User talk:RedSpruce - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RedSpruce (talk | contribs) at 19:46, 30 October 2008 (→October 2008). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:46, 30 October 2008 by RedSpruce (talk | contribs) (→October 2008)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Archives
/Archive 1: to March 1, 2007 /Archive 2: to November 16, 2007

/Notes
/Test

many are the crimes

Hi thanks for the help.. can you flip back to find what footnote 71 of page 294 of the Schrecker book says? . Thanks! --Ling.Nut 15:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean note #73? In the hardcover edition of Schrecker, note 71 (for the chapter "A Badge of Infamy") is on page 293 and relates entirely to J. Robert Oppenheimer. Note #73 relates to Ladejinsky (the liberal uproar that "forced the administration to revise its employment security program"), and reads:

R. L. Farrington to Brownell, Jan 13, 1955, Hubert H. Humphrey to Eisenhower, Jan 13, 1955, both in DDE-OF, 104-J.

Let me know if that's not what you're looking for and I'll try again. -- RedSpruce (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You found the right one.. 73. Thanks! ---- Ling.Nut (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Erm, any idea what DDE-OF, 104-J means? Sorry to be a pest. I'm nowhere near anything resembling an English language library, and Google was no help. :-( ---- Ling.Nut (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

In a previous footnote, this text appears as a source:

in Official File, 104-J, DDEL (hereafter DDE-OF)

And in yet another previous footnote:

Dwight D. Eisenhower Library (hereafter DDEL)

I still have no idea what the "104-J" means, but hopefully this is some help. -- RedSpruce (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

(undent) It's a tremendous help. I'll stop bothering you now. Thanks! ---- Ling.Nut (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

hoover

hello. i took ur advice and fixed alot of the errors. heres my current version:

"==Strained relationship with the Kennedys==

According to many authors and even Kennedy's own cabinet, Hoover had a tough relationship with President Kennedy and his family. But if you really dig deep into their meetings and past history, it wasn't as bad as people portray it to be. According to the historians and even Hoovers own people, he kept secret files on everyone including the president to insure he wasn't retired. We can assume Kennedy was aware of this because he did not retire him as planned. Instead he was polite to the director when they met. And in return, Hoover was polite and protective. It is possible Hoover felt he had to protect the young president from the dangers lurking around him and even from himself. For example, behind closed doors, Hoover warned Kennedy about his affair with Judith Campbell and how she was the current mistress of Sam Giancana. kennedy severed ties with Campbell after this meeting. A second example, that may drive this point home, is the alliance he and Robert (Bobby) Kennedy, who was the Attorney General, made to put pressure on a number of senators who were demanding an investigation into one of the president's affairs. This affair threatned to put serious damage on the Kennedy name. Hoover and Bobby managed to keep that from happening. Hoover was also the one to bring Bobby the news of his brother's death. But, because of there noticable age difference and different opinions on civil rights, Hoover and Bobby were usually at odds with each other. But according to Hoovers agent Courtney Evans ,who was also the laison between the FBi and the White house, there were never any direct confrontations between Hoover and Bobby. Another factor for their strained relationship could be that Bobby was the laison between Hoover and John, where as Hoover wanted direct contact with the president as he had with past presidents. Yet, a number photographs made public show both Hoover and Bobby either laughing or enjoying the moment, clearly showing the atmosphere wasn't all that bad between the two."

hows dat?

fair enough. then what if i added it with the president section. that way it wont have its own idividual section, but instead is added so that it comments on hoovers relationship with the presidents? —Preceding unsigned comment added by D. R. O'shea (talk • contribs) 15:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC) D. R. O'shea —Preceding unsigned comment added by D. R. O'shea (talk • contribs) 20:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Porn-site.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Porn-site.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Marxus

Hm. Well, his article about the Brautigan poetry collection is real (according to Brautigan.net); his edits to the Brautigan article proper might be. I'll leave him a sterner warning about the importance of edit summaries and sources; if he continues screwing around, I'll block him temporarily for not paying attention to warnings. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. DS (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have reluctantly blocked Marxus for 72 hours - said block to be lifted if he actually asks, mind you. DS (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Help in Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Frequently asked questions?

