Misplaced Pages

It's still not your decision to make. Had I previously participated in the discussion on talk page A, I would not have wanted to have my comments crossed out there and copied over to talk page B and you cannot expect other editors to not have similar reservations. - Cyrus XIII 17:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If you'd like to resolve this, you may...

1. ...stop lecturing me on my moral responsibilities.
2. ...take a look at Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines (which should have been the obvious address), for the basic idea, that drastic changes to other people's talk page posts are off limits, no matter how good the intentions.
3. ...post a note similar to mine on the top of the old discussion and - should you find it to be imperative - another one at the beginning of the new discussion.

Lastly a word of advise: Don't push too hard trying to prove to everyone that this controversy page needs to exist. It might annoy people or have them suspect bias towards the subject on your part. Neither would strengthen your position, obviously. - Cyrus XIII 17:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hold on, so the existence of an article you created (and on which you are by far the most active contributor) proves the necessity of its existence? Well, good luck with convincing anyone with that kind of logic. - Cyrus XIII 17:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sicko controversies

Please do not remove information that has precise logical relevance to the Controversies over the film Sicko page. Specifically, film director Michael Moore's trip to Cuba, the treasury department probe therefrom, and Moore's relaxed position on the copying and sharing of his film (i.e. Sicko). Thankyou. smb 00:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The piracy and treasury probe are not essentially controversies but have to do with the history of the film. I don't see those matters being treated as a controversy -- a public argument -- but rather as simple episodes in the history, the way they are written. If there were some argument back and forth I'd feel differently. Feel free to rewrite those sections and actually describe a controversy rather than events. And don't put them at the top of the article. It amounts to vandalism and looks like a bad-faith edit. Noroton 00:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Your definition of (essential) "controversy" is completely alien to me (and the Oxford English dictionary). This information is pertinent to the controversy page. Michael Moore's trip to Havana and the government investigation that resulted is controversial enough. So, too, Moore's relaxed attitude toward spreading the movie for free (on the provision no individual profits from his work). Underdeveloped or not, both sections belong in the Controversies over the film Sicko article. Improvement is ongoing. Nor can you disqualify them because they "have to do with the history of the film". Please take a few moments to examine and consider the Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy page. Everything that qualifies as controversial -- i.e. contentious; speech or act -- is included on that page. You expressed an intention, exactly one week ago, to "rewrite the section and put it back in so that this Misplaced Pages article about a Michael Moore movie is like every other Misplaced Pages article about Michael Moore movie...". (03:47, 22 June 2007) You got your way (and then some), so what grounds have you now for objecting? Unless you can provide a clear and cohesive argument, both sections will inevitably be resorted. Thankyou. smb 02:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

wp:own on Sicko Controversies

Please let other editors make changes to the sicko controversy page that you created. Thank you. Turtlescrubber 19:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

3RR on Sicko Controversies

Just to let you know you are in violation. Anyway, now you are asking for consensus after absolutely ignoring the thoughts of everyone else on that page the entire time. Yes, I will work with you on consensus but you cant keep reverting the work of every other editor on the page that you don't agree with. I would say that our collective patience is pretty much exhausted. Just please try to be more reasonable and open to change in the future. I posted wp:own not as an insult but because I honestly think you need to check it out. Turtlescrubber 19:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, you are way in violation of the 3rr.Turtlescrubber 19:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I am going to file a report unless you want to self-revert all your edits of the last hour. Turtlescrubber 20:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

All of your edits. Not one. All. Just forget it. Turtlescrubber 20:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Please adhere to WP:BRD procedures instead of edit-warring on this article and on Sicko. Thank you. THF 23:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:MULTI

Neat guideline! I've never noticed that one before. Wanted to drop you a quick note, though in response to this:

While that is true, in the interest of being a bureaucratic fuck, I have to point out that there is such a thing as taking it too far. For example, much of the discussion of Ross Perot in a page on the 1992 Presidential election might have been applicable to his run in 1996, but it would NOT have been correct to bulk-move Talk page content. In particular, I interpret WP:MULTI to advocate consolidation of single issues onto one playing field—in the example I gave, the question of whether to include his given first name, Henry, might be appropriate to continue on a single page, rather than letting it forest fire its way onto Ross Perot, two different years' election pages, Reform Party, and dozens of other places whether he might be mentioned in passing. But bulk-moving all Talk page content concerning him from the 1992 page to the 1996 page would have been wildly inappropriate.

At any rate, I feel your change of that single section was appropriate. But, damn, that little blurb is all-encompassing and needs to be changed before it's cited as a rationale for destroying Talk page histories all over the 'pedia via mass-moves. Jouster  (whisper) 22:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

WT:NOT

I responded on WT:NOT; the situation is very complicated, but hopefully the summary and the suggestions are clear. For books, most of the real-world information (reception, analysis, etc) centers on the plot, so it can be hard to justify a subarticle for a plot when that's the essense of a novel (because subarticles on plot need real-world information). However, as I said on WP:NOT, if you can find enough real-world info to complement the lengthy plot summary, then the plot subarticle might be accepted. For real-world information, you should focus on finding plot analysis, authors' influences, and critical response. You can summarize these in the main article and go into more depth in the plot subarticle. Or, if there isn't enough real-world information to complement the plot summary, then a merge is the best option. I'm sorry if this is confusing; it's a complicated concept to explain. — Deckiller 22:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Your !vote on school notability was ignored

Your !vote in favor of keeping the article Father Michael Goetz Secondary School at this AfD was ignored by a closing administrator who decided that your vote did not properly explain why the school was notable. While many people think that all schools are notable, we need to make specific claims that the specific school (or anything else you're !voting to keep) is notable. I strongly encourage you to review the requirements of Misplaced Pages:notability and to consider modifying the justification of your decision to keep an article in any future AfD, school or otherwise. If based on your review of Misplaced Pages policy and a particular article you feel that the school is indeed notable, a variation of the text "Keep because notability is demonstrated by citation to multiple reliable sources that discuss the subject significantly", (as suggested here), will clearly state why you feel that the article meets Misplaced Pages's notability requirements. If you do not properly support your vote, you take the risk that your participation will be ignored if the closing administrator so chooses, as has already happened to your vote at this AfD. If you feel that your !vote should not have been ignored, you may want to visit the deletion review to express your thoughts on the subject. Alansohn 17:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

