Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:11, 2 August 2011

Archive 1 2

Wikiquette alert

I've put in a Wikiquette alert for Lima . He's disappointed that only two people are denouncing him. Twice he's reverted your hard work on Purgatory. Maybe you'd like to comment. Leadwind (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Purgatory

Thanks for the note, Alecmconroy. I am currently busy and won't have a chance to review and comment until later this week. Majoreditor (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to confess that it's difficult for me to make comparisons and provide feedback due to the frequent changes in the article. Perhaps I should wait; there may be too many cooks in the kitchen presently. Majoreditor (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response on my talk page, Alec. I'll try to help out the editors in at least some small way. I'll examine the suggestions for the article's lead within the next few days and offer suggestions. Best of luck, Majoreditor (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Opus Dei GAR

Dear Alec, Thank you for your work at Opus Dei. You might be interested to know that its GA status is under review and the major question raised is the present structure which you ably proposed and implemented: a separate controversy section containing both criticism and response. I tried my best to defend it but I believe you will be able to defend it better than I do. :) Marax (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to comment in so much detail at the GAR discussion. I agree with you entirely. You did a great job with this article, but it still is only within a ballpark of meeting NPOV. I am also stymied by articles like this. I don't know if you read my comments at the GAR, but in case not, I wanted to draw your attention to the link I made to Gosgood's comments in my talk archives, which has a beautiful description of the neutral editor (see especially the third paragraph). Sadly such editors are indeed rare, and articles inevitably tend to attract editors who care about the subject, and so if the subject is at all controversial, NPOV becomes extremely difficult to achieve. I don't know how to resolve this dilemma either. Geometry guy 18:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I second my appreciation for your thoughtful analysis there. In the event that your concern is borne out, that trying to stylistically incorporate criticisms and their responses into the article on a topicwise basis will only lead to a degradation of overall NPOV (a concern which I think has merit, IIRC the discussions of about a year ago), I wish to point out that it it well to not make the perfect the enemy of the good. Failing GAR is not the end of the world, especially if the alternative is a POV catfight that degrades the article in the near future. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your lengthy comment at GAR and your suggestion at my talk page. Although I feel inclined to try what you suggested, I frankly don't have the time to get the job done. I might attempt throughout this coming year some kind of evolutionary change. A bit by bit change could work out in the end. Thanks again! Marax (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I missed it?

But, although you have commented positively, you don't seem to have voted with a keep ... Abtract (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

re

Just tell me how to put it back like it was, or you put it back for me. I don't know exactly how to do it myself. But there is no excuse for what has happened, and I think its wrong to have the discussion on this side of things. The discussion should have happened first - that's what I want to put it back for; for our discussion. Ritterschaft (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a "purgatory in RC teaching" would be a good idea, maybe it would be a bad idea. Right now, I'm just thinking about the audacious move, which I oppose for its own sake, other issues aside. The move is a separate matter from the content, since everything about it was wrong. As for you and I, I know we disagree on some things, but that's to be expected - people disagree. In the end it probably makes a better article. But neither you nor I have the desire to do anything disrespectful, audacious, or flagrantly inconsiderate. Ritterschaft (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Preces vandalized

I've done a revert and some editing today. I also left a suggestion concerning clearing up the copyright question in the talk page. Louie (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong Interest Inventory

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Strong Interest Inventory, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Strong Interest Inventory. --Gp75motorsports 17:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that it sounds like an ad. It was going to get PRODded sooner or later, with the writing style it has now. --Gp75motorsports 21:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Opus Dei controversy section

If the main problem is a structure prone to being interpreted as a "set em up and knock em down", may I propose that we invert the order of the critical and supporting views. Please check this private fork = Opus Dei controversy section where I propose a new ordering. I hope this satisfies all parties. :) Thanks for your help. Marax (talk) 08:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

user:Lima RfC

Alec, I'm ready to get back into purgatory, but first I need to open up an RfC on Lima. The Wikiquette alert didn't do the job. Interested in helping? I'm logging problems on my talk page. Leadwind (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana is helping me set up the RfC. We could use some diffs from your experience. There's a project page now. Take a look. User:Leadwind/LimaRFC. Leadwind (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You deserve this

Hi Alec, :) I've just been given this and am passing it on to you, because you deserve it for all the work you've put in.