Dear RedSpruce, Could you do two things for me in Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Frequently asked questions? 1. Could you supply some citations that support "attack" in the same way that you were able to do for "sensational?" 2. Somehow, the link doesn't work in the concluding paragraph of each section to take one back to the pertinent subsection at Talk:Joseph McCarthy#Discussion of FAQ page where the user is supposed to post his/her comments regarding FAQs. Could you fix one, so that I could follow the model for the rest? Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 23:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced of the value of this FAQ page, but I'll see what I can do. Regarding the links, it's my experience that using more than one "#" in a wikilink simply doesn't work. It may be that the best you can do is to link to the main heading of the FAQ discussion. RedSpruce (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, RS. I'll take out the additional segments. Only time will tell whether there's value in the FAQ page. It hinges partly on whether editors allude to it when new folks come knocking. Cheers,--User:HopsonRoad 01:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I found these references, if you think that they'll do:

"Milo Radulovich, fought back against McCarthy attack", The Plain Dealer, Cleveland, November 23, 2007{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
Acheson, Dean (1969), Present at the Creation: My Years in the State Department, New York: W.W. Norton & Company, ISBN 0393304124

--User:HopsonRoad 02:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Evan's McCarthy book

A month ago you wrote this on the McCarthy talk page:

There is no source or support for the statement that "The controversy was launched again", or even that there is or ever has been a "controversy." For that to be a correct statement, Evans' book has to attract some attention, in scholarly and/or popular circles, and that hasn't happened yet..

obviously neither you nor i are the sole arbitrators of what constitutes a controversy or controversey being launched again, i agree with your criteria that the book should attract some attention for the lines about it that you remobed to warrant inclusion, my question to you is how much attention is enough and who will verify that attention exists? thanks. SJMNY (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the first step would be to document that the book has received any attention in scholarly and/or mainstream press circles. Ann Coulter and a few arch-conservative web sites praising the book doesn't count. For comparison, Coulter's Treason sold a lot of copies, though it didn't have any detectable effect on the views of scholarly authors toward McCarthy. Her book warrants brief mention in the article because of the mainstream press attention it attracted. RedSpruce (talk) 12:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Bombing of Dresden

Please see Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II#Forced workers --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SwordOfDoom.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SwordOfDoom.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

Coyote

I want to inform you that your edition at made some non-ASCII characters in Coyote such as fractions, IPA symbols, and inter-wiki links went defective (becoming '?'). I already recovered them. Please be careful. --Octra Bond (talk) 06:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Shoot. Thanks for letting me know. RedSpruce (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Orson Scott Card

Not that I have any authority to ask you to do this, but could you just resolve the issue with the Bellweather at OSC Talk by apologising for calling them a homophobe? No, Bellweather ought not to have brought up their personal opinion that it's not homophobic to express views like OSC's, but I think it better just to persistently refuse to have that discussion on the OSC Talk page and redirect Bellweather to the page on homophobia, I really do. You're a bigger person than Bellweather: demonstrate it by saying sorry and let's move on. Yonmei (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Meh. RedSpruce (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Now RedSpruce is a "bigger person" than me, yet has called me homophobic, without evidence, and refuses to apologize. I'm quite through with this whole discussion. I'll let someone else take the abuse at the page. Bellwether _C 17:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, not that I have any authority to do so, but I would ask you not to make personal comments about other editors in the RV notes or anywhere else. You were stepping close to the line with your comment about "attempts to conceal". While the point at issue is certainly that, to some people, Orson Scott Card's views about LGBT people ought not to be called homophobic because they themselves see nothing wrong with them, the fact is, the facts are all our side; Orson Scott Card's views are well-sourced: that the views have caused controversy is well-sourced: that the views are referred to as homophobic is well-sourced. A bland and deadly courtesy is infinitely more devastating, and the side which is more polite and has more facts is more likely to win if the people who keep trying to cut it up provoke edit wars and eventually summon administrative help. Yonmei (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Your earlier comments re. Bellweather were dead to rights (even if I chose not to follow your advice), but in this case I believe you're completely off-base. My "attempts to conceal" phrasing is a perfectly valid interpretation of that version of the article, and is not by any stretch a personal attack. When an article is written in such a way as to avoid mentioning a controversy whose existence is well-documented, that's just plan wrong. The point is not what is what might be more "devastating"; the point is to report the facts. RedSpruce (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just came back to tell you I've stopped giving a damn: some other editor just declared "Oh yes, I have a citation to a book which discusses Card's homophobia - but I'm not going to add it because that would be taking sides." So I'm quitting Misplaced Pages, again, before I turn into that kind of Wikipedian where infighting matters much more than information. Take care. Good luck with the Orson Scott Card article. Yonmei (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

McCarthyism 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. I have reviewed McCarthyism and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. 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. 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) 01:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ColossusTheForbinProject.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ColossusTheForbinProject.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

Resolved

Fixed, and removed tag.

