Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:54, 2 January 2011

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page.

hi from new user

Hi Garett Fitzgerald,

I'm a new user who looking to get to know some other users, and possibly connect with more experienced users. I found you via User_talk:JohnCD and I see that you attended Brown University. You may be interested in the stub article I created Tricia Rose, Professor of Africana studies at Brown University. JohnCD replied to my question but feel free post a reply there as well if you have any more info User_talk:JohnCD#self-published_source.2Freliable_sources:_statements_of_opinion

-Verapar (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Hey, this is Someone65. You blocked me last week under a sock thats not mine. I was also disproportionally blocked by you for disruptive editing for making ONE mistake. I think I am a overrall a constructive editor and would like you to read my unblock request please. Thanks 84.13.48.194 (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

ref inaccuracy on Asda page

Hi.

I'm asking a favour in respect of your knowing more than me. I've just reverted soemthing at the ASDA page - nothing great - but it made me look at the references, and they're all out by one number - the first ref is numbered zero, yet in the reflist at the bottom of the page, it starts as a one. This means that clicking on reflinks will take a viewer to the wrong link.

Any idea why that should be?

I've not noticed it on other pages, but tbh, I've not looked for it on other pages.

Cheers.

a_man_alone (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The anchor is numbered zero, but the footnote and reference are both numbered one, as far as I can tell. Where are you seeing the zero? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

If I hover over the cite number in the lede it states "cite_note-0" even though it's numbered in the actual lede. I noticed it when I tried to jump to ref note 49, and it took me to 48 instead. I've just tried it again, and it works now. That's weird. I'll try and replicate it exactly. a_man_alone (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been unable to replicate this, despite it happening several times last night. Must have been a glitch - sorry to have bothered you. Happy new year, etc. a_man_alone (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem -- same to you!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Jain

What if we state Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was both a Hindu and a Jain? There are several sources for this, , , , , , Someone65 (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

None of those sources appear to bear out your contention. Yes, he was obviously strongly influenced by Jainism, but he seems to have always considered himself Hindu, as far as I can tell. For example, there's a quote from him at http://www.gitananda.org/hinduism/mahatma-gandhi-on-hinduism.html where he states "It is because I am sanatani (orthodox) Hindu that I claim to be a Christian, a Buddhist and a Muslim."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Anti-fluoridation sock

All of these articles need to be semi-protected for six months, as you have just done with one of them:

• Fluoride
• Water fluoridation
• Water purification
• Water fluoridation controversy
• WikiLeaks
• Fluoride Action Network
• Information published by WikiLeaks
• Water fluoridation in the United States
• Dean Burk

Brangifer (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to be preemptive about it at the moment -- ping me if he actually updates.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay. These happen to be articles that are directly related to the subject and have been attacked recently. The wikileaks articles have been hit repeatedly and hard because one of the thousands of documents released is a publicly available document on fluoridation. For some reason the sock thinks this makes it notable! It's a Congressional Report that's always been available. Nothing new there. There are many other articles and user talk pages that have also been hit, but they are random and we can't protect all of Misplaced Pages, although I'm all for requiring registration, and barring that permanent semi-protection of all controversial and featured articles. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've been watching this for a while, so I know there are problems. I'm just hoping that the actions taken to date are sufficient. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't we all! We've got better things to do. Keep up the good work. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your fast and resolute actions to stop sockpuppetry and vandalism, especially the anti-fluoridation socks of User:Freedom5000 / User:Wikidrips. Long semi-protection of the relevant articles is a very effective tool. Thanks! -- Brangifer (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

hi there, yourself!

Yep, I was away for a while. Part of it was some health problems and part of it was that I just didn't feel like coming here for the longest time. I think it was mostly the admin work, 'cause it takes a good portion of the fun away. One day I was looking something up (can't remember what it was), and I decided to log in, and I looked at my talk page, then I blocked a couple of vandals, then I started catching up on AN and ANI, and so on. Then I started doing that every few weeks, then every few days, and before I knew it I had jumped back into the deep end of the pool, and I'm enjoying it again. It's interesting to see how things have and haven't changed. I think admins have more discretion now, which is nice. But many of the admins who were here with me aren't here anymore, or have cut way back.

And Wizardman nominated one of my articles for GA, which was a nice surprise, and we're working to get it to my first FA! So yeah, back in my sarong and feeling fine! :-) KrakatoaKatie 22:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Username question

I'm not terribly up to speed on the policies regarding usernames. Earlier, i saw an edit made by User:BlackBeltMagazineStaff. since Black Belt magazine is a relaible source, isn't giving the impression that an edit represents their magazine a little questionable? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

okay

Okay, no problem, sorry to waste time.--Kary247 (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Aquib

User:Aquib american muslim has been following me around for a month now. He should be cautioned for;

• Persistently refusing to WP:Assume good faith bordering on WP:PA. He Reported me to ANI (Instead of reverting me or leaving a notice) after making only 1 faulty edit. He also made rude remarks a month ago, here and a week ago here.
• WP:Edit warring. (most of his edits consist of reverting any edit i make, sourced or not).