My Brain Hurts

Thanks for the challenging question at my RfA. I tried my best to answer it. Now I need aspirin. (I'm joking of course — it was a fair and good question. Well, half joking — my brain really does hurt!) See you around! -- But|seriously|folks  06:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Father Goetz and School Deletion

Hi Alansohn,

Thank you for alerting me to the deletion review. I was really shocked at the way the discussion was closed. I've redone the Goetz school article on my user pages and made some other comments at the bottom of the deletion-review discussion. I'm asking editors to comment on the changes I've made because they represent a new development, one I think we can form a pretty wide consensus around. I think the article as I've redone it meets the objections of many editors, and it certainly meets WP:V. Please take a look, but I think this deletion review will close today or early tomorrow, so please don't delay, act now and take advantage of this limited-time offer! Noroton 17:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• I can't quite say that the original Father Goetz article as it existed when the AfD was started was one of Misplaced Pages's best, but the manner in which consensus was disregarded in an exclusively one-sided manner is what disturbs me most, and should offend any other Misplaced Pages editor. The responses that you, I and other editors have posted to the DRV make it clear that this article was deleted improperly. In an astoundingly uncivil effort at retaliation (see here), User:Husond disclosed that he has been involved in school AfDs in the past, has a rather clear bias on the issue, and has a longstanding grudge with my "obsessively inclusionist" efforts to improve school articles to satisfy notability requirements and pass the AfD process. It was at best improper to be involved with a subject where he has a clear conflict of interest, let alone to violate consensus and Misplaced Pages policy so flagrantly. I will support your efforts to improve the article and to use your version as a compromise. Remember that there is no obstacle to recreation of an improved article that better meets standards, even if the DRV fails. As I have already stated, we need to educate those participating in these school AfDs that if they fail to state that the article meets Misplaced Pages standards under the Misplaced Pages:Notability policy (which they should review and be very familiar with), that they risk having their !votes disregarded as has already happened. The other necessary effort is to keep on improving these articles. We are part of a small group of people willing to put in the time and effort to research these schools and add properly sourced material to establish notability. This is often a remarkably simple effort for almost all high schools, as we have both shown with many, many articles. Let's keep up, and expand, the effort and ensure that we can build a clear majority consensus on school notability. Alansohn 17:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Father Michael Goetz Secondary School

I am very swamped at work right now, so I'll make a few quick observations:

1. Your revision of the article is excellent. Even if the AfD is not overturned on Deletion Review, policy does not prohibit adding a new article on the same subject if the new article addresses the objections that caused the deletion of the original article. On that basis, I think you are perfectly free to create a new article with the one you have written.
2. I agree that WP:V overrides consensus but I think User:Butseriouslyfolks's reading of WP:V is more expansive than required. The policy is somewhat internally inconsistent but the following sentence from the policy summarizes what I believe is historically the position that most take (the bold text is bolded in the policy as well): Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. Generally, if a non-controversial article about an otherwise notable subject, but lacking sources, is put on AfD, rarely do editors even argue WP:V if it is relatively clear that with a few minutes research someone could add sources. Although the policy talks about the burden of proof being on the person adding the material, the policy has always talked about an article being "verifiable", not "verified". I applaud the continuing trend to cite sources but when I started on Misplaced Pages it was rare that an article contained any citations and sources, if any, were often appended like a bibliographical entry at the end of the article. Two years ago, I would routinely research and create articles that were 100% verifiable but contained no sources. See Ladd Arboretum and Edwin Eisendrath as two examples. Yet, I would be surprised if either one would lose an AfD as failing WP:V. If we use the logic that an article automatically fails WP:N (via WP:V) simply because it lacks sources, we would end up deleting thousands of well-written articles on notable and verifiable subjects that merely need someone to take the time to provide sources. What a waste that would be. I don't believe most people read the policy that way, fortunately.

I view consensus as one of the most central facets of Misplaced Pages and when it comes to using policy to overrule consensus, I clearly fall in the strict constructionist category. -- DS1953 17:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I find that the WP:V reading is particularly harsh for high schools outside the United States and especially those in non-English speaking countries. Sources are often much more difficult for an editor to locate if the media coverage is principally in Chinese, Japanese, Spanish, etc... -- DS1953 18:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Re. Please take another look at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 5

Hello Noroton. Please don't be angry at my actions at the Goetz school closing, anger is the most counterproductive human tool. This said, I naturally did not close that AfD out of anger. But I found that the "all schools are inherently notable" argument is being increasingly present in those discussions and I thought that it could be productive to send a signal to users pasting it around that they should provide better reasoning based on policies and guidelines, and that the "all schools are inherently notable" won't guarantee that the school articles are going to be kept.
I have just noticed your comment today about me not acting in good faith. I would like to ask you to please be more careful when making such accusations. E.g. you stated that "it certainly would have been more prudent for him to avoid closing discussions involving Alansohn after delivering such a personal criticism of Alansohn, and certainly to close it in such an extraordinary way" without verifying that my comment on Alansohn's user conduct RFC was made after I closed the AFD and not the other way around. I am very familiar with the five pillars, particularly the fourth. Please consider using a less abrasive language towards me. Your anger is far too evident in your comments at the DRV and there's really no justification for it. We should be here to calmly discuss any differences, not to hurl rocks at those differences. Please WP:AGF. Thank you for wishing me a good vacation. :-) Regards, Húsönd 18:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if you are welcome to create an article about this school as long as notability is asserted and sourced. If you do, you can naturally disregard the result of the DRV because the discussion there refers to the article as it was when the AFD nomination took place. A new and improved article does not equal to recreation. Regards, Húsönd 18:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I highly doubt that your stern (which I call "abrasive") tone will result in a pleasant and productive discussion. I concede that my closure of this AFD was indeed on the borderline of a WP:POINT violation, but I do not agree that it's such a blatant and worrisome trespass. Way too much drama, if you allow me to be frank. I've already explained my reasons, you should let it go now. Again, please do not ignore my requests to assume good faith. Regards, Húsönd 18:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