Handbra and Image:SuicideGirls book cover.jpg

Hi there. The image Image:SuicideGirls book cover.jpg cannot be used in the Handbra article, as it is not a "fair use". The copyright information of the image clearly states that it may only be used "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question". I have reverted both the image and the article. -- JediLofty 13:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Not worth arguing over, but the application of a little common sense will tell you that no one connected with ownership of the image would ever have the slightest inkling of a glimmer of a notion of a reason for objecting to this additional use of the image. RedSpruce (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Outland (film noir)

Hi RedSpruce,

I've noticed that you reverted my edit concerning the film Outland in the film noir article, arguing it was "critical and box office flop, with nothing to make it worth including here". I agree with you that it was flop. However, the article and (the section) is about the noir style of particular films and not about their critical or financial success. Outland is an example of "tech-noir" and I also explained that it is a sci-fi version of High Noon, a western-noir crossover. So why not mention it? Another user already had removed it from the section arguing it wasn't film noir at all, which actually isn't true. That's why I included it again. Shouldn't the film at least be mentioned in the List of film noir article?

Again, I think the success of a film is not important in this case. The style of it is decisive, since the article is about a certain (sub-)genre which has noticeable characteristics. Regards. Dutzi (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, there are a couple of criteria that should determine whether a film should be mentioned in this particular article. "Classic" noirs are a shoo-in, of course. Beyond those, one has to consider whether the film is widely considered an example of noir, and whether there's something else about it that makes it notable among all the thousands of movies considered noir. I don't think Outland makes the cut; obviously not everyone agrees that it's truly a noir, and as for notable, it has only one thing going for it: If one does believe that it's a noir, then it's fairly unique in being (arguably) a sci-fi-western-noir crossover. At best, it's questionable whether that claim to notability is all that notable (rather than just kind of odd, even goofy). If it had something else going for it, like being a critical success, that might push it over the edge to being notable enough to mention.

If you really want this edit, you could bring it up in the article's Talk page.

Whether Outland should be included in the List of film noir article is a whole different issue. Personally I'm inclined to think not, but I don't watch that article.

RedSpruce (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You're unquestionably right about the classic noirs of the 1940s and 1950s. As I said, I only put Outland back because someone argued it wasn't noir, although there are several characteristics that define it as noir (or rather "noirish"). I just wasn't happy with his explanation. Now of course, after our extensive discussion, I won't put it back again.

Lately I've been working on the List of film noir article (especially on the Proto-noir-section). In the list there is a Post-classic noir-SF crossovers-section with films like Terminator, Brazil, RoboCop, Alien³ and of course Blade Runner, to name only a few. In my opinion Outland should also be listed, but I think I'll start a discussion first. Thanks for your quick answer. Dutzi (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Someone has filed a notice regarding your edits at WP:ANI#RedSpruce (talk · contribs) Longterm civility issues & ownership issues. Just thought you'd like to know. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Worktool

Thanks. That tool is fun--I was half hoping/half dreading it would somehow calculate exactly how many minutes/hours/days of my life I've actually spent editing each article.—DCGeist (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Annie Lee Moss

