Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:13, 20 May 2008

Nandesuka can't take it anymore. Time for another extended break. I'll be back when I've stopped caring too much.

Archives: Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

"In a variety of positions"

After reading the bit on the BLP noticeboard, I have accepted the reason it does not belong in the intro and have moved that quote down to the "complaints of media conspiracy of silence" section, where its relevance is crystal clear (in the context of a discussion of how many reporters and editors were widely aware of the rumors and knew Fitzgerald's name, but never seriously investigated them ... the innuendo in the Post's choice of phrasing was not lost on anyone at the time.

I wish you had cited the BLP noticeboard instead of getting cute in your initial edit summary. I would have understood. There was no need for animosity here. Daniel Case (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I added two sources to back up that interpretation of the phrase. Daniel Case (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And the original Post article, to remove all doubts. Daniel Case (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Erection, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. I'm guessing this was a bad undo, not intentional vandalism! richi (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did to Erection. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Another mistaken undo? richi (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If my edits appeared to you to constitute vandalism, then that suggests you weren't looking closely enough. Good day. Nandesuka (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at the diffs from your two edits: and . I guess it should be obvious why they might look like vandalism. However, please note all of my comments above, including the assumption that these were just bad undo, not intentional vandalism ... richi (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Oof. I thought I was removing the "Mario fucking gay" comment, not adding it. Looks like it was I who wasn't looking closely enough. My mistake. Nandesuka (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Silent protagonist AFD

The obvious best solution for this article is a merge. From experience, however, merges tend to be badly done after AFDs, hence my reluctance to advocate it on that page. Furthermore, there's enough to the topic to "technically" warrant a separate article with a bunch of wikilawyering. In the best interest of the encyclopaedia, I'd suggest doing a merge right now, because it would convince a lot of people and save a lot of KB of discussion. My time is limited to a few minutes right now, but I'll contribute to any merge efforts. User:Krator (t c) 23:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hoping to discuss

Hello, Nandesuka. I'm sorry I put "factual error" in the edit summary when I reverted the edit in the Maharishi article. (Assume that's why you said to KNOCK IT OFF.) I guess I've been influenced by the sources I've read and have come to think of the detailed versions of Cynthia Lennon and others as factual. And I had thought we had reached consensus on this. But after your revert I reread the discussion and saw that your suggested revision indicated that you didn't see it the same way. My mistake. Anyway, I'm hoping you will discuss this on the Talk page. It's sort of a minor thing, but I'd like to strive for accuracy and to fairly represent a range of sources. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

f. gulen page

hi nandesuka. i realized that you protected the page onto a version that is missing many well-documented information. will you please be careful about what is really going on the page before protecting it. the user heapyfy is adding some information with irrelevant links (not english). the claims he is adding is rejected by the official courts as documented in the current version. he is adding it to the intro section while there is a specific section for controversies. the paragraph is already in the controversies section. thank you in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.144.151 (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read m:The Wrong Version. Kind regards. Nandesuka (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• ok, well, i see, but, i still cannot accept that a person is insisting on his version while all the others (Falcofire, 140.254.95.149, Lambiam, and many others in the history) agree on another. do you really think that it is reasonable to put an NPOV tag on an article just because the location of a paragraph is different? although heapyfy is suggesting edit after discussion, he does not follow what he suggests. all the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.144.151 (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • i am surprised that you have a preference on the versions. wouldn't you protect the page on the last version? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.144.151 (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I reverted the page to the version on which I put the protection template. I was surprised that someone edited it after I put the template on it. I have no preference as to versions. Nandesuka (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Dr. Eggman's vehicles

Hi, you deleted this article recently and I'm wondering how you determined there was a consensus to delete it? It appeared to me there was no consensus. --Pixelface (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The administrative guidelines for determining consensus can be found here, and make for good reading. It's not uncommon for those who disagree with a decision to believe that that means there was no consensus. The consensus on this article was, to me, fairly clear, so to the extent you think that consensus didn't exist we'll simply have to disagree.

Consensus, in the deletion context, does not mean unanimity, or even counting heads, but is affected the strength of the underlying arguments. When I close AfDs, I tend to discount discussion that focuses on the quality of the article ("I like it!" or "I don't like it!"), and give greater weight to arguments based on our content policies. I hope that helps. Nandesuka (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

So which arguments based on our content policies did you think were strongest? --Pixelface (talk) 03:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can't explain why you ignored the editors who suggested keep and merge, I plan on taking this to DRV. --Pixelface (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I explained it fairly straightforwardly, but I get the feeling that further explanation isn't going to change your mind. Therefore, feel free to do as you please. I'll be happy to discuss this further at DRV.

However, in the interests of transparency, I'll say that one of the "keep" votes consisted of nothing more than "I like it", Le Roi-Le Grand Roi des Citrouille's seemed like a WP:POINT vote to me -- essentially stringing together several sentences of the form "No, it doesn't!". Both your and DGG's comments were thoughtful, but were outweighed by the concerns, raised by many other editors, of a lack of secondary sources and of notability. Nandesuka (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Eggman's flying fortresses

Hi. I've just put Dr. Eggman's flying fortresses up for AFD, and I'd like to know whether the content of List of Dr. Eggman's vehicles was similar enough to justify speedy deletion under CDS G4. Would it be possible to get a userified copy of the deleted page for comparison? Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. User_talk:Nandesuka/Eggman_snapshot. Let me know when you're done with it so I can delete it. Nandesuka (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, done, thanks. They are substantially different. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge-and-delete violates the GFDL