On the same subject, I just weighed in on the DR page with a third way forward. Please note my clarification just above TerriersFan's proposed way forward. Thanks for improving the article, which is the most important aspect of this whole debate. -- But|seriously|folks  18:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That's ok. I'm having trouble keeping my head around all of it myself. I agree that WP:N does not trump consensus. I agree that if an article is sourced, "article shows subject is notable" !votes are perfectly valid and, if they constitute consensus, they prevail. This is so regardless of the quality or nature of the sources. If, however, there are no sources whatsoever, WP:N cannot be satisfied, no matter how many editors believe it is, because of the requirements of WP:V. Therefore, such a consensus could be overridden by WP:V. Do you understand my reasoning? If so, does it make any sense? -- But|seriously|folks  19:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You just figured out how to say it succintly: "Consensus can't save no-source articles." I think that's the heart of what I was trying to say.-- But|seriously|folks  20:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Aha! Now I see what you both are now saying, but understanding it doesn't mean it is right. Taken to its logical conclusion, no discussion on AfD can ever save a "no-source" article because you read WP:V as meaning no article can be verifiable if it has no sources. But if that is the case, why do we ever need AfD for an unsourced article? Why don't the CSD instructions, which are very specific, say "Delete unsourced articles on sight?" -- DS1953 20:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose as a practical matter the prod and AfD processes give others an opportunity to add sources without causing any harm in the interim. An unsourced article is certainly less harmful than a copyvio or random nonsense. I'm not sure whether that was done intentional or we're just finding out about a gap in the policies. If you search WP with google for "without sources" and "deleted" (or "without sources" and "do not"), you'll find prior discussions about the same issues. -- But|seriously|folks  01:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, FYI, DS1953 spent a lot of time researching this policy issue and found a lot of prior discussion, including Misplaced Pages:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles and Misplaced Pages:Proposed deletion process for unsourced articles. The bottom line is that my interpretation of WP:V does not currently have consensus, so we should not use it. More discussion at my and DS1953's talk pages. Take care! -- But|seriously|folks  05:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Goetz

It's already moot, the DRV has been closed but there seems to be a new article. >Radiant< 08:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ridgefield or not...

Hi. Thanks for your detailed response over there. I suppose I should let it sit and see if others respond. Meanwhile, though we don't agree so much on the reasoning (pts 1-5), it does sound like we/you might craft a compromise in line with the sixth point. Perhaps you could propose a revision of this: "Robert Fitzgerald, the {author/translator}, and his wife Sally called Ridgefield home, though legally their property is located in neighboring Redding." Thanks. HG | Talk 02:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

More on the talk page now, fyi. I'm trying not to get drawn into the process distraction, just on the content. HG | Talk 06:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: History of Norwalk Edit

Regarding the diff you sent me claiming I removed a footnote from the section of a colonial travel's account of a night in town...I can't figure out what you're talking about...in the diff you sent me, the footnote is still there, I removed the sentence: "A loud group of men "came rumbling upstairs to go to bed in the next room", tipsy or drunk, he supposed. The next morning he traveled further west" because I believe that a loud group of drunk men coming up the stairs is non-notable in Norwalk's history. TJ0513 01:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the sentence I removed...I don't think it really added anything. The other stuff was good because it was descriptive about the town itself, for instance that there were native americans around or that slaves were not in use, etc. The whole thing is a little more narrative than otherwise might appear in an encyclopedia, but I think for now it's ok, and it gives an "image" of the town. I thought the part about drunk men coming up the stairs was superfluous, and so I removed it. If you have another opinion let me know. Cheers! TJ0513 03:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Noroton. Thank you so much for offering to help. Literally everything I've been putting up has been coming from a book: "Being an Historical Account of That Connecticut Town" by Deborah Ray and Gloria Stewart. I don't have page number citations, unfortunately, this is just from notes I've taken. Perhaps one big citation at the end? I'd probably be OK with however you'd think it best to handle it. But I agree, we should cite sources (and even provide venue for further reading). By the way, I've taken notes from another book (the name escapes me) which in particular focuses on colonial times (the 1600/1700s) in Connecticut (including sections specific to Norwalk) and I haven't visited them recently but maybe I'll dig through them again this weekend and see if I can beef up the colonial section, which is something I've always meant to be do... TJ0513 03:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Noroton...maybe we should take a step back and talk about the overall citation structure. I've seen other articles with a bibliography section at the end...given that much of what I'm adding is from a single source, perhaps this format would be a more concise way to handle the citations rather than many many footnotes mostly all saying the same thing, anyway (or with a hundred "ibid"s)... Thoughts? TJ0513 13:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Just got your message

Oh man, I just got your message and I'm sorry but I'm not going to be able to get through all of CT. I've just managed to take care of Fairfield Co. I'll try to get to the rest of it tomorrow. No more content disputes on CT articles!! BSF, thanks for the kind note and I'll see you around the school debates! -- But|seriously|folks  02:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I picked Fairfield out at random. How weird is that? Good luck! -- But|seriously|folks  03:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please be cooperative

Noroton, please stop this. The 19:26 and 19:28 edits are obviously not reverts. There was a discussion and my good faith interpretation is there there is a very clear consensus. No one is trying to take the content away, just move it to where the involved editors believe it's most appropriate. Please try to cooperate with the community. Threatening comments on talk pages are completely unwelcome. Cmprince 03:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now you really have violated 3RR. From the policy, you may want to pay attention to this excerpt:

If you seem to be the only person who feels that the article should be the way that you have made it, perhaps it is better the way everyone else thinks it should be.

I obviously don't intend to revert this, but I hope you'll change it back yourself. I don't plan to report this violation, but if someone else does revert and you decide to re-revert, I don't think there will be much other choice since you don't seem interested in working with the community. Cmprince 04:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Fairfield County, Connecticut

Noroton,

I've agreed with you in the past, you know that. But I think your strength is better saved for other fights than this one, which is not going to be supported by anyone living in Fairfield, anyone wanting to do business in Fairfield, anyone promoting Fairfield, and anyone who randomly looks up a county in Connecticut and discovers that the entirety of its history consists of its Klan presence.

Your work, which is great, will still be visible in the page history. As more history gets added, a section of that size may eventually become appropriate. As it stands now, the length of that section is WP:UNDUE. Note that WP:UNDUE gives you specific discretion to create a "Klan in Fairfield County" page, and that it reinforces what I said earlier—if the history section expands, the expanded Klan section can be reinserted alongside it.

Just a note from an old friend; do with it what you will.