I would be delighted to engage in a discussion with you about the value of the edits I reverted here. I would especially enjoy it if, unlike the other editor involved, you know how to read English. Start a new section on the article's talk page and we can begin. RedSpruce (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the issues are that you have with this article. I'm sure that all the editors involved have reasonable facility with the English language, and I don't see that name calling and personal attacks are the way to go, nor does the WP:ANI case listed above fill me with confidence that these issues can be easily addressed. I encourage you to lay out the specific issues with the Moss article. Alansohn (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If you had read the discussion on the article's talk page, you would have seen that I repeatedly tried to "lay out the specific issues," and Richard Arthur Norton responded over and over and over with answers that were either meaningless or completely ignored the points I raised and the questions I asked. Naturally, this conversing with a brick wall lead to some frustration and annoyance on my part. If you think you can communicate with this person, please do so. RedSpruce (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

ref html tag

Thanks for the notice. Yes, I have been doing it the other way for some time. I will add them without the space from now on, and remove the space when I encounter them in my previous edits. Thanks for your civil tone. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you interested in adding material to some of the new biographies of tangential people in the McCarthy era?
Albert Cohn (judge) for example. There are dozens of articles on him in the New York Times archive via Google News. For some reason I can't get access to the older NYT archived articles anymore, my subscription may have reached its limit, or expired. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Albert Cohn doesn't interest me much. One tangential person of the McCarthy era whom I think really ought to have an article is J. B. Matthews (Joseph Brown Matthews). If you'd care to create an article on him--even just a stub to start with--I'd be happy to add to it as I find time. RedSpruce (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Its interesting you should mention him, I saw that part of the article you added was contemplating starting him. I was worried that if I added a redlink to the article it would look bad. Let me see what the New York Times has on him. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Every reference to him that I've seen in a book refers to him as "J. B. Matthews", with his full name mentioned in parentheses, if at all. So J. B. Matthews should be the article name, with the full name (and alternate spellings, like "JB Matthews") being a redirect. RedSpruce (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you see the photo I added? I'll switch the redirect. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's an excellent photo. And thanks for agreeing to the redirect. RedSpruce (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Warning

Was a part of April Fools. Regardless of my signature; you must still heed the warning. I see you have entered into discussion with Richard. That is progress. Keep it up. Thanks. Scarian 01:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Err... okay then. Scarian 10:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Annie Lee Moss. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Help with Marxus?

As an administrator you have had a history of dealing with User:Marxus and I hoped you might give me some direction. I recently added infoboxes to the Richard Brautigan book pages. Marxus deleted them without comment. I added them back, asking that if he has a reason to delete the boxes, he please go to the talk pages and discuss them. He deleted the infoboxes again without comment. I have no interest in an edit war. Do you have have any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rknasc (talk • contribs) 21:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Re Lolita (1962 film)

Hello. As you might remember I edit a lot of film noir (& some neo-noirs) articles. Anyhow, I've in a discussion with a Wikipedian about the film Lolita and whether it's a neo-noir or not. I say no (and Selby and Alain Silver never mention the film in their books). I have made my arguments in the Lolita Talk Page. See: Talk:Lolita (1962 film). Can you make a comment, either way, of course. Thanks. Luigibob (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I realize it's not chat group, I'm not asking the fella if he's doing well or how are his kids (the first Wikipedian did not make it clear that there was a disagreement). This is a disagreement over how the film should be categorized (trivial yes). I reversed his/her neo-noir CATEGORY addition, and he reverted my edit. Hence, this discussion. I'm hoping to prune the List of Film Noirs. There are films there that do not belong, and this is a prime example. Luigibob (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I jumped the gun. I re-read your comment, a few times. I've tried to get the fella to source as you can see, but nothing came forward other than his own POV. Then I gave mine. It's been a good learning experience. It's not about what I think, but what can be sourced. Thanks. My best. Have a great week-end. Luigibob (talk) 04:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

G David Schine

Rather than just silently reverting, why don't join the discussion on this article's Talk page? I'd be interested to hear the reasoning behind your support of your preferred version. RedSpruce (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no stake in the G David Schine article. I only reverted you to move back one version to another admin who was stabilizing the article. I took notice through this ANI post. It would appear that you are behaving in a manner that brought you a recent block, but I was called away before I finished evaluating. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. It might be best to avoid taking actions or making comments on a situation that you haven't evaluated yet, since by definition those actions and comments are uninformed. RedSpruce (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Srictly speaking, it is my responsibility here to become informed and take action. That said, please don't regard my rollback as punitive. Rather, I moved the article back to a version in line with community consensus while I evaluate the larger issue. I see that you and the Richard Arthur Norton have had a contentious relationship, but that you have both managed to discuss thing civily as well. I am reaching out to another admin who has been more informed on this apparently long standing issue. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is your responsibility as an admin to become informed and take action. I only hope that in the future you'll try to do things in that order.