This user helped promote Opus Dei to good article status.

I still remember your encouragement that I work for FAC, and will continue to keep it in mind. One day I hope it will happen, and the hope has gotten stronger, specially after this latest Good Article approval. Marax (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC) P.S. I took the initiative to place it as well in your userpage but you might want it moved elsewhere.

Good job! Is the Opus Dei or the BSA Membership Controversies article more contentious? --Jagz (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The Bible from Cover to Cover

Hey there, I just came across your interest in the Q document and was wondering if you've heard of The Bible from Cover to Cover by Peter Brancazio. I heard the author at a talk last month and he was an excellent speaker and, so far, the book is really good. It focuses on the four-source, documentary hypothesis for the Old Testament and the two-source hypothesis for the gospels. -- MacAddct  1984 03:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

G'day Alec!

It was great to see your clearly heartfelt post over at the arb talk page - there's a lot to talk about in your comment, but before getting into all that I just wanted to say that you were a fantastic colleague to me late last year, and I thank you for it enormously. Misplaced Pages isn't a lot of things that it kinda appears to be, and some of the darker sides are really quite ugly - though I suspect that's likely to be true of even the noblest human endeavor.

The trouble I ran into here actually ended up engaging me further in the project - and I remain fascinated about certain aspects of what goes on.. I hope your disillusionment can likewise be either set aside, or channeled into positive energies supporting the health of the project around and about the place...

oh - and it's great to 'see' you again! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Actual information, my gawd

Thanks for setting forth actual information at ArbCom, rather than insider rants. --Blechnic (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the kind words. --Alecmconroy (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

that was brilliant

		The Socratic Barnstar
		Thank you for the most brilliantly reasoned posting I've seen in a very long time, and certainly in that case. user:Everyme 12:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(Ok, one thing though: SlimVirgin doesn't use the tools all that often (she's not exactly a backlog working slave), and one might argue that desysopping her does not have a whole lot of disadvantages while it carries a lot more warning potential than anything else, considering that she has occasionally directly threatened blocks in situations where she was involved up to the ears. But I understand that you're arguing in favour of a better and actually workable compromise. So wow again... Your post is one of the very few irreplaceable ones in this case. Thank you! user:Everyme 12:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC) )

A Thought

You might also want to condense the essence of your recent arbcom proposals into to an essay/guideline/policy. I think they're sufficiently self-evident that might be useful to be able to get them endorsed by the community or listed as general principles applying outside of just this one arbcom case. Just a thought. --Alecmconroy (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, presumably they should all be clear at WP:ADMIN. Whether they are or not is another matter : )

Perhaps after this case the page may be updated. - jc37 04:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"Civility patrol"

Did you mean parole? --NE2 04:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I did.. Thanks! Good catch. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

On admins

Hi. I received your email, and am happy to reply, but would prefer to do so here, if that is OK with you. FNMF (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Got your second email: although I do have a view on the matter you raised, I really prefer engaging here rather than via email, unfortunately. I don't think you need to be worried about the effect of simply raising a question, although I should point out it is not a new idea, featuring regularly, in one form or another, on Village Pump. I don't think it has much chance. If you're interested in hearing my view, and you don't mind conversing here, let me know. FNMF (talk) 10:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Joystik

A tag has been placed on Joystik, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Misplaced Pages:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