Jouster  (whisper) 15:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Reboot

Hello again, Noroton. I don't think we got off on the right foot last night, so let's try this again from the beginning... I usually don't like it when people refer to "consensus" without getting agreement on the page that such exists, but that's exactly what I did last night. I do think there is consensus, but it's not very fair to declare it and make immediate changes, and so for that I apologize. I see that you feel strongly about this, so I expect that we're both working to the same goal of making a great article. The article content is still being debated, but it's been in its current state for a while, so leaving it a little while longer won't hurt anyone while we talk about it on the talk page. I hope at the same time, though, you'll be willing to listen to the concerns of the other editors and be willing to accept some level of changes to the article content. So if you don't mind, let's forget yesterday and move forward, and hopefully we can come up with something everyone will dislike just a little bit less... Cmprince 15:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

got there before you got to me

(Les Mis)DGG (talk) 04:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables

More interesting issues: Should WP:NOT override consensus? Are WP:IAR !votes as valid as !votes based on other policies? Is WP:ILIKEIT a subset of WP:IAR and therefore an equally valid position? In any event, I don't see a consensus to delete, so I said overturn. And no, I didn't get through the whole essay. I now have images to delete! Later. -- But|seriously|folks  05:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: DRV of Plot of Les Mis

Noroton, I understand that this is a very important issue to you. It's very important to me, too - Les Mis was one of the first "great" novels I ever read, and my first theatrical performance. It holds an extremely near and dear place to my heart. I must say, however, your attitude is becoming uncivil. It is your right to passionately argue about these kinds of things, but the way that you seem to be shouting at editors who disagree with you and biting back against every word they say does not seem to be in good faith. My advice would be to take a break and relax, edit something else, and come back to this discussion later - in a couple of days, as a matter of fact. I have found myself becoming riled up by the discussion as well and I think I'm going to try the same thing. Thanks for doing your best, even if I disagree with you, to make Misplaced Pages as good as it can be. bwowen 22:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

So glad I could help. Again, thank you for being passionate about making Misplaced Pages a better place. Hopefully we'll be able to work together and not be on opposite ends of an arguments in the future. =] bwowen 03:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Les Mis

I'm amazed at the sheer length of that DRV debate. Do you think we could perhaps propose a reasonable compromise? >Radiant< 08:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Blue Ribbon schools

I have created this category and have started to populate it. Perhaps you would add it to suitable articles as you come across them, please? TerriersFan 09:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

My apologies(Fairfield County, CT category)

I had no idea there was an abundance of articles that had the Fairfield County, Connecticut category attached to them. I agree that it seems kind of redundant to have them, when you've got Transportation in Fairfield County, Connecticut one already. Then again, I simply scanned them from similar pages, and thought they'd be appropriate. ---- DanTD 22:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are some Shore Line East stations that are missing some articles. Maybe I just filled in the last of the New Haven Line articles. Feel free to expand any of them if you have any info. ---- DanTD 22:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I thohght about one for Glenbrook Station. I just couldn't decide which image I wanted to use. ---- DanTD 23:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. I thought about adding the postcard to the gallery, but it went so good with the history of the station, I just moved it over to the other side of that paragraph. ---- DanTD 14:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate Image:IMG 0120.JPG

My Editor Review

Hello! As I have run into you on Misplaced Pages, I was wondering if you would be willing to comment in my editor review. I know you are probably busy with other contributions to the project, but I would greatly appreciate any comments or criticism that you have that could make me a better editor! Thanks very much for your time and consideration, bwowen talk•contribs•review me please! 13:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Just following up on my previous comment, still hoping you would have time to review me. It has been nearly a week now since I put up my review, and I still have not gotten much feedback. I would really like to know how I'm doing from many points of view, to help figure out the quality of my work so far and how to improve it in the future. I'm sure you are busy, but if you could just drop me a note letting me know whether or not you'll be able to do it, that would be terrific. Thank you so much for your time. Best regards, bwowen talk•contribs•review me please! 19:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response. Best of luck with what you're working on. bwowen talk•contribs•review me please! 19:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Transportation in Suffolk County New York

How were you able to make a whole category for Transportation in Suffolk County, New York? I just tried that with Nassau County, New York and I got red links. ---- DanTD 03:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Great Neck Peninsula

Why make a little cats for little parts of the North Shore? And why subcat one of them into the South Shore Category:Town of Hempstead, New York? Jim.henderson 01:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

All right; I'll put this discussion on the talk page for Category:Nassau County, New York because that's what it's about and other editors can see it there. Jim.henderson 02:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

First schools...

We seem to be finding more in common. What's you're connection to Long Island? You seem to have a greater connection to Connecticut. Looks like it's a small wikiworld out there. Feel free to email me if you don't want to post personal info. All the best! Alansohn 02:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Trinity High School (Washington, Pennsylvania)

Regarding your edit to AFD debate here at this diff. And a separate AFD here Please check up on Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Please consider refactoring your comment. Regards, Navou 12:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

personal attacks, by definition, have to be personal. My comments weren't. Noroton 12:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. I understand your objection is to an idea rather than a person. However, it will become personal to the closing admin "although some jerk closing administrator" when the AFD is closed. I appears that you are attacking the person closing the AFD, rather than the AFD closure itself. It is, infact, a personal attack. Please consider refactoring you comment. You can reply here, I am watching your page. Regards, Navou 12:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the time stamps on the edits and the fact that everyone knows editors' comments are made before closing admins act will prevent any confusion. The idea that administrators can be jerks is not a personal attack. I'll think about your suggestion, though. Noroton 12:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

