tone while being both nonresponsive and inapposite. Nonresponsive because it fails to address the policy questions to which it purports to respond, and inapposite because the editorial you cite has no bearing at all on the material in question. Your attitude will be addressed at WQA shortly, and if you are unwilling to address the substance of the issue here, I will raise it at RSN. A better response would be for you to refactor your comments here, improving your attitude to include appropriate and on-point responses, but that is a choice I leave to you.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

And regarding your misunderstanding of WP:RS, what interpretation do you give to "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources."? See, that's what happens when you edit angry! Read up on it, take some time to think, and come back with a clear head. Best, --John (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Again: entirely inapposite. It simply assumes the answer as to whether this is a self-published source (not all blogs are self-published sources and not all self-published sources are blogs; wikipedia's concern is self-published sources, a concern stemming from WP:V. And in any event, I have already expressly tabled the sourcing issue for now, because I simply don't believe that your real concern here is the sourcing. I say that because you cited NPOV as a reason to remove, which tells me that you would object on NPOV grounds even if this was published on the front page of today's New York Times. I want you to address the question I actually asked: what exactly is the basis for your claimed NPOV violation? At this point I'm not sure whether you're deliberately avoiding the question or if you're having comprehension problems.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let's see if you get it this way. Here is the text you wanted to add to two articles, one on Megrahi and one on the Scottish Minister of Justice.

"Megrahi had served just 3,123 days of a life sentence, 11.5 days per victim." (my emphasis)

The parts I believe contravene WP:NPOV are "just" (whose judgment is that?) and the factoid about how many days this represents per supposed victim (there is considerable doubt among those who have studied the case about whether Megrahi actually committed the offense he was accused of, and no criminal justice system allocates punishment on this per capita basis, so it is just commentary).

The part I believe contravenes WP:RS is the sourcing of this extremely controversial material, which in both cases relates to a living person, to a blog, however respectable you believe it to be. If the material is truly noteworthy it will be possible to find a better source.

I don't think I can explain it to you in any simpler terms. Best, --John (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for finally addressing the NPOV issue. Unfortunately, your argument is wide of the mark. As I mentioned in my first reply, concerns that a particular wording of the point could violate NPOV, but it would be truly bizarre to think that including the point at all, in any wording imaginable, is a per se violation of NPOV. Now you seem to concede that your objection is indeed to the wording. If that is so, however, removing the material three times violates WP:REVERT's warning to revert a good faith edit only as a last resort. Given the rationale that the wording violated NPOV, outright removal or reversion would only be the last resort if there's just no imaginable wording change that would fix the problem, and I give your command of written English more credit than that.

As to the theory that some math is "controversial" - I don't see it. There's nothing controversial about stating how long he served and dividing the number of victims into that time - these are all matters of record. It wouldn't even be controversial to do so if that required the assumption of guilt (which is a controversial point, I am told); it doesn't, although your argument would be stronger if that was required. I must once again ask you to clarify your thinking. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to see that you still do not get it, and that you felt the need to file a WQA report against me. I feel you are an intelligent person, acting in good faith, so I shall persevere with you. It is often the case that one's own POV can cloud one's judgment. Take a sounding off other long term editors when that happens. If it was only me who thought your edit was POV, you would have a point. It isn't. If one's writing is truly NPOV it shouldn't be possible to tell what POV the editor holds. This clearly isn't the case in your instance.

Would it be POV for an editor to add to our article on George W. Bush that the number of US war dead in Iraq was 1.48 US dead per day of his presidency? Even it was reliably sourced I would say yes, and I believe a consensus on the project would agree. See also WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE. Your suggestion of attempting to find a compromise that all can live with is an excellent one and I look forward to seeing you in talk towards that end. --John (talk) 01:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, one's POV can cloud one's judgment. It is interesting that editors on the other side of this content dispute seem to believe that my POV is clouding my judgment while they, too, make judgments that seem equally influenced by their substantive views on the case. A risky business, this telling the goose what is good for it: it may be sound advice, my good gander. For instance, it is hard to see why, with the clear sight you presumably have on less inflammable subjects, you would have dismissively portrayed as being clear as glass a sourcing question that you must know as well as I to be subtle and intricate question that is as clear as mud.

Re Bush and the war: I'm not sure that the analogy is sound, but assuming that it is, I would not say in vacuo that it would be POV to include such a statement. I would want to see wording and context. A SYNTH violation would be a problem, of course, but I'm certain that a reliable source can be found for the Bush number, and enough has already been said for this evening on whether the existing source for the Lockerbie murderer's number is viable. UNDUE - probably not either. Again, it would depend on the handling.