RfA Review

Hi. I noticed that you'd inadvertently inserted your responses on the main instructions page for the RfA Review. I've undone your edit. They want people to put their responses on Special:Mypage/RfA review Recommend Phase: go to that link and put in {{subst:RFAReview}}, and save the page. That'll generate the questions for you to respond to. I hope this isn't too much of an inconvenience for you. - Mark 07:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

in the RfaR

The thing is, she hasn't done anything like that in a week, so any sanction would be punitive rather than preventative. Everyone knows that if she says anything like that she'll probably be blocked, and it doesn't need an Arbcom to make a block.:) It seems like another going after SV, someone who's already had the stress of 2 arbcoms one after the other, and a 'telling tales' for no reason other than officiousness and ingratiating yourself with those who are after Slim (whether that was your intention or not, that is how it appears.) And to be honest, Mongo has a point about your lack of recent mainspace contribs, and I say that as someone who's trying to increase my own. Take a look at your own last couple of hundred contribs for motivation, then hit Recent changes or random page 5X :) It seems the arbs don't see the virtue in adding extra words and sanctions about someone for whom they're currently deciding or have just decided on measures, anyway, and are not taking up your request.:) If someone feels the arbs aren't listening, what are they supposed to do to prevent what they see as a whitewash? Just as a hypothetical question to you. Reply to that one via email, to prevent us using the site excessively for anything other than improving articles.:) Sticky Parkin 13:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

None of this is worth whittering about User:Abd style IMHO, but you'd be wise to consider mongo's comments about your contributions, as they are accurate at this point in time, and consider the fate of User:Moulton. The arbs are working on proposed remedies and no doubt will bear your concerns in mind. I doubt SV will get away with much in future, in fact probably quite the opposite. All else is extraneous words. Sticky Parkin 14:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

He's not saying you have a flawed character, he's saying you should do some work, as should we all.:) Why don't you want to do some work on the encyclopedia's content?:) Unless that's not what you're actually here to do? :\ Yes your one edit you mentioned counted as one- so make some more, it's easy:) It's not just about actually being useful, you have to give the appearance of use before mouthing off.:) This is why SV was given the leeway she's had in the past- she has 69,424 edits to the encyclopedia, over 40% in main space so that's over 27,769directly to actual articles. (hopefully my maths isn't completely wrong- you can see the facts for yourself here . Thats not even counting all the changes she's made to policy or any talk page comments. So it might seem wrong that she's valued more but that's the way of the world, she has actually added more than most people here. Words on these pages are just so much hot air compared to edits to encyclopedia space. Sticky Parkin 18:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Project leader

Part of the problem I had when I tried to clarify this was that it wasn't exactly clear what his powers were, or even where they came from (we knew where they came from historically, of course, but not by virtue of what they continued to exist - whether it's a matter of community discretion, or something implicitly mandated by the Foundation). Aside from that, nobody (Jimbo himself, anybody at the WMF office, many of the editors who stopped by the page) seemed all that interested in clarifying that, apparently believing that any change to his authority should come from a sort of "constitutional crisis" instead of normal methods of policy development. As for the page's actual content, I think what you have is pretty close to right, though I'm not really familiar with the Mediation Committee stuff, and it might be worth noting that Jimbo's voluntarily relinquished the authority to overrule ArbComm in cases where ArbComm overturned one of his decisions. If you haven't already, I'd recommend you have a quick look at the history and talk page of WP:JIMBO, as I'm afraid that you'll run into many of the same problems that I did. You have my support with this, though. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

My Luke vote

Hi.. all of my votes are based on a long time investigating diffs and past behaviour. I stand by my vote. Cheers. // roux   editor review 22:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Your comments on Cool Hand Luke...

...were bang-on. I just wanted to let you know "typical WR user Alex" is actually User:Majorly/User:Al tally. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Something wrong?

I don't think we've ever bumped into each other on-wiki before, but I've noticed you haven't been edited that actively lately. You're not a massively active editor, but you've gone more than a week without making any edits. I hope I haven't bugged you too much by asking. Take care, Maxim_(talk) 20:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

No worries.. I edit in spurts.  :) But no, I wasn't demoralized or wikiretired or anything negative-- just real world busy. Also, I'm going to email you shortly about the allegations you made. --Alecmconroy (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Your Paul map

I have been offline for several months now, and saw your request for help on the Paul map upon returning. Do you still want help? If so, I'll dive in.

