Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:23, 31 January 2010

Are you here because I deleted your article? Please read through this first to find out why.

If I left a post on your talk page please answer there, I'll see it, no worries. If you leave a post here, I'll answer here. Now and then I don't think an answer from me is needed. If you wanted one anyway, I'll be happy to get a wee nudge.

Talk archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

HELP! with Lama Pai article

After an experience with the Chan Tai San article, many associated with the "tibetan martial arts" agreed in the interests of the articles on the subject it was best to not turn every article into a long list of "me, yes me, I am part of it" or just old blatant self promotion. Now, after several edits and re-edits and polite requests, we have a fellow apparently from Mexico who can't seem to help himself. Might we get a moderator or moderator action on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nysanda (talk • contribs) 00:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article owing to edit warring by the IP. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

THANK YOU Nysanda (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

query

Hello Gwen, can you look at these diffs and suggest how best to proceed? I believe the user in question is being disruptive. He is not using the talk page like the rest of us, and his rationale for reverting does not make clear sense, especially when he says he didn't see anything on the talk page. I made deletions to the section in question and added several, well sourced items. With just one revert this user wiped them out stating that a reference to the' free market' offended him. This is why I say, it makes no sense. Another editor, using the talk page, saw the revert and reverted it back to where I had it. The diffs include the user in question's other reverts as well. . Thanks, Malke2010 22:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Palin is still under article probation. If you think someone is OR/cite spanning, bring it up on the talk page, since deleting sourced content from that article, which has some of the highest traffic on the website and is under probation too, should have consensus. Also, allowing the narrative to say something she advocates is free market would need a source. Let me know though, if they start edit warring. Lastly, I see some sourced content about the book(s) still hasn't been restored but I guess that would be covered in the separate article(s) so, again, bring it up on the talk page if you think it should be put back. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, good advice. Appreciate you taking the time, thanks.Malke2010 04:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 25 January 2010

• BLP madness: BLP deletions cause uproar

• Births and deaths: Misplaced Pages biographies in the 20th century

• News and notes: Biographies galore, Wikinews competition, and more

• In the news: Misplaced Pages the disruptor?

• WikiProject report: Writers wanted! The Wikiproject Novels interviews

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

User page query

How did you get your user page sectioned off with the barnstars all in rows. I'd like to get the photos on my user page arranged in sections so I can write comments, but I can't figure it out.Malke2010 14:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It's easy to grab the code for yourself, hit the edit button and look at everything beginning with <br clear="all" />, but before the category stuff at the very bottom. You can plug in whatever images and text you like. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.Malke2010 22:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Palin Talk Page

Hello,

Today Jimmuldrow posted this on the Sarah Palin talk page:

I did not understand what the issue was especially since he has already posted his change:

So far no editors have objected.

Previously, the matter seemed resolved but he brought it up again: 00:58, 29 January 2010

Another editor Fcreid replied

01:23, 29 January 2010

I responded:

01:35, 29 January 2010

Later, I thought it might be better to revisit it too, because Jimmuldrow seemed so intent and it appeared to really bother him. It seemed like his view should be taken into account and the matter would best be resolved with what he proposed so I asked him this:

he responded:

I responded:

he responded, but I didn’t think he was actually responding to me, I thought he was still carrying on with his thought, which is fine:

So I said:

He didn’t respond again, so I posted on his talk page:

The post he put on the Talk page today, I responded to:

This seems to be an unusual way to go about things, and reads more like a personal attack than an explanation for his edit on Sarah Palin's position. I have not objected to his new edit political positions edit, and I don't see right now where anybody else has either. Please advise, thank you. Malke2010 18:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• That last thread may not have been a personal attack, but it was on the edge of one and either way, it was not about sources and content so much as it was a long complaint about another editor. I've closed and hatted the thread.

• This is mostly a content dispute. It does seem to me, as though Jimmuldrow may be doing a bit of cite spanning/synthesis. If a politician cites someone else, this doesn't mean the politician was "inspired" by them. Anything near to such an assertion would need to be straightforwardly cited to a source and likely quoted (rather than being carried by the article narrative).

• Ongoing input from other editors will likely be needed for a little while longer. The sister article may be more fit for most of this.

I don't watch Sarah Palin. If Jimmuldrow carries on with any back and forth about this in the article itself, please let me (or another uninvolved admin) know. One diff will be enough. Likewise, if Jimmuldrow comments on the talk page about another editor, rather than about sources and content, let me know. Again, one diff should be enough. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time. I presented the diffs and the explanations because it is difficult to explain things out of context. I wanted to give you an idea of the process editors were attempting to use versus the disruption we've been dealing with from this editor. Also, I wanted you to see that I was attempting to satisfy his demands within process. This is a difficult enough page to edit without this sort of thing happening. Thanks again for your help in this.Malke2010 12:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I'm only saying, most admins will want a diff, but have been doing this long enough, they'll likely need/want only one or two, to spot the pith of something. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

72.228.150.44

Just wanted to let you know, Special:Contributions/32.142.238.113 is the same person, and so is Special:Contributions/32.142.150.77 and Special:Contributions/32.137.74.146. And that's just the IP-addresses I have seen him use since yesterday... --OpenFuture (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deny recognition. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Collect - Time to back up your words

You said :

"If Collect edits tendentiously or disruptively again, I will start a thread at WP:ANI asking for consensus to block him for at least 1 month for disruption. Editors can likewise report disruption either to my talk page or to WP:ANI and cite this RfC close."

And deja vu:

Collect got blocked again: and usual Wiki lawyering. See: User_talk:Collect#January_2010 Phoenix of9 22:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Please tell me more about why you have titled this thread "Time to back up your words." Gwen Gale (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

So that you can start that thread at ANI. Have you? Phoenix of9 22:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Here are my contribs , you tell me. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh it seems he had already broken his restrictions: . Interesting...Phoenix of9 22:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That was six months ago and I blocked him for it. Why you have titled this thread "Time to back up your words"? Gwen Gale (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Responded a bit above. Phoenix of9 22:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Please tell me more. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I have had no interactions with Pof9 at all in aeons. Note that he used his animus at an RfA per . Seems if anyone can not let go, it is he. Collect (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

One thing's straightforward, I won't be badgered into taking any admin action. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)