Lastly, on alternative phrasings, I do rather feel that it's incumbent on you to suggest an alternative wording, since you're the one who sees the POV problem. It would be a bit of a blind man's bluff to ask me to rewrite something to address problems that you see and I do not.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to finalize this, now that the WQA thread has been closed, by apologizing to you for the gratuitous reference to Conservapedia in my edit summary. That was being unnecessarily blunt and you were right to query it (though WQA was probably over the top). I shall try harder to assume good faith in future, even in favor of people who are adding stuff I think clearly contravenes our policies. Even good people have blind spots I realize.

Meanwhile, as often happens here, after the dust has cleared we have a couple of articles that are looking quite good. I remember back in 2005 when I first saw Misplaced Pages how impressed I was that some of the more controversial articles (eg Israel, abortion) were among the best, and the tremendous hope that gave me that writing an encyclopedia in this way could actually make quite a good product. My faith in that has wavered now and again but essentially still persists, hence my continued participation here. Anyway, nice to meet you, no hard feelings, and I'll see you in talk no doubt. --John (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheerfully accepted, and no hard feelings here, also. :) I do think that the blog sourcing issue that started all this is one that should be looked at and thought about, and as I mentioned above, I will probably post that to RSN when I have time. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Kenny MacAskill

Agreed. I've bumped it up to indefinite. Semi-protection can then be removed if and when things die down. Cheers. youngamerican (wtf?) 18:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Pro-Euro Conservative Party

I was surprised to see it prodded. They made quite a splash in the press at the time and throughly wound up the Tories, and they got sufficient coverage to make keeping the article seem obvious to me. I'd heard of them before as I was one of the very very few people in the UK to actually vote for them, on my political journey leftward. Fences&Windows 01:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It's less of an embarrassment now! Fences&Windows 01:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

User: AlbagubrathMegrahi

Why are you complaining about this username? Just because the latter part of the name has some newsworthiness does not mean that it is unacceptable. What you are saying basically is that one couldn't in theory register a name like Niceladmacaskill or Badboybarrack for example. Where does it end? --Cyber Fox (talk) 09:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The name المقرحي alMeqrahi/megrahi carries no subjectivity in itself, and as to the link between the name and my contributions, thats an assertion and not a fact. Believing that someone has been stitched up (as many experts on the case including Robert Black QC) and choosing their surname as a user name does not send out any message other than that I like the sound of the name. It would therefor be innapropriate to remove the name ( Otherwise you'd have to change the name "Celtic" or "Bohemian Rapsody" for anyone that contributed to articles on the band Queen or Scottish football/soccer) I am no more nor less opinionated than any other individual but my choice of name here is my own business. AlbagubrathMegrahi (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I have read the wikipedia username policy and am quite happy with my personal choice.reagan is a widely held name, and how do you know my surname isnt Megrahi? Its frankly a subjective interpretation of your own which Id put down to peevishness at other views on the case being put forth on the talk page. The edits I have made are to encourage a wider breadth of sources than just UK and American ones, and having an interest in a current event which takes place in my own back yard is no more biased than constantly suggesting improvements to the Barak Obama article if you live in Washington. Furthermore, all of my edits have been to talk pages and not in the articles themselves (in other words, suggestions to articles which any other user is welcome to respond to). AlbagubrathMegrahi (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Reagan would be a no no then. He bombed Tripoli in 1986 killing innocent civilians as well as funding terror in Nicaragua because he didnt like the government. I prefer the name Megrahi to Reagan (and happen to believe he is innocent, as does Robert Black QC). 92.235.178.44 (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Chase Coy

Hello Simon Dodd, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Chase Coy has been removed. It was removed by 128.211.196.149 with the following edit summary '(Chase Coy is on the ITunes "Rising Stars:Folk" list of the Itunes Essentials. If being put on a list that includes artists like Amos Lee, Joshua Radin, and Joe Purdy isn't good idk what is.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with 128.211.196.149 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Please sign your posts on Talk Pages

Just a friendly reminder. I am sure you are well aware that when you add content to talk pages as you did here ], you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --Cyber Fox (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Signature

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Misplaced Pages:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. ~~~~

- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

As long as you get the point re signatures. You are not exempt and should know better I would have thought.