Let me know, and sorry for the delay. MapMaster (talk) 05:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold 02:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your evidence at RfAr/Abd and JzG

I agree, and I agree that this presents an additional reason for desysopping. However, even though I believe I've remained civil with JzG, and tried to focus on the situation of action while involved, much of the community has perceived this as a personal conflict between me and JzG -- including some who recognize the problem of recusal failure.

So, while I've been asked, off-wiki, to add incivility evidence, I mostly have kept away from it and certainly haven't added evidence to show incivility, except for the broad shotgun of making it easy to see his edit summaries and to look at the edits themselves with the hover of a mouse. If it had been up to me -- I asked for it! -- I would have only allowed this case to be about recusal failure, because that is an issue of such importance that all the other issues pale before it. It's true that it's narrow and collecting evidence on it as a more general practice than is involved with Cold fusion, but narrow is actually good, if we were to realize what deliberative bodies learned centuries ago: decide one narrow issue at a time, starting with the most urgent if consensus seems within reach on it, or, more generally, on what's simple and easy. Build consensus, one clear agreement at a time.

When I began on-line discussion and debate in the 1980s, I realized that with on-line discussion it was possible to modify Robert's Rules to allow debate on more than one topic at once, but then that the debates should be partitioned and, where possible, closed in a sequence determined by consensus. When more than one issue is being debated in the same threaded discussion, it becomes convoluted and consensus becomes elusive.

There is a clear mechanism behind this:

If I believe not-C and you believe C, we may debate endlessly. But suppose that C depends on A and B. If we could agree on A and B, our debate on C might speedily resolve, and we might agree on C', where C has been slightly modified. Or sometimes just plain on C, if I revise my opinion.

Debating C, you assert A. I have an unexamined opinion that A and B are false. I have a strong opinion that C is false. Because the conclusion from A and B is C, I'm going to doubt A and B prior to investigation. You assert A with some evidence, and, without entering into a debate on A, I think, "Okay, maybe A is incorrect, but there is also B." I will then, argue not-A without evidence, but only generally, and not-B, perhaps presenting evidence. You think "He didn't examine my evidence, he's POV-attached." You may argue B with evidence, but that sub-debate gets lost in the noise.

If, instead, when C is debated, and it is found that A and B are preconditions, new debates should open on A and B, debates where the conclusion C is set aside as irrelevant. I.e., that A and B imply C and, say, C is known to be false, is not a legitimate argument, it's circular, and logically defective, because it is possible that A and B are true and that C is still false, because of unstated logical assumptions that were false. Once A and B are established, it is not automatic that C is true. The conclusion of C only follows if the only reason C is not accepted is not-A and/or not-B.

This process can be tedious, on the face. However, if consensus is important and, in fact, it's crucial to our mission, there is no alternative; if we don't do this, there is no other way to obtain broad consensus, beyond the rough consensus method that wears out opposition and results in apparent consensus that isn't. And that, no surprise, isn't stable. Real consensus is highly stable, it requires no great effort to defend, because nearly everyone will defend it. Newcomers will contradict it, but, then, other editors who generally agree with the newcomers or who formerly held that opinion, guide them into becoming part of the consensus. At the same time, the discussions on which the consensus was founded are available, the newcomer is pointed to them and invited to find where they might have been incomplete, and to add to those discussions if some unexamined basis is found.

So instead of rejecting editors who argue or edit "against consensus," they are invited to join or extend consensus, and, it's possible, though increasingly difficult the broader the consensus has become, to modify consensus, which becomes a living thing, not a fixed orthodoxy.

So, in the end, the apparently tedious process is far more efficient.

Sometimes decisions, in fact, depend on sequence of sub-decisions, or can be made prematurely. It's tempting, then, to try to decide more than one fact at a time. However, the remedy is not to shift to multiple decisions at once, but for the process to recognize error and correct it, going back and reversing earlier decisions. Under Robert's Rules, anyone who voted on a motion with the prevailing side can request reconsideration, and, if that request is seconded, the orginal question is re-opened, and the request can then be debated.