For future reference, if material from an article on AfD gets merged into another article it's not legal under Misplaced Pages's usage of the GFDL to delete the original's edit history. I've redirected and restored Tucker's kobolds, Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons) would have become a copyvio otherwise. Bryan Derksen (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Got a reference for that claim? Either the original material was released under the GFDL -- in which case it is valid to use it in any way -- or it was not, in which case it was a copyvio to begin with. Deleting an article's history has no relationship to whether or not given material is a copyright violation. Nandesuka (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You apparently don't understand the GFDL very well, and I'd suggest you take a look through it before you do any more article deletion. Retaining authorship attribution is one of the core requirements of the license, so by removing it through the deletion of edit histories you're rendering Misplaced Pages in violation of the GFDL's terms. Please see my user talk page for a more detailed explanation. Bryan Derksen (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Your note

Yes, it seems absurd, but I have seen it claimed before. I believe their position is that the edits were released under the GFDL on condition that they would be attributed to the author; therefore we have no right to continue to use any of that material if the author's name is not available somewhere. I have no idea where this claim comes from, because when other websites publish Wikpedia's material under the GFDL, they attribute it only to Misplaced Pages, not to individual authors. And I do not remember signing anything that said I was editing if and only if my material is always attributed to me. But for some reason, that is the new interpretation of the GFDL. You asked for a reference, which is a good idea.

See, for example, the very end of Rachel Marsden, an article that was deleted then recreated, and which now says, "This article uses content licensed under the GFDL from deleted revisions of Misplaced Pages's article on Rachel Marsden. A list of previous authors of the page can be found at Talk:Rachel Marsden/GFDL History. SlimVirgin 19:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've taken this up at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#A case of merge and delete and the GFDL. Bryan Derksen (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

We both brought it up at the same time, it seems. That's fine. I also left a note on Danny's talk page asking him if the WP:OFFICE's understanding of the GFDL matches or disagrees with yours. Nandesuka (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As I noted in the AN thread, while Danny may well be able to tell us what the Foundation's understanding of the relevant GFDL issues was when he was in its employ, he hasn't worked for the Foundation in eleven-plus months and, as you may know, has of late been a bit at odds with the WMF, such that he's probably not the best person to ask about the Foundation's positions. You might have better luck at User talk:Mike Godwin. Joe 23:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Nandesuka (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The theory is that you should be able to, from the page histories, reconstruct who wrote what in any article. In practice this varies from simple (only one person wrote the article) to hideously complex (many people wrote the article and lots of stuff was merged in from other places, sometimes with numerous different page histories needing to be examined to track down the origin of a particular sentence). Those who say that this is not what the GFDL was meant for, point out the "main authors" bit, but the trouble is that with large merges (or indeed large splits), large chunks of text can get moved around, and attribution is most definitely needed. The example I like to point people at is Ptolemaic Egypt and Roman Egypt. The text in those articles was originally at History of Greek and Roman Egypt, but then someone split that into (the already existing) Aegyptus Province and Ptolemaic Egypt. Aegyptus Province then got moved to Aegyptus (Roman province), and then Ægyptus and now (hopefully for good) to History of Roman Egypt. The sequence with Ptolemaic Egypt was more straightforward, with only one move to History of Ptolemaic Egypt (as far as I can tell). But the point of all this is that, although the articles have changed much since the split, much of the edit history of the text in those articles is still at History of Greek and Roman Egypt. It would be nice to compare the version before the split with what is in the articles at the moment, but as the edit history is split across pages, this is not possible. To take just one example, I wrote the bit starting "Following Alexander's death in Babylon in 323 BC, a succession crisis erupted among his generals. Initially, Perdiccas ruled the empire as regent for Alexander's half-brother Arrhidaeus...", but to find that out you have to get past this edit (which doesn't say where the transferred material came from), and look at the history of History of Greek and Roman Egypt, namely at this edit. See also the notices I placed on the talk pages of the three articles about this. Carcharoth (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Runescape

I see that you have reverted it and another editor did. The entry has been in the article for some time and I have put in talk that I feel it is extremely relevant. The problem that you and the other editor has stated that it does not make sense from a contextually point of view which is not an argument that makes sense inasmuch as it comes right after a passage criticizing the game as not appropriate for children. I will put in another section but the arguments that it does not belong are not well based.Mysteryquest (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not in violation of the 3RR rule, you should review that rule more carefully. Moreover, you might consider coming up with a valid reasons why it should not be included in the article instead of simply reverting it? You and the other editor claimed that it was not in context. I put it in context. It has a better source than much of the information in Runescape and as I have stated, I have yet to see a compelling reason why it should not be included. Should we have an administrator resolves this.Mysteryquest (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The OED Makes Mistakes

Sorry, but when a scientific article points out that the OED made a mistake on CONJECTURE about what was going through a man's head, then it can make a mistake. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's content policies make it clear that, as regards our articles, it is not your privilege to substitute your opinion for that of reliable sources. Kind regards, Nandesuka (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

comment at afd

I've made a comment about one of your closes at a later afd on a related subject Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Retcon (Torchwood). In fairness, I'm telling you about it. Please dont interpret this as anything personal--I think the general issue remains unsettled.DGG (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken. Nandesuka (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Photography site

Thanks for that recommendation a month back for technical tips - it's been useful. Hope you are doing well. --David Shankbone 06:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Banderlog

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Banderlog. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. BOZ (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I would have asked you directly, but I figured you were on wikibreak. :) Lifebaka created a new redirect, but would you mind restoring the rest of the article's edit history? BOZ (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Changed one of your reverts

In Eye of the Beholder (video game) article, changed Lathander to Acwellan, see talk page. (also User_talk:Doommaster1994) 85.224.19.18 (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat and harassment

Could you recall the details of his block you issued in Feb? I am seeing this user being uncivil and harassing several others recently, and I wonder if there are similarities between his behavior now (, , , , )and his behavior in the past.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)