Unfortunately no admin (including Scarian) has taken the time to become informed and offer a considered opinion on this long-standing dispute. If you have any ongoing interest in this dispute, I think my best articulation of my disagreement with RAN is here: User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#Discussion. As you can see, RAN has not seen fit to grace me with a response. Perhaps you will have an opinion you'd like to share. RedSpruce (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC) and 11:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes

An Arbitration case involving you 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/Footnoted quotes/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/Footnoted quotes/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 16:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll copy over what I wrote on the request page. I think my experience fairly reinforces all three points of what you've presented. You've got more long term patience than I have. I'm curious as to how this will come out. I still note a lot of avoidance of the real issue in the responses that were offered at the request. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes/Evidence

RedSpruce, I have presented an enquiry for you, regarding your evidence in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes, at the page linked in the header. Specifically, see #Enquiry for RedSpruce.

Thanks in advance for any response you can offer.

Anthøny 16:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth Bentley

I've just read this article and would like to thank you for your contributions to it. I was about half way down the page when I realised I was so absorbed that I'd forgotten I was reading a Misplaced Pages article, so fluently and clearly was it written. And that subject matter is complex, too. Much appreciated. qp10qp (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You also need "reason=" for the reason

MessedRocker (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hello, RedSpruce. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Yours, Black Kite 18:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The return of WP:ANI

Thanks for the info. It's always a pleasure to watch you get yourself into trouble, Alansohn. RedSpruce (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes

This arbitration case has been closed and the full final decision is available here. In short, the remedies passed were:

Special enforcement on biographies of living persons: a special enforcement on biography of living persons (BLP) articles is authorised, whereby administrators uninvolved with an article may, for that BLP, "use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Misplaced Pages article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy". Administrators are authorised to utilise their protection and blocking tools as necessary to ensure that the article complies with Misplaced Pages's BLP policy, and are also directed to actively counsel any editors whos actions fail to comply with the BLP policy. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse or modify such actions without clear community consensus to do so; appeals against restrictions put in place may be made to either: the relevant administrators' noticeboard; or, the arbitration committee directly. Before any article-based restrictions are extended to an individual editor, this counselling must take place: restrictions put in place should be logged at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log, with relevant links to attempts to counsel the editor. The full text of this special enforcement is available here.
Alansohn restricted: Alansohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year, whereby he may be blocked for making any edits judged by an administrator to be be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, for "up to a week in the event of repeated violations". The full text is available here.

The final decision and remedies should be reviewed in full, at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 22:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

I read through your comments at RFAR and I wanted to let you know I strongly agree with everything you've said. I have experienced the same frustrations you've had with trying to involve other editors in what is clearly bad faith incivility. I recused myself from any interactions with both those parties which is probably why I missed the RFAR case. Let me know about any future case and I'd be happy to give evidence. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do not blanket revert changes

RedSpruce, I'm following up the point I made here. You have been blanket reverting extensive changes without considering which of the change to keep or discard. You said this here: "Sometimes when I remove their garbage edits I take the time to filter in the good edits. Other times it just doesn't seem worth the effort." Please do not refer to other people's edits as garbage, and please do not carry out blanket reverts like this to edits made by Alansohn and Richard Arthur Norton or anyone else. Regardless of whether the arbitration committee chose to comment on this aspect of your behaviour or not, this behaviour is unacceptable. Please take the time to "filter in the good edits", and discuss things on talk pages, as you have done in the past. Carcharoth (talk) 07:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I will heed your warning, and I am also willing to discuss with you any other aspects of my behavior that you think are incorrect. I only ask that you familiarize yourself more fully with the history of this case. You've said you've "been following" this issue, but I doubt that you have anything like a full picture. If you did, you would recognize that I've been dealing for a very long time with two editors whose persistent refusal to discuss issues in good faith is incredibly frustrating, and that under those circumstances, my patience and civility have been exemplary.

For just one example of what I've been up against, please review the evidence given at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes/Evidence#User:Alansohn and User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) "stonewalling" on G. David Schine.