That's another defect in our process: we debate proposals that have not been seconded. This is an enormous time-waster. Editer proposes outrageous X, and argues 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 to support it. Other editors then attack X, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Some of the subquestions are iffy, some are irrelevant, some are true but people will argue against them because they don't like the conclusion X. Editors then start to argue over the subissues. X, who is a troll, gets great lulz.

Had I been the one to file the RfAr, the only issue raised would have been vary narrow: Had JzG violated recusal policy? It is quite possible that I would not have even suggested a remedy, or I would have cleanly suggested the remedy of desysopping if failure to respond with acknowledgment continued, and the idea of closing the RfAr with a desysopping, but with with a statement that acknowledgment of the error to ArbComm, privately, possibly reversing that decision, or other remedy that makes it clear that the desysopping is not punitive, but is protective, purely.

However, I wasn't, and Jehochman raised other related issues.

I requested, then,, that the topic be confined to the only mature issue, the only one that had been examined at RfC. This would have been a no-brainer in normal deliberative process, my request would have, in fact, been routinely seconded and approved.

This is because there are really only two clearly-related issues: JzG's recusal failure and my action (and the action of others) to challenge it. The argument that, if not for my work, nothing would have happened, is true. However, whether my work was of positive value, or was disruption, is a question that depends, for a sound decision, on whether or not JzG violated policy. It's entirely possible, as well, that JzG might have violated policy and my challenge to it was disruptive. Certainly, now, I know things I could have done that would have been less disruptive. I could have gone directly to ArbComm with a number of issues, but I was, in fact, unaware of certain prior rulings and the implications. I simply did the least disruptive things I could do without simply giving up on an issue I considered of paramount importance, much more important than my possible individual contributions as an editor, which greatly suffered.

(I also mentioned the recusal failure here and there, when it had some possible relevance to other issues under discussion. This was a conscious effort to wake up JzG's supporters, who, I hoped, might give him some good advice about recusal. This wasn't a naive hope, I knew it wasn't likely, because I know the community and how it functions, or dysfunctions, as is sometimes the case.)

Nobody seconded my request. I was attacked for making it, as if I was trying to avoid consequences. No, my request assumed that any related issues not resolved would remain subject to ArbComm examination and sanction. ArbComm would simply decide, as a separate motion, if those issues were ripe for Arbitration and would then turn to them if and when it found them ready. I'd guess that clerks would be directed to remove irrelevant evidence and arguments to subpages, to be restored if the questions they related to were taken back up.

The question of JzG recusal is one that could have been decided quite efficiently, it would now be over. I don't know whether it would have resulted in simply admonition or warning, or desysopping, but both of those would have been satisfactory outcomes to me, though I've certainly expressed the opinion that, given the history, mere admonition is naive, that doesn't recognize the problem that we have no evidence at all that JzG knows how to recognize involvement; like many editors, he seems to believe that his personal views are NPOV and, therefore, enforcing them, with strong editing or use of tools, is enforcing policy. While it is theoretically possible that ArbComm would have dismissed the recusal failure claims, I see that outcome -- as I did from the beginning, knowing ArbComm precedent -- as highly unlikely.

It's quite possible that ArbComm could have closed the question of recusal failure and then turned to the remedy. That would, indeed, have been far cleaner; there is a reason why courts and juries do not simultaneously debate guilt and punishment. It's quite possible that a court will find "guilty," and the remedy will be "released, as sentencing to confinement will not serve society." Happens all the time.