On further consideration, I did refactor it. Noroton 13:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that you are making something out of nothing. Nothing has happened yet. You're stirring the pot for reasons unknown. Individual AfDs are no place to discuss other AfD decisions, whether you agreed with them or not. Leebo /C 13:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion philosophies come into play in deletion discussions. That's what happened here. Noroton 13:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Noroton. You are stirring the pot for no reason. Leebo /C 13:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Who the hell are you to tell me what my reasons are and whether they are good enough? Noroton 13:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I would expect that Wikipedians in general, not just myself, would recognize unnecessarily combative threads and ask that you refrain from bringing such discussions in to other forums. Also, I think you are well aware that it is not your comments themselves I find inappropriate; what is inappropriate is bringing them into this context, a discussion where there was no indication that such a problem would occur, no no mention of other such controversial deletions were relevant. Leebo /C 13:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to wait for the closing admin to act before commenting on something that's relevant to the topic, which my comments are. In fact, if I wait, I lose some of the effect I want my totally relevant comments to have. Your being startled doesn't make my comments out of place. Noroton 13:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not startling; The first time I interacted with you, you jumped down my thoat for helping you. In any case, I'm certain you could have made the same point without being combative. Leebo /C 13:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I jumped down your throat not the first time you interacted with me, but after you told me I had no reasons for making my comment. It's condescending to characterize that kind of comment as "helping". Please review. Noroton 13:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to this, not my comments here. Sorry for being unclear. Leebo /C 13:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Education in Orange County, New York

Thank you for doing that ... as the editor (and OCNY resident) most responsible for stuffing that category to begin with, I was thinking about a proposal for splitting it up (the WP:NRHP articles I've created already have led me to split off a separate category for Goshen, and Cornwall is coming next). You created that category exactly as I had pictured it. I'm going to put a master subcategorization scheme on the main category talk page soon ... I'll let you know if you're interested in commenting. Daniel Case 15:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

At the same time, however, I removed Rondout Creek from Category:Kingston, New York. If we add categories for every community along a road or creek, we'll have a huge box. A better idea would be to create a Rondout Creek category and add the Kingston article to it.

Yes, the Rondout is important to Kingston and its history. But it doesn't just belong to Kingston. Daniel Case 15:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Your thoughts on how to organize county subcats in individual articles mirror mine: local cat plus county topic cat. Indeed, when I create the Cornwall cat I'll drop NYMA into that because it's very much a big deal in Cornwall, but not countywide, I would say.

I have always found that "Landmarks ..." cat a little problematic. It was created long before WP:NRHP, and since the appropriate subcat now exists underneath it, I really wonder if it's superfluous. Once you've recognized the federal government's scheme for recognizing historic importance, what's left that's a landmark but not an RHP? Yes, there are some other landmark recognition schemes but which of them are notable? I think New York City's landmarks deserve their own articles whether they're on the National Register or not, but do, say, Ulster County's?

I put RHPs into the "Landmarks" cat if they don't fit any of the other "Buildings and structures" subtypes (and yes, there will be a "Buildings and structures in Orange County, New York" subcat, maybe even a "Bridges in Orange County, New York" subcat). But it's an increasingly subjective category. Maybe I should be taking it to CFD soon. "Visitor attractions", though, is less nebulous. Daniel Case 16:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I posted my scheme to the category talk page. Take a look.

Implicit in it, I suspect, is some criticism of yours for Fairfield County. There's an awful lot of top-level subcats ... I would put all the local ones in something like "Communities in Fairfield County, Connecticut". That'll save you 15 categories off the top page.

"Transportation" is another category that could stand some pruning. For the same reason as with Rondout Creek and Kingston, I didn't put New York State Thruway in the Orange County cat (nor is it any of the other New York counties). Yet you've got Connecticut Turnpike and Interstate 84 (east) (to name an interstate shared by Orange and Fairfield counties) in Fairfield County. If we put the latter in all the appropriate county categories, we'd have ten catgories in the box at the bottom of the page just for counties alone (four in PA, three apiece in NY and CT). Yes, they may be important travel routes within the county. But they're about a lot more than just that one county. I include roads in a county only if they're pretty much exclusive to that county (see also New York State Route 246, where all the road save its northernmost 300 feet is in Wyoming County, New York, so it took the county cat). All the Orange County roads in the cat at present are exclusive to the county.

Personally, I think it would not be a bad idea to subcategorize some large road categories by region ... Category:New York state highways, for instance, could be broken down by regions, and I-84 could probably be put in something like "Interstate highways of the Northeast". But that's better addressed right now over at WT:USRD. For now, if you want to use the category system to express the relationship between a place and a road passing through it, better to put it the article about the place in the road cat (Or, actually, create a "Communities along ..." subcat, which I've suggested elsewhere).

I also think you might do well to put "Businesses based in ..." and "Visitor attractions in ..." as subcats to an "Economy of ..." category. You can also put, in that cat, popular shopping destinations like Danbury Fair. It might even support a titular article, Economy of Fairfield County, Connecticut, if you ever research and write that (Hey, if you did one on the Economy of Stamford, you can do one for the county!)

You should also take those "History of TOWN" articles and put them in a "History of Fairfield County, Connecticut" where you could also put a master article.

And finally, you have enough media articles to support a "Media in ..." category.

Just my ideas (basically, I think county cats should, when there are enough articles, mirror the organization of state cats. WP:COUNTY is, as far as I can tell, silent on that subject. But I think it's a good principle. Daniel Case 20:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see we're pretty much in agreement. To address the points you bring up:

• You're right, it hadn't hit me that there's a difference between small states and big in that department. For the record, New York actually has 62 counties, but that's not really the point. Yes, in Connecticut it would make sense. The ideal solution there is to follow the example of U.S. Route articles and eventually have something like "Interstate 84 in Connecticut", where I could see four county cats as not being out of hand (Danbury is the fourth largest city in the county, or the state? The latter makes more sense to me). I believe you already have U.S. Route 6 in Connecticut under Fairfield as well.

  Yes, regions are going to be a bit more subjective. Some, like "Long Island" will be self-limiting and clearly defined; others, like whether you have a separate Hudson Valley and Catskill cat, are not (to a significant extent, they overlap). "Western New York" and "Central New York" are pretty clearly defined, however. You're lucky in CT ... it always seems to me when I've been there that there's just eastern and western Connecticut, with the river smack in between.

  The school district in question is Pine Bush, just west of where I live, and yes it would be a pain to categorize by county. It's based in Orange County but includes the whole Walker Valley area of the Town of Shawangunk and lots of the Town of Mamakating in Sullivan County as well. Oh well, at least you don't have to be the people in the district trying to calculate the tax receipts.