You can answer here; I look forward to your response.. RedSpruce (talk) 11:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. But you need to stop referring back to the arbitration case. Simply because you presented evidence and the arbitration committee ignored it, doesn't mean that the evidence you presented justifies anything. The arbitration committee did not pass a remedy against Richard Arthur Norton. Does that mean that his edits were OK? No. By the same reasoning, the fact that the arbitration committee did not pass a remedy against you, does not mean that you edits were OK. The principles are more relevant here: decorum, role of the arbitration committee, and use of quotes in footnotes. Alansohn's remedy should not be confused with the footnotes dispute, even if it may seem related. Carcharoth (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not referring back to the arbitration case in any inappropriate way, and I'm not confusing Alansohn's remedy with the footnote quotes dispute. I referred you to a link to the evidence page above because it's a handy place where a lot of evidence regarding what I'm talking about is compiled. If you want to learn more about the history of my interactions with Alansohn and RAN, the ArbCom evidence page is a good place to go. In addition to looking at the section I mentioned above, please also look at Alansohn's "side" of the story, such as Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes/Evidence#Ownership and obsession with McCarthy by User:RedSpruce, and here. I'd be willing to bet that Alansohn's bizarre and evidence-free accusations against me and others did more to decide the ArbCom against Alansohn than any evidence that others supplied against him.

And I realize that all the usual rules of Misplaced Pages behavior still apply to me. RedSpruce (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. As long as you can see my point, that's the main thing. Carcharoth (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Carcharoth. RedSpruce, you are continuing to engage in edit wars. At the G. David Schine article in particular, there is a clear consensus at the talkpage that the quotes are appropriate there. Please do not remove them again. --El on ka 06:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

New ANI report filed

FYI, this thread has been closed. --El on ka 16:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Friendly advice

Hi. I've seen several of your posts during and after the arb case. The case is over, yet you're still incivil and/or lack AGF at times, so you need to remain calm. This does not mean you can't discuss things, such as footnoted quotes, just be civil and more careful. If you don't cease this, someone is going to block you. Like here User_talk:Calton#Edit-warring you call Elonka's statemtents "bizzare"; they're not, they're standard. She didn't say he could not edit the page, but to join the talk discussions first. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I did not use the word "bizarre" with regard to Elonka, I said "rather odd", which is milder, and perfectly within any reasonable standards of civility. And I didn't say she said he could not edit the page, I said she "suggested" he could not. If you have any other specific points you'd like to give me "friendly advice" about, please feel free to do so (after checking your facts). RedSpruce (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

RedSpruce, hi, would it be okay if I set up an archive bot on your talkpage? Currently the page is very long, over 100K, and some people's browsers start having trouble with anything over 32K. I could set up a bot for you though that would automatically archive anything that was over 30 days old or so, and then you wouldn't have to worry about it? Thanks, El on ka 19:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the offer, but I think I'll stick to manually archiving for now -- I've just done an overdue batch. RedSpruce (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

McCarthyism

I am going to fight fire with fire re the current conflict. There is plenty of hard research that shows that the CPUSA was more a club for FBI agents to keep busy than a threat to the U.S. Those who knew McCarthy and Hoover have stated that both were aware that the Party was nothing to worry about. Hoover boasted that he himself controlled the Party. These facts are relevant to the article, as they show how much of McCarthyism was about political gain rather than fighting communism. Joegoodfriend (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That’s not really the case, as I indicated, but you are free to add anything to the article you wish, just so long as you cite it and its relevant. CENSEI (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Joegoodfriend -- I like the paragraph you added about the decline of the CPUSA, but I think it belongs more in an article about the CPUSA. The McCarthyism article already has some brief coverage of both the reality of the influence of the Soviet Union over the American party, and about the decline in relevancy of the CPUSA by the time McCarthyism got into full swing. RedSpruce (talk) 11:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be glad to back down. My concern is the article being rewritten in such a way that it makes the CPUSA of the 1950's look like al qaeda in the United States or something. And after all, for Hoover to talk about a threat that he knew didn't really exist is the essence of McCarthyism. Joegoodfriend (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

RfB Thank You spam

Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ann Beattie.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ann Beattie.jpg. 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) 05:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:EarthBlood.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:EarthBlood.jpg. 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).