Again, thanks for your comment, I think this needed to be more clearly on the table, but I wasn't the one to put it there, and I think you did it well, without the hysteria and blatant outrage that would have been the case if certain other editors had put it there. At some point we should notice that some administrators provoke a great deal of outrage and would probably not pass an RfA any more, but we have fallen for the "they are doing necessary work" argument. That is actually, if examined deeply, an argument that they have failed to recuse and have become known as administrators pursuing an agenda. Admins who rigorously remain neutral and recuse quickly do not generate this kind of massive opposition; they may be the subject of harassment by a few abusive banned editors, but that's about it. The argument that if admins recuse, then there will be nobody to deal with abusive editors, is preposterous and ignores the fact that recusal policy doesn't preclude using tools where a matter is urgent, and when a matter is not urgent, there are mechanisms for determining consensus that do not involve use of tools, and, in the unheard-of situation that every active admin had recused, based on actual involvement, a close could be requested of ArbComm as a motion. Note: there would be, if consensus has been found, few to argue against the motion! But that, quite simply, is not going to happen. There are always neutral, uninvolved administrators, as long as we are willing to wait a little. By the conditions stated, it's not an emergency. --Abd (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the vote of thanks. I don't think anything I've said will do much to help your Cold Fusion concerns-- JzG was definitely off-base by acting as he did, but at the same time, I don't think he did anything particularly differently than what a neutral admin would have done. I haven't looked into the ins and outs of the actual content dispute much, but generally, when arguing for any point of view that hasn't yet been widely accepted, you have to FIRST convince the world and THEN convince Misplaced Pages-- not the other way round.

A lot of people think that since Misplaced Pages can be edited by anyone, it's a great place to start in order to "get the truth out". But, invariably, it's not. If you know something that most reliable sources don't, you need to find other venues to get the word out; and then, once you've succeeded, Misplaced Pages will change to reflect the new discoveries-- all by itself!

That doesn't excuse JzG's-- we have 1500 admins for a reason, and he could have avoided a LOT of drama by simply asking for an uninvolved admin. But, at the same time, I hope you'll realize that your time to work on Cold Fusion-related articles has probably come to an end. Just as JzG should have recused himself from being an admin on the article, so too now you're going to need to recuse yourself from being an editor on that topic.

Just try to have faith that information does, in the long run, work. Truth does get out, articles DO approach the content they really should have.

And in a similar way, have faith that Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution system does work, it's just slow. JzG will become a civil admin or he will cease to be an admin. These exact same sorts of behavior patterns have cropped up in the past, and sometimes it takes a while, but eventually it all comes out in the wash. It just remains for us to do our best to see that the outcome is a civil admin, rather than an unrepentant desysopped editor.

Good luck in your quests. What I'd really hope to see in your future, wiki-wise, is that you find something very boring that you don't have any strong feelings about, and dive in and create some wonderful, utterly-non-controversial articles. You're obviously intelligent and incredibly motivated-- maybe find a huge project and dive in. --Alecmconroy (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad images

I appreciate your thoughtful points made at Talk:Muhammad/images. In reaction, I would just like to point you to

• the American Muslim quote shown at Depictions_of_Muhammad#Wikipedia_article, which would seem to amount more or less to what you described.
• the fact that the images objected to in the online petition are Islamic art, not Western cartoons. If, as you claim, there are people in good faith concluding that the purpose of the image _is_ to intentionally upset them, you would expect them to object to the section at Depictions_of_Muhammad#Depiction_by_non-Muslims, not to the Muhammad article.

I conclude that the "complaints" we get aren't by any stretch made by bona fide religious Muslims. They are the product of teenage Muslims hanging out at political blogs who are trying to draw attention to themselves. The noise surrounding this is purely political and has nothing to do with acutual religious piety. --dab (𒁳) 12:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The American Muslim piece is nice, but it's more scholarly and defensive than I would like. Not that there's anything wrong with it-- like I said, I'm not doing a very good job of it either. I would like some piece of text that somehow, someway, takes people who are hostile to the images and, through honest explanation, transforms them into people who are glad the images are there. That's a very tall order, impossible in lots of cases, and would require a truly great one-in-a-million communicator-- so it's alright that we don't have one, I was mostly thinking aloud.

Of course, this is all just a sub-project of my overall attempts to communicate this same concept to people in general. "Misplaced Pages is not censored" is just one particular instance of "The world is not censored". And trying to explain to people why it's not is a life-long endeavor, and I'm always seeking out ways to help explain that concept to people (and sometimes, to myself).