• I wasn't suggesting putting visitor attractions in under businesses but in economy. Visitor attractions bring in cash, and I would say that even if I didn't live in the county that's home to Woodbury Common Premium Outlets. They provide jobs for residents. Businesses are things like ... well, that long list you have in the Stamford article (You didn't include Long-Term Capital Management, I noticed ;-)). They are perhaps investor attractions, but usually not visitor attractions. But they do have economic importance to the nearby region. I see your point about limiting the clickage, but it's my belief that something that could go in an obvious high cat should. It's convenient, I admit, to see "Protected areas in ..." as a second-level cat in some states, but IMO it belongs under "Geography of ...", as it is in New York (and should be in CT, which right now has a cat only for state forests).

Whatever. Obviously you'll do Fairfield your way, and I'll do Orange mine, and hopefully that won't confuse too many readers. Until WP:COUNTY comes up with a standardized way to do it. Then everyone will get mad :-). Daniel Case 05:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I should add (it's getting late) that of course I intend for those cats to have at least more than 10 articles apiece. I wouldn't dream of creating a cat that could never get that big. Daniel Case 05:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:PostcardSeymourCTRimmonRockCA1915.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:PostcardSeymourCTRimmonRockCA1915.jpg. Misplaced Pages gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Misplaced Pages, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 01:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

re:Deletion Review

Looks like the outcome to redirect was exactly what I recommended. I'm glad it was overturned and made into a redirect. — Deckiller 11:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:SilvermineMarket08042007.JPG

Image:SilvermineMarket08042007.JPG

Sfan00 IMG 21:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about the typo, I meant to put the colon in to start with :(

Sfan00 IMG 14:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Your tlak page is 82K in length, time to archive perhaps? Sfan00 IMG 21:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Your message

I suggest that you talk to the people on Wikimedia commons, they are very helpful :) Sfan00 IMG 21:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Shawangunk (town)

Hi. I noticed this empty category you created recently: Category:Shawangunk (town). Is it to be populated, or should it be deleted? - Nabla 19:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

List of middle schools in Miami-Dade County

Hi, re: List of middle schools in Miami-Dade County, nice work! I should like your blessing to thin out some articles. Where the school is not notable enough for an article then moving the entire content here is fine. However, where the school has sufficient notability for an article then only a summary is needed, with a 'main' link and it need not be fully referenced. For a consistent look of the article I think that an info box is probably needed for all the articles. TerriersFan 21:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WeeklyStandard13August2007issue.pdf

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:WeeklyStandard13August2007issue.pdf. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 18:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:WeeklyStandard13August2007issue.pdf)

Thanks for uploading Image:WeeklyStandard13August2007issue.pdf. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Norwalk Pictures

Hey, did you take those pictures yourself (of the bridges in Norwalk, etc.)? Nice! I had one somewhere in my pictures of the "Welcome to South Norwalk" mural; I thought it would be a nice heading picture for the South Norwalk article. I love it when users add their own pictures; I think it most often makes for better pictures (than coming across something on the internet...there's more..."warmth"...). Thanks again! TJ0513 18:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Geez, you can copyright a mural? I didn't think you could get more "public". Maybe I'll hold off for a bit then. By the way, I agree with you about the gallery sections; I'm not the biggest fan, and much rather prefer pictures interwoven into the text of the article. But, at this stage, the galleries are good as a "holding section" for as the pages grow. Thanks again! Cheers! TJ0513 19:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User:TerriersFan/Schools

I should welcome your comments on User:TerriersFan/Schools. Please add them to the talk page of that page. TerriersFan 02:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:NorwalkCTRowaytonMainStreet08112007.JPG

Please specify which image should replace this one. Pending your answer I have to undo your last edit to show license. Once you answer I can delete for you.--Jusjih 15:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sicko (again)

Please stop reverting. Editors agreed criticism should remain on the main page. smb 00:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Given Smb's and Turtlescrubber's contentions that the criticism should remain on the main page (and given Smb's invitation), perhaps you should merge the two articles like the original plan was. If they delete the criticism from the main page, then there is a legitimate grievance of POV-pushing and NPOV violations. (The consensus, after all, was to merge, not to delete the controversy.) Per WP:BRD, do not revert without discussing on the talk page. THF 03:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please try and describe the criticism as accurately and concisely as possible. Misplaced Pages is not a quote farm. Some of the criticism is already described and sourced. If you see something notable that is missing, feel free to add it. smb 03:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are editing in progress, I recommend you create a sandbox page in Userspace until you are done and then asking for an RFC, rather than reverting edits contrary to consensus. THF 19:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 which gains a consensus among editors. Please take my suggestion to create a sandbox page and ask for a new consensus if you are not inclined to edit Sicko and accomplish the merger there. THF 19:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Michael Moore

Please stop removing the link. The WP:ANI discussion has mostly discouraged removing of the link.¤~Persian Poet Gal 22:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• She's right, man. No point in getting yourself blocked over a stupid little thing like that. Particularly when you'd be giving him exactly what he wants... -Hit bull, win steak 23:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to the message you left me: I am fully aware of policy Noroton but we need to use common sense in this situation. By removing the link we will encourage further conflict and possibly even more slander of this user and Misplaced Pages. This is a very unconstructive approach you are taking right now. Lets not continue to feed the flames.¤~Persian Poet Gal 23:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• I mentioned blocking because I could easily see this escalating into a 3RR situation, and I don't want that to happen. Even if you don't think it'd count, someone else with The Tools might disagree. As to the things about harassment, THF's account name used to be his real-life name, and he's made on-wiki edits about that name and his identity, so Moore's site really isn't "outing" anything. Furthermore, THF's real-life identity is something of a public figure, since he's mentioned all over the news for his involvement in the case, and the possible COI that Moore's talking about has been discussed ad-nauseam at places like Misplaced Pages talk:Conflict of interest. I can understand your position, but I can't agree with your assessment of the situation (except insofar as THF doesn't deserve to have a bunch of vandalism dumped on his page - pretty much everybody has to be on board with that). -Hit bull, win steak 23:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know THF's work schedule, and I doubt that Moore does either, so it seems like a bit of a stretch to me to call that an attack. No law that says you have to listen to me, though. Enjoy your pizza; think I may get one myself. -Hit bull, win steak 23:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• In regards to your comments on: Talk:Michael Moore#Useful edits while the war continues, I was simply stating what was going on the talk page to inform the user. Some of them aren't aware of the current situation right now and we got to assume good faith. I understand your intentions are just but really, take some time to relax and step back. Lets not get this crazier by the minute. I decided to place the reply here rather than the talk page because we should not use it as a means of carrying on this debate since it does not relate to further improving the article.¤~Persian Poet Gal 00:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, this is a better place to discuss it, but we should have a proper place to discuss the issue I've brought up and asked you about: WP:NPA.