And btw it isn't a template, i made it up. LOL --Cyber Fox (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

A minor oversight. I nominated an article for deletion earlier today and forgot to substitute the article name into the edit summary link; goofs happen, and they aren't the end of the world. They are particularly de minimis in some contexts. The purpose of the edit summary, for example, is to put editors watching it on notice that the article was nominated, and give them an easy way to find the discussion. My goof there made no odds, because interested users were still on notice and could get to the discussion simply by clicking through to the article. The same with many notification templates. To be sure WP:SIGNATURE doesn't exempt templates, but just how much of a production should be made with pure motives (as yours, of course, were not, partaking of a cheap "gotcha") about it when forgotten? Well, the thrust of WP:NOTIFY is that a user ought to be put on notice that they are being doused, and that good courtesy is for the person holding the hose to be the one to do it. Neither of those objectives are compromised by an accidental failure to sign. Nor does wikipedia's page history allow any danger that the identity of the person adding the template will be obscure, let alone hidden. Not signing was an an error; it shouldn't have happened. Dramatizing it, however, as a cheap shot over a content dispute, shouldn't happen either.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It was not a cheap shot and the editor you sent it to was very annoyed about your criticising his new username. It is Wiki policy to encourage unregistered users to register a username which he did and then you jumped on him just because you didn't like his edits. I think it is a case of ... if the cap fits! --Cyber Fox (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

(1) It was a cheap shot; your sole interest in the matter is that a user on your side of a content dispute groused to you about the substance of the template. Do credit people with a little more wits and perspicacity than to pretend that you patrol and enforce WP:SIGNATURE as a matter of course. (2) As to his beef with the substance of the template, I'm sure that is so, but that has nothing to do with the issue you're raising here. He hasn't raised the signature issue here, on your talk page, or on the page to which the template directed him, and for good reason: he's evidently (and sensibly) more interested in the substance of the template than mindless WP:BUROcracy. (3) As to the substance of the template, arguing that we encourage people to register is a red herring. Of course we do. It's fatuous to equate criticism his offensive choice of username with criticism of the act of registration in abstracto.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It matters little how I came about the information, the point is that your oversight made a new user uneasy and felt that he or she was being picked on. I had every right to bring this to your attention and especially so when they asked me to help as they felt intimidated.

We want users to register and coming down hard on them at the outset is not acceptable. You could have spoken with user and explained your concerns, but no, you just waded in and upset him or her unnecessarily. --Cyber Fox (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I did speak to them and explain my concerns; they simply removed the discussion from their talk page (cf. WP:CAIN). Check the history. As to coming down to hard, when users do things that are unacceptable from the get-go, they are going to be criticized--within the limits of WP:BITE--from the get-go also.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Of interest

From Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Traditional marriage movement

*"Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions Better late than never Anarchangel (talk) 05:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)"

• "(we needn't get into the question of how WP:CANVAS interacts with the inclusion of the subject in various special-interest listings, see User:Anarchangel's inclusion above)" -Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• Preserved for posterity in the edit record, although of course editors are at liberty to remove unsolicited contributions from their talk page. Anarchangel (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It's an interesting conundrum, isn't it? As a matter of course, AFDs are cataloged into various lists so that people interested in a particular category of articles can more easily find discussions pertinent to their interests. In most cases, that isn't a problem. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Take the Time, for example, was included in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs. That's fine, because that list is framed at a very high level of abstraction. It is read simply by people who are interested in music-related articles, a very broad category.

But what if there was a "list of Dream Theater and prog metal-related articles for deletion"? We would expect that most editors reading so specific a list would be reading them because they are fans of that subject. Since fans will be sympathetic toward inclusion, the average editor reading such a list would have a predictable slant vis-à-vis the nomination, in a way that the average editor who reads a list of album and song related nominations would not.

That's where the canvassing issue comes in. WP:CANVAS allows notification, and there's no doubt that including Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Take the Time in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs (or including Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Traditional marriage movement in, say, a "list of political articles for deletion") is merely notification, neutral both on its face and in effect. But CANVAS does not allow votestacking, i.e. "selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion ... encouraging them to participate in the discussion" to the end of producing one's preferred result. Paradigmatically, this occurs when someone nominates an article for the second time and sends talk page notes to all those who voted to delete in the first nomination, but not to those who voted to keep.

Yet the principle of votestacking is not limited to that situation. A mass-posting that brazenly solicited one side of a debate would violate it, too. The afore-mentioned hypothetical "list of Dream Theater and prog metal-related articles for deletion" would very likely violate the rule. So too, I suspect, would including nominations in a category called "libtard/conservatard articles for deletion." It isn't that any user reading such lists will vote in a predictable way, any more than the traditional model of votestacking requires that a person notified will vote that way. Nor, I submit, is it exactly a question of intent, although I recognize that's a more controversial point. Rather, it's about the underlying purpose of CANVAS. CANVAS isn't about preventing sin; that is the means, not the end. The end to which CANVAS is directed, it seems to me, is preventing the distortion of consensus (in an encyclopædia that runs on it), by stacking the vote.