It's funny the demographics guesses you make about the people who have objected to the images, just because they're so different from the guesses I had made, but of course, I'm completely just guessing. I always imagine that the citizens of muslims nations who complain to Misplaced Pages are the rough analogs of the citizens of western nations to fret and protest over the things you can find online. So, for example, I imagine that the youth populations of muslim nations tend to "get it"-- they love the internet, they like English and video games and twitter. In contrast, I imagine the "parenthood" or "elder" demographic that is getting the most upset by Misplaced Pages.

I guess I base that on the english-language proficiency and the technological unsophistication of some of the posters. Anyone familiar with the internet sites like this should know that an online petition, for example, is pointless because Misplaced Pages isn't going to change anything no matter how many signatures it supposedly gets. That's just not how things work online or in the west, and to imagine otherwise suggests to me that the people we're seeing crop up on our talk pages are having some of their first brushes with the internet world/the western world.

In contrast, my (admittedly limited) impression of youth in the muslim nations are that they are less likely to be offended, less likely to post here if they were offended, and least of all likely to exhibit the kind of misunderstandings that we've seen. (For example, the poster who speculated that the images were unconstitutional due to the US Constitution's freedom of religion-- my guess is people who hang out on blogs and watch western movies would be less likely to make that sort of error).

Most of all though, I guess I just see the people who post there as acting 100% in good faith. They don't get why we would have the images if the images are upsetting to Muslims. And so they reiterate for us that the images are extremely offensive. Some take the "hardliner" route that the images are inherently immoral for anyone to view, others have the more nuanced view that the images are offensive to Muslims and therefore shouldn't be on a site like Misplaced Pages that is likely to be viewed by Muslims. But I feel like both are sort of confused about why anyone would ever have information up that is so inflammatory-- sufficiently confused that they somehow think if they could just explain to us in the right way how upsetting it is, a light bulb would go off in our heads and we'd understand, so they make their pitch and then disappear.

But, as long as we have them here, it's a sort of interesting opportunity for amateur diplomacy, and maybe we can get good, over time, at crafting replies that they actually find persuasive. --Alecmconroy (talk) 01:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of an older stub article, Mosaic Generation

Proposed deletion of Mosaic Generation

The article Mosaic Generation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable neologism

While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This seems so cold, so im adding a personal comment now. im of course also trying to simply alert people that this may need much better referencing, which i could not find (and i dont think exists, but i could be wrong...). i think im using the right templates, and using them properly. please assume good faith. your user page is awesome. i agree that .999 is a great article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing CDA discussion

Please note discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Community de-adminship/RfC Strategy. Ben MacDui 19:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Misplaced Pages:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax 22:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

FAR - BSA membership controversies

Boy Scouts of America membership controversies has been nom'd for FAR at: Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Boy Scouts of America membership controversies/archive2 — Rlevse • Talk • 15:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Scouting For All.png

Thank you for uploading File:Scouting For All.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Misplaced Pages may not meet the criteria required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Note: Only the Fair Use Rationale for Boy Scouts of America membership controversies is disputed.  JGHowes  23:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful, thorough and intelligent message that you left me

North8000 (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA

Hi Alec,

you are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;

Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?

As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;

Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?

Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3) How to help:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;

• Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".

• In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).

• Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Your scheme of the Synoptic Gospels

Hi, I'd like to inform you that I have translated your work File:Relationship between synoptic gospels.png to Croatian:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Relationship_between_synoptic_gospels_HR.png

I have acknowledged you as the author in the description, and put the license to CC 3.

Regards dnik ► 12:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Pearl necklace (sexuality)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Pearl necklace (sexuality). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pearl necklace (sexuality) (4th nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal has begun

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal was started on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working compromise, so CDA is still largely being floated as an idea.

Also note that, although the RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and Neutral, with Comments underneath), this RfC is still essentially a 'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.

Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI

I contributed a few quotes to the v3blog. The blog post said I "declined to be named", which is technically true, but the truth is far less sexy. I just asked him to not list my name/email in the post itself, but I didn't ask him to 'keep my identity a secret' or anything like that. So, yeah, that was me, and I wasn't trying to be all deep throat, I was just trying to avoid spam. :)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Misplaced Pages:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)