No, I think this is exactly the time not to sit back when I think something indecent is going on. And make no mistake, it is indecent to post a user's picture, name, links to Misplaced Pages editing pages and state that the editor is editing possibly on company (well, employer) time. To my mind, this is worth fighting for. I think I can do it within the bounds of WP:CIVIL. I'll try, anyway. Besides, I just got called a "grandmaster" of edit warring. I'm savoring that one. Noroton 00:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well WP:ANI has been the only means so far but unfortunately all the discussions relating to this topic have run in spirals. The reason why I am calling the removal of the links inappropriate (despite the importance of WP:NPA and the usual refusal to link to attack sites) is because it is a mass content removal that would be highly controversial. I really cannot speak and sum up this situation because its beyond any of our grasps to do so. But I do know a proposal like that needs a much more overwhelming consensus before being enacted. However, on a personal note, I do not at all approve what Moore has done on his website nor I am ready to let go or forgot what Moore has done on his website. That's my two cents.¤~Persian Poet Gal 00:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As for mass-content removal, I've done it on External links pages in a number of spots. I don't think that needs to happen with footnotes. I'm also uncomfortable with losing the links, by the way, and I want them back up as soon as the attack is called off. I think WP:ANI shouldn't be placed above Misplaced Pages policies except in extraordinary circumstances that would hurt Misplaced Pages in a very serious way, and I don't think this is that kind of circumstance.Noroton 00:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I believe David Fuchs shared your sentiment in the AN/I discussion and also thought AN/I wasn't the means for it. But the label attack on the matter means that AN/I is a likely place to discuss it. The double negatives of this whole thing are just incredible...I understand your desire to uphold WP:NPA and in no way does it constitute blocks for disruption...but I'm fearing that you are going to continue passionately and another administrator may consider to issue serious warnings/blocks. I really think its best right now if you allow a temporary truce in your stance and let this matter cool down. You really should not risk getting stuff like that on your record.¤~Persian Poet Gal 00:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it's cooling down anyway. I'm just not going to back down when I see bullying taking place. If I can make a difference, it would be wrong to back down. And I've got policy on my side, so if some admin hits me, that admin would be in a pretty exposed position. Noroton 00:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

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

Request reason:

I just now figured out that I could do this. Here is the reasoning, as I stated it in two emails to Krimpet:

First email: > You have blocked me, User:Noroton, for violating the 3RR rule, although in my edit summaries and on the talk page for the Michael Moore article, I specifically referred to Misplaced Pages policy -- WP:NPA which states: "The most serious types of personal attacks, such as efforts to reveal nonpublic personal information about Misplaced Pages editors, go beyond the level of mere invective, and so can and should be excised for the benefit of the community and the project." > > It also states: > > "Misplaced Pages cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, but personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are conducted in good faith. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Misplaced Pages is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it, especially when such attacks take the form of violating an editor's privacy. Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases." > > It also states: > > "Links or references to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians are not permitted, and should be removed. Such removals are not subject to the three-revert rule." > > Since my edits were not subject to the three-revert rule, as stated at Misplaced Pages:No Personal Attacks", your block was inappropriate. > > You should immediately lift the block and so inform me. If you don't, you are yourself in violation of Misplaced Pages policy and even committing misconduct. > > If you were aware of my reasoning before you placed the block -- and indeed, I stated it on my talk page just above your block -- then you could have simply informed me that your interpretation of Misplaced Pages policy differed from mine and I would have certainly considered that. I have demonstrated repeatedly, on my talk page, on other talk pages and on the Moore talk page, that I am more than willing to discuss differences. > > Please correct your action immediately. If not, I will certainly be pursuing this with you.

Her response: Whether or not Michael Moore's website is considered an "attack site" has been hotly discussed on AN/I -- a conversation you yourself participated in. 3RR is intended to encourage editors to _discuss_ controversial edits rather than simply reverting over and over. Repeatedly mass-removing links despite _significant_ opposition will only make the situation worse.

Users are expected to uphold the spirit, not the letter, of Misplaced Pages policies (hence the long-standing policy of "Ignore all rules"). Your clear intent to continue to revert -- including your explicit statement in an edit summary that you would "revert forever" -- and your citing of controversial interpretations of controversial policies to justify disruptive edit warring -- indicate to me that a 24-hour block for 3RR is necessary.

-Krimpet

My response: This is to inform you that once the block is lifted I will be filing a complaint on your misconduct for abusing 3RR blocking. Please note that I'm giving you the courtesy of describing it to you in advance and giving you the opportunity, twice now, to avoid my action against you, a courtesy you haven't extended to me.

In general outline:

(1) By the time you blocked me, the reverting on the Moore page was over. And it had been protected, so it wasn't going to continue. And I had asked that it be protected to prevent an edit war.

(2) A lack of consensus on an administrator board does not trump Misplaced Pages policy, which explicitly supported my actions, and which I explicitly referred to in my comments and edit summaries.

(3) You could simply have discussed the matter with me, considering that my interpretation of how WP:NRA relates to AN/I was at issue. If you could point to any rule showing me that AN/I -- that a lack of consensus at AN/I -- trumps WP:NRA, I was more than willing to consider that, and in fact discussed that matter on my talk page. You talk about the spirit of Misplaced Pages but didn't display that spirit when it came to working with others.

(4) Are you required to abide by Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines yourself? If so, what Misplaced Pages policy or guideline will you use to justify your actions? You might want to prepare your answer to that.

(5) I was aware of the AN/I discussion that closed. I had no idea that it had been reopened lower down on the page. Nor was I aware of the 3RR complaint, which was discussed at length without my knowledge. Perhaps you could tell me why you gave me no opportunity to defend myself or even know it was actively under consideration despite the fact that the 3RR violation was completely unclear.

(6) And why is it that I'm under obligation to refrain from doing something in the absence of any Misplaced Pages policy, directive or order when I'm both authorized and encouraged to take that same action by a quite explicit Misplaced Pages policy, which I've already quoted to you?

What you're doing is an abuse. Have fun defending yourself.