Notifying a list of deletion debates whose audience will predictably skew towards one side of the debate, then, may constitute "selective notif" when it is not neutral in effect, even if it appears neutral on its face. That can happen if the list is framed at a level of generality that appeals primarily to editors of a certain point of view. Suppose I include a nomination of an album in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs. Whether my intent is to solicit a particular side of the debate or just to notify, that action would be neutral in effect because the list is too general in scope to be conducive to votestacking. By contrast, if I include a sludge metal album in a list of sludge metal articles for deletion, even if my intent is just to notify, the list is so specific that my action is not neutral in effect.

And so we come to grasp the nettle. Is the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions likely to be watched by people with all sorts of views on that topic? Or is it more likely to be watched by people with a particular (broadly-defined) opinion on the topic? I think it's very possible - actually, I think it's more likely than not - to be the latter. That's a problem.

I hope it's clear from the discussion above, I do not mean to question your motives in including the nomination in that list. It is the neutrality of the effect not the intent that concerns me. And I don't raise this issue as a collateral attack on the result in that particular nomination (I thought the closing admin miscalled it, but DRV endorsed the result and I accept the community's decision). But it's an interesting issue that merits discussion.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF, SD, B4 U go Section 8 (military). They Who Must Not Be Named are not out to get you. Anarchangel (talk) 06:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

What on Earth are you talking about? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

—S Marshall /_Cont 19:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Kizzel was citing a blog. He cited this post on Jake Tapper's blog. That the post claims to be quoting an MSM source doesn't make it any less a blog (cf. WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). That's why the blog's URL begins "blogs.abcnews.com" and at the top of the blog entry, it says "Share this blog entry with friends." Your confusion arises from a misreading of policy: you've correctly absorbed that some blogs are allowed, but seem to have confused that concept as meaning that allowable blogs somehow aren't blogs. Not so. The prohibition is on self-published blogs; nevertheless, that Tapper's blog is not a self-published blog, and (probably) falls beyond the general prohibition on self-published sources, does not make it any less a blog. It just makes it non-self-published and thus presumably vaild as a source under WP:SPS. With such a presumptuous name, you should be more precise and attentive.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

—S Marshall /_Cont 02:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

McAskill

I have reverted your edit, the article was a coatrack for opinion from here and there and it needed trimming, and a few people worked hard to tidy it, I will start a discussion over which version is preferable on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 10:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

A couple of your comments there are a bit near the bone, this for example was unnecessary, Really, an opinion poll is opinionated? What penetrating insight.- Simon Dodd also your accusations of a whitewash and overlaying a new version without consensus are unsupportable, please assume good faith, there was nothing of value removed and there was a consensus of half a dozen editors that the new version was an improvement. Off2riorob (talk) 11:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I see you have reverted again, are you interested in talking about it? Off2riorob (talk) 12:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

We can talk about it, and I've added notes on the talk page, but we're not going to talk about it while the article is a whitewash. Saying "let's talk about it" while the page reflects your preferred version is a very common stalling tactic. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You are again not showing good faith, I am not stalling anything. Also stop with the accusations of whitewashing. Off2riorob (talk) 12:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

A whitewash is the upshot of the changes you want to cast in stone. That may not be your intent, but it's the effect. The version you're protecting removes a significant bulk of directly-relevant material, creating an anæmic shadow of what the article was, and raising serious problems under WP:UNDUE - which, you'll note, can be violated by giving too little relative weight as easily as it can be violated by giving too much weight.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Please take care, I see you have reverted again, you are close to a report at 3rr, regards Off2riorob (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral framing of your request for comment

Your comment is not framed in a neutral way and requires rewriting. Are you going to do it or shall I do it for you, it also should be added to the bio section as well.Off2riorob (talk) 14:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the neutrality of the RFC. I'm not sure how to add it to two categories at once for an RFC, but if you can do that, feel free. I do think the request may now be moot, however, for two reasons. First, partisans for the whitewashed version have demonstrated an unwillingness to leave the article in its non-truncated form while the RFC process runs. Second, it is more and more apparent to me that we're going to have to go down the subarticle route; if we don't, the material will be deleted from MacAskill's page on the spurious grounds that you have advanced about it not being relevant there, and will be deleted from Megrahi's article on the far sounder grounds that it isn't relevant there. The only viable compromise is a third article framed in a way that objections to relevance will be impossible.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you are satisfied doesn't make it correct, another editor , me, has asked for it to be written a bit less opinionated and yet again you treat my opinion as worthless. Off2riorob (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't alter the section unless you have consensus do do so, and please don't revert. Off2riorob (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I won't be reverting for at least 24 hours. I make no guarantees beyond that.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Drah-mah

"Amazing": sadly as usual you appear to have overestimated your effect. You asked for a second opinion on the topic of a thread; I notified an interlocutor. That is all. No drah-mah except of your making. Move along, there's a good chap. Writegeist (talk) 23:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

1. http://blog.american.com/?p=4154