Image:Porn-site.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Porn-site.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Incivility

Please read WP:NPA. Calling someone an "asshole" when it is you that is in the wrong is quite a bad idea. Black Kite 19:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. Therefor, by your own words, it was not a bad idea, because you are the one who's in the wrong.

Yes, you're vigilantly enforcing an actual rule. And guess what? You're still in the wrong, because it's a rule that doesn't need to be enforced. You aren't protecting Misplaced Pages from anything. The owner of the copyright to that image is not going to jump on WP and sue it for a billion dollars for the "crime" of helping to sell their product. They aren't going to give a flying fig, and if they did (by some inconceivable quirk), the worst that would happen is that their lawyers would send a cease-and-desist letter. Big whoop.

I simply don't understand the reasoning behind people like you who think that "protecting" WP from images that stray outside one or another of the Wikimedia Foundation's rules is some kind of holy mission. The rules are generally arbitrary, silly, convoluted, and out-and-out stupid. Many institutions are loaded with such rules, and these institutions continue to function only because the rules aren't fully enforced. Unfortunately, in Misplaced Pages, there are some misguided crusaders like yourself who see a rule as a holier thing than common sense. And so you sit behind your computer, working very hard, very diligently with great energy--working to damage and worsen Misplaced Pages.

What does that make you, if not the word I used? RedSpruce (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, read this - Wikimedia mission statement. Apart from that, just like in real life, if you think the rules are stupid, then it is up to you to try and change them. The place to do this would be WT:NFCC. You may also notice that I can answer you without throwing petty insults about. I seriously suggest you ought to try the same thing. Black Kite 19:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You have contested none of my points. The rule you're enforcing does not need to be enforced. You do not need to be applying yourself to enforcing it. You are working to worsen and damage Misplaced Pages for no reason. The day you find me doing something like that, I hope you will shower me with all the insults such actions deserve. RedSpruce (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Since you are proving yourself incapable of grasping the concepts upon which Misplaced Pages is based, and continue to throw insults about, I will end this conversation as I am obviously wasting my time. Black Kite 20:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait! I have one more insult for you: You refuse to respond to what I say and instead respond with your own "petty (and utterly irrelevant) insult." That makes you a coward. Cheers, and have fun with your legalized vandalism. RedSpruce (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Film Noir

Hi, RedSpruce! In Talk:Film Noir you said that Max Payne 2 doesn't deserve mention, and I agree. But what about writing a some sort of list like List of Videogames using film noir imagery or smth? --Nagasheus (talk) 12:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I like the idea. Lots and lots of media forms have used lots and lots of "film noir imagery". It's become a cliche' -- something that's used in music videos, games, TV and print advertisements, etc., etc., when people run out of "real" ideas. None of this seems to be particularly notable or something that would add anything worthwhile to an article about film noir. I don't think it would be interesting as a stand-alone list or article either, but of course that's just my opinion, and if you want to try creating such a stand-alone thing (rather than adding it to Film noir), that's up to you. RedSpruce (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI

This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Regardless of whether you are right or wrong, this and this are totally unacceptable. You can consider this a final warning. Kevin (talk) 06:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:McCarthyandCohn.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:McCarthyandCohn.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC) --Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

FPAS RFC

I've been bold and removed your signature from the RFC. Personally I have to say that I don't believe it was warrented as the purpose of an RFC is to listen to all viewpoints. Nevertheless, hopefully, it will remove a roadblock. If you feel my actions were unwarranted may I apologise in advance and feel free to revert or take further action if you fell it warrants it. Justin talk 08:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand. It seems to be standard procedure for commenters to "endorse" their own comments in an RFC. In what way does your action encourage "listen to all viewpoints" or "remove a roadblock."? I seem to be missing something here. If you can explain and make a case for your action, I'll happily agree to it. RedSpruce (talk) 10:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It was an attempt to remove a roadblock as I commented above; effectively FPAS no longer had a reason to refuse to participate in the RFC (though privately I'll admit his comments are only damaging his case). If you object feel free to remove it. Justin talk 10:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand. What roadblock? You need to be clearer, and in general, AFAIK there is almost never any excuse for changing another person's comments anywhere in WP discussion space. RedSpruce (talk) 10:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