User:Noroton

Furthermore:

I notice that an editor has amended WP:NPA, apparently as a direct result of this situation. I think that's telling.

Well, this has been Kafkaesque. My conscience is completely clear: I acted in the way I thought (and think) was right both in terms of Misplaced Pages policy and, more important, in terms of basic human decency. That I wasn't treated in accordance with either doesn't surprise me. If anyone else who reads this far can answer any of my questions, I'm interested in hearing from them. I really would like to see something in Misplaced Pages that tells me AN/I must be respected above all else.Noroton 02:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Please include a decline or accept reason.

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your ANI post

I think what happened was unfortunate. I really understand your position; I hope that I would be defended by other editors if I was being attacked by partisans off-site. However, it should be clear that no single user can unilaterally control articles on this project. Cooperation and consensus are more than nice ideas, but they're necessary to get anything done. Therefore, I think you should consider toning down your comments. Thank you. Cool Hand Luke 05:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You should learn a lesson both from your earlier belligerence this week on my talk page and from the alienation that happened on AN/I of people who supported you. This is a collaborative project, and a chip on your shoulder, no matter how well merited, is only going to be counterproductive to your ability to improve the encyclopedia. And this is before one considers that left-wing editors are given a lot more room to ignore all rules, while right-wing editors can and will be punished for overstepping one of two contradictory rules, and are generally treated as no better than the conspiracy nuts even as uncivil left-wing POV-pushers tramp around with relative impunity. A light touch and ability to accept the inevitable minor (and even major) unfairness is not only the best approach, but absolutely critical if you're not going to lose your mind. Misplaced Pages pages have so many problems that it is still possible to accomplish a lot to further stated Misplaced Pages goals and improve the encyclopedia within these behavior constraints. But trying to be Spartacus and bring down the whole unfair system from the inside just isn't going to happen. Resilient WP:CIVIL is essential. THF 11:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a right-wing editor. I'm an editor. I'm not trying to get a right-wing result, I'm trying to get a fair result. That's why I add information that supports both left-wing/liberal and right-wing/conservative positions. I don't want to pull over anything on anybody. What I want is for articles to get closer at getting to the truth of a subject, and doing it with solid reasoning and references. I want information to get to readers to bring them closer to the truth.

It sounds very idealistic right now and pretty unreaslistic, perhaps. It is evident that this is not the goal of editors hanging around at the Sicko article. It may be the case that it's not the goal of editors hanging around at the various governance forums.

If you want to work together, do me one favor and stop lecturing me. And I'll do you a favor and try not to be belligerant, at least with you. But don't provoke me either, as you're doing in your post above and the one below. Here's my first and last lecture on your own behavior: You'd get along better with me if you simply stated your points of disagreement, what you think might work and might not, rather than characterize me on the one hand or be evasive on where we disagree the other. As I said, that's my last lecture and I only give it in response to yours. Noroton 17:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

AFD

As I predicted, your AFD was closed by admins without getting you the result you wanted. If you would like, and can wait until tomorrow morning, I will properly use procedure to attempt to reopen the AFD; let me know on my talk page. But if you are uncivil to admins who disagree with you between now and then, I can't keep spending time to try to save you from yourself, as much as I appreciate your defense of me. I still think your best option is to try to edit Sicko, and seek an RFC if your edits are improperly reverted, strictly adhering to WP:CIVIL and WP:COOL. I have listed several usable reliable sources on the Talk:Sicko page. THF 12:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Two cents

Ahh, consensus. Really, there was no consensus on that. Really, the entire situation was rapidly spinning out of control, and me as well as two others closed the discussions because they didn't belong on WP:ANI- that is, it was a content dispute, not something that required administrative action, beyond protecting pages from vandalism. Crock and such kept pointing to WP:EXT, but I need to talk to them about that since there is nothing in the page that talks about personal attacks and removing links. In any case, editors should not have taken reactionary measures of removing perfectly valid external links. Michael Moore's page should have a link to his site. Removing it doesn't work, because we as editors are not suppose to be judge and jury over actions off Misplaced Pages. Either way, the discussion was closed on ANI. You can feel free to discuss it at a better venue, say the personal attack page. David Fuchs 20:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Quote

I've quoted you here. Just delete the text at (2) there if you think that's wrong and I'll formulate it in my own words without crediting you (if that's what you'd prefer). Cordially, Frank84.13.10.123 11:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked again

I don't think you understand the circumstances regarding your recent block and then unblock. The whole point of the unblock was that it wasn't preventative because you weren't going to keep edit-warring over this Michael Moore links. Well, you kept on edit warring. So I've been forced to block you again. There is no consensus to treat Michael Moore's site as an attack site (nor does the attack site policy itself even have consensus), so you do not have carte blanche to continue link removals. --Cyde Weys 15:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Another administrator about to be brought before arbitration

Complete text of my email to User:Cyde:

I won't even argue this with you. Review the history of the block on my talk page. Review the relevant section at the 3RR page and prepare for my complaint to authorities. Feel free, if you can, to point out where your version of what you think were the orders to me were given. Figure out, if you can, how that compares with the actual statements of (a) the previous abusive administrator who blocked me and (b) the statement of the editor who unblocked me. No matter what you do, you are now in trouble. Noroton 16:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The statement of the editor who unblocked you is pretty clear: consensus is against you, stop editing the links. Once Moore removed links to the edit pages for the THF, it was agreed that was sufficient. 1. Why don't you understand this; and 2. why are you taking this up as a personal crusade when even the editor who unblocked you said stop editing the links because consensus is against you? --David Shankbone 16:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Noroton, you are correct substantively that the NPA policy is not being enforced even-handedly. For whatever reason, however, there is a consensus that a lack of consensus forbids the removal of the links. You are therefore incorrect procedurally to continue edit-warring. Cyde's block is appropriate, and will be viewed as such by other admins, and I recommend apology and contrition so that you can continue making good substantive contributions to Misplaced Pages without getting tied up in a futile argument. WP:3RR does not give carte blanche to edit-war, especially when you were specifically warned by CHL not to take it up again. What you did was especially shameful, because CHL and others went out on a limb to defend you against the original unfair block. THF 16:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

inuse tag

I've added an {{inuse}} tag to Sicko so that editing conflicts would be avoided. Please remove it when your rework is completed. THF 15:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)