Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by J.delanoy (talk | contribs) at 17:46, 5 November 2008 (→Your block of Parthian Scribe: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Misplaced Pages ads	file info – show another – #210

New articles are usually created and left in the Draft namespace (or a user's subpage) until they are ready for primetime.

{{Under construction}} and {{In use}} templates are intended for subsequent article tune-ups, and are posted at the article page top.
{{In use}} template is for articles actively undergoing a major edit for a short time to list them in Category:Pages actively undergoing a major edit.
{{Under construction}} is for articles actively undergoing construction to list them in Category:Pages actively undergoing construction.

As the article is developed, {{stub}} templates along with their switches (posted at article bottom) are used for articles still needing additional content.

TomKat

Hello As you have made comments of the discussion page of the TomKat article, it would be greatly appreciated if you would contribute to the debate on it's Articles for Deletion page. Thanks! http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TomKat

Jasenovac

We are having new discussion about "Jasenovac Holocaust Extermination camp". Because of your comments in last discussion (2007) with which we have created consensus you are called to new discussion. All editors from last RFC are called to discussion on Template talk:The Holocaust. --Rjecina (talk) 02:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Oneness

Since you closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Oneness (mathematics) as a no consensus merge (the consensus was clearly against keeping as a separate article) can I ask what content you think should be merged, and what justification there is for adding that content to Collatz problem and keeping the redirect? It's easy to say merge but in this case it's not at all obvious how to implement your decision. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello David. There was no consensus for deletion, most comments leaning toward a merge. You can simply redirect the article to

There were four comments for deletion (counting the nominator) and two for a merge. So I don't understand your "most comments" issue. However, this is not a vote. The issue is that there is no reliable source for "oneness" to mean what it is claimed to mean here. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

David: There were three comments for delete and two for merge; that means no consensus to delete. What would be the problem for redirecting Oneness (mathematics) to

The problem is that, e.g., if one searches MathSciNet for the word "oneness", none of the 25 hits have anything to do with the Collatz problem. It is not a word that is used with that meaning in mathematics, except for in the one web page pointed to by the current oneness article. Redirecting it that way would mislead Misplaced Pages readers into thinking that this is a standard mathematical term when it's actually a neologism. As several of the delete comments pointed out and none of the merge comments refuted. It's not the conceptual content that's at issue (the function counting the number of steps to reach 1 in the Collatz problem defines a sequence that's listed in OEIS, and that might perhaps be worth mentioning in the Collatz article), the problem is the specific "oneness" name. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If this is the case, please re-list for AfD. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Rick Ross (consultant)

I've had a go at tidying up the RR BLP, eliminating some of the to and fro between critics and supporters and improving the sourcing. Pls review, if you have time. There is now actually less criticism than before; let me know if you feel I have gone too far in that. But I thought given that it is a BLP, better tread softly. Cheers, Jayen466 17:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

McCain and Pinochet

You missed an early section in talk, Talk:John McCain#Meeting Pinochet. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

"Wild Side Story" References No Good?

Are the extensive references given for my articles Wild Side Story and Jacob Truedson Demitz no good? Please explain to my talk! Thanx! EmilEikS (talk) 22:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Emil, I have commented at Talk:Wild Side Story. Let's continued the discussion there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Biased deletions

Just wondering if you could look at this Cheers 60.229.34.127 (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Be patient and let editors comment on the AFD. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

Palin attended the Wasilla Assembly of God for 32 years? Since she was six years old? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Her family joined that Church when she was a child.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Protection of John McCain

Hi Jossi - I completely agree. The length of the protection was because the article was already semi-protected and move protected until December 1, and if I set a different expiry date I would cause those other two protections to expire then as well. As I noted in my protection summary, I fully intend to unprotect the article (or would endorse another uninvolved admin doing so) much sooner than December - I was thinking on the order of a couple of days. I hope that clarifies things. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will ping you in a couple of days to remind you :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Left to my own devices I'd probably agree with you (if you check the talk page, you'll notice that I actually announced earlier today that I was about to unprotect it), but there seems to be a pseudo-consensus to fully protect McCain, Obama, Biden, and Palin until after election day, so I'm divesting myself of any involvement until that gets figured out on ANI (it may already have been figured out - I haven't been paying attention). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

NOR

I just made three proposals at WP:NOR - feel free to comment, Slrubenstein | Talk 01:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

-

Barack Obama's article

Hi. I agree with your decision to downgrade the protection level on this page. It's not proper to allow only administrators to edit a page like that. That should really be in cases of extreme vandalism, or for certain non-project space articles, IMHO. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the protection was not downgraded, just the tag - non admins, even experienced editors, are still not allowed to edit these articles and it's wrong. As I said on AN/I, I don't think removing the tag accomplishes what you want, Jossi - if we're in violation of principle we ought to be up front about it. Or stop violating the principle. Tvoz/talk 07:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

glitch?

This was strange. It doesn't matter (he'll yell at you, not me!) but I just wondered what happened. J.delanoy_adds 04:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL! how that happened? I got no edit conflict.... Self-reverted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. That's not the first time that's happened. I think I did something similar yesterday. Hmmm.... J.delanoy_adds 04:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

hm? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry.... something must be wrong, see above. Please restore your comments... probably a glitch. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hall protection

Jossi, might you leave a note at Thetoxicdump's talk page to explain the protection to him? Obviously I could, but I think it'd be better for you to do so. He's fairly new and seems eager to add a lot to that article, he's just not conforming to standards of style and content that well which is where this reverting derives from. I've tried to engage him in conversation about it at his talk page, but as far as I can tell, his only communication on Misplaced Pages, so far, has been one image talk comment where he tried to justify the logo's existence. If you could just leave him a note explaining what the protection means, and what you're suggesting, I'd appreciate it. Metros (talk) 04:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Michelle Obama

Why is this article protected? You might want to check tu uso de las herramientas. Ya te llevas o que?Die4Dixie (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected due to vandalism of anon users. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Gracias por haber tenido la bondad de informarnos. Prosiga, caballero--Die4Dixie (talk) 06:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Your block of Parthian Scribe

Jossi, why the heck did you block Parthian Scribe? And for "vandalism"? The worst that I see there is an abuse of rollback, nothing blockable. J.delanoy_adds 17:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)