As I saw it, if I did what FPAS was demanding there was no longer any reason for his none participation. If you're unhappy about it I can only apologise and you're right there is almost never any excuse for changing another persons comments. Basically I applied WP:IAR and WP:BOLD to remove an impasse. I'm happy to accept what I did may have been mistaken or misguided and if you feel a community sanction is appropriate, then feel free to take it to AN/I and I will accept any sanction with no bad feelings whatsoever. Justin talk 11:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course no "community sanction" is called for. I'm not one of those people (ahem) who feels a need to go crying to mommy every time someone steps on my toe. RedSpruce (talk) 13:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

OK so we're cool? Justin talk 14:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Stikeouts

Why was this done: Sumoeagle179 (talk) 10:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Beats the heck out of me. See above, and I'm about to go undo it. RedSpruce (talk)

See Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Future Perfect at Sunrise, near the end. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hey, I think you've done good work on the Joseph McCarthy article - you've got a knowledge of the sources. That article requires vigilance to keep it from turning into a lengthy apologia and paean to McCarthy as a misunderstood visionary, and I appreciate your work in that regard as well. I do think that it's likely that if things continue as they have, you'll be blocked from editing or otherwise significantly restricted. If you're finding Misplaced Pages particularly stressful at present, take a break. Force yourself not to read it for a week or two. Or pick a single article or handful of articles to focus on and ignore everything else. That can be really helpful. Anyhow, just a note to say I appreciate your work in a variety of areas, but my sense from recent AN/I's and other such things is that people are losing patience with some of the incivility, so it might be a good time to reevaluate what you want to accomplish here and how to best go about it. MastCell 16:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. You're right and I need to stop my slide into wiki-self-destruction. A break is a good idea, and a certain kind fellow has just seen fit to impose one on me. :-) RedSpruce (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is what it is. Make lemonade out of it, go do something else for a week, and when you come back consider focusing on one or two articles or issues that you care most about. I've found this can be helpful - if you try to keep a huge watchlist, and 10 separate wikicontroversies active simultaneously, it's a recipe for disaster. MastCell 17:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Quotes

RedSpruce, I see that you are back to edit-warring over quotes. As should be clear by the way that everyone else is reverting you, there is no consensus for what you are doing. Please stop. If you continue disrupting, your account access may be blocked again. --El on ka 14:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not edit warring anywhere, as you will notice if you look at the number (3) and the dates of the links you provided. And I've asked you before to stay off my talk page. If, in your odd little fantasies, you believe that I'm doing something that requires the attention of an admin, refer the case to someone else. As this post of yours clearly demonstrates, you do not have either the impartiality or the intelligence to be of any use in any situation that involves me. RedSpruce (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that it's been a couple days since the last revert. But engaging in a slow edit war is not going to be effective, either. Edit wars just aren't effective on Misplaced Pages. What do they accomplish? The quote is removed for a minute or an hour or a day, and then someone puts it right back in. So, I'm asking seriously, why do you just keep removing them anyway? --El on ka 17:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I was simply checking if the editors who support this irrational content were still watching the page. If and when they stop watching it, or when other editors start taking an interest in the article, then the article can be improved by removing the irrational content. Very simple and perfectly legal and not edit-warring. One of your several errors here is that you seem to think that there's some rational reasoning behind this content, and that therefor virtually any editor will oppose me in removing it. You wouldn't be making this error if you had investigated the history of RAN's edits and the wide opposition to his footnote-quote fixation.

If you'd care to apologize for your mistaken accusation and threat here, that would be very nice. Otherwise, please stay off this page. Thanks. RedSpruce (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh dont worry, we wont stop wacthing the page any time soon :) CENSEI (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Ann Beattie

I thought you'd like to know that I got someone on Flickr to release their photo of Ann Beattie, and I've added it to the article. Ed Fitzgerald 22:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Good work! And thanks for letting me know. RedSpruce (talk) 11:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Misplaced Pages's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tan | 39 19:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

RedSpruce (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Where is the disruptive editing, and how is it disruptive?

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Where is the disruptive editing, and  how is it disruptive? |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Where is the disruptive editing, and  how is it disruptive? |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Where is the disruptive editing, and how is it disruptive? |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Category:

Requests for unblock