But most importantly he should be cautioned for removing ELEVEN reliable sources here; .

You should block him indefinitely for deleting cited material just as you did to me.

Alternatively, I would appreciate a notice banning him from interacting with me. Thanks for reading. Someone65 (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Rev Deletion of 'Check your links'

Please don't rev delete those, they are both useful to see and, so far as I interpret it, outside the rev delete criteria. Prodego 21:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No, those edit summaries are purely disruptive, hence RD3. They make it a lot harder to read his contribution list. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll stop where I am, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

They do increase the size of the contributions page, but since they are under the max limit for edit summaries they do not do so more than a long edit summary would. They do not cause a problem for readers, and they are very relevant to anyone reviewing the unblock request. If you read RD3 in full it says "Purely disruptive material that is of little or no relevance or merit to the project. This includes allegations, grossly inappropriate threats or attacks, browser-crashing or malicious HTML, shock pages, phishing pages, known virus proliferating pages, and links to web pages that disparage or threaten some person or entity and serve no other valid purpose, but not mere spam links." While the list doesn't claim to be exhaustive, 'long edit summaries making it hard to read the contribution list' wouldn't seem to fit in there, especially given that spam links are explicitly excluded - which is a far more disruptive thing to have in an edit summary. Prodego 21:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't help thinking, though, that the "spam links" comment was intended to keep them from being removed from article text, since a simple revert would hide them. If they're in the edit summary, and wikiformatted to be clickable, that might be a different case.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion on this episode at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TenPoundHammer_unlinking_spree. So far as I can see, the edit summaries were not the major problem here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the only time that my use of unlink has caused trouble. Every other time before, I checked the incoming links to a dab page before unlinking it. David Foster was a momentary lapse. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 22:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Not true. Around the same time, you did the same with David Porter and John Reid. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I still think the best solution would be an editing restriction against using unlink, and I'd like to know what Sarek thinks. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 04:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Schapelle Corby page...

Hello there

The editor over at the talk page appears to be involved with an advocacy website for Schapelle Corby. And she is active on facebook in this role (as evidenced by the links she herself provided, etc). She's ranting about wikipedia on facebook and her website, including commenting on certain editors (you and I). I didn't read it all, but it does include the following excerpts:

I also think it should be remembered that this interaction is very well recorded, and there are books, documentaries and films in production - thus this "Interaction" will soon receive very widespread attention. I don't think it's good for the reputation of Misplaced Pages to be publicly seen blocking official United Nations data, crucially relevant to the issue under discussion.

except for one thing, this (now), publicly captured evidence clearly shows the ongoing political manipulation and censorship of this issue, manipulation which the BBC (and others), have already reported on, re other "Sensitive" Misplaced Pages subjects. And Sarek thanks, you played your role beautifully, and did exactly as expected - and now, it's captured for posterity.

A lot of bluster from a conspiracy theorist - IMO. But it has taken up a fair bit of editors' time. Any suggestions on how to handle from here? Or indeed if it needs any more attention? I had a go at trying to get through to her, but I don't hold high hope of her "getting" wikipedia. Ignore? Reason with her? WP:ANI? Other? Personally, I am happy to work with her if she brings stuff to wikipedia that is within our guidelines (incl WP:RS) but I don't want to waste anymore time if she can't stick to our policies. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 02:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it is simple. She has said she will add material against consensus when the page is unprotected. So until she retracts that or is not heard from for a while, the page is not being unprotected. I suggest being polite and brief with her, and basically tell her that. Ignore the rants. They make no difference. Perhaps she will change her mind; perhaps she will get bored. I do not personally greatly care, though I am always hopeful of more recruits for the project.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

She is also making a lot of trivial edits to work around the semi-protection . Regards, WWGB (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

She's a bona fide crack pot. I had a look thru a couple of her web pages (we're the subject of her latest). Classic conspiracy theory stuff: any disagreement with her thesis is more evidence in support of the conspiracy. This one was particularly entertaining, but not in the way I suspects she intends. She has written/phoned Rudd, the AFP, the Attorney General, the GG (wtf??), and Anna Bligh - and I only read two pages of many. However, I must say that her insistence on us all divulging our identities, employees, and "affliations" to prove our objectivity is getting annoying. And, her attempts to intimidate show she is nasty of heart. --Merbabu (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

If she outs someone or steps too far over the edge policy wise, I think there will be little trouble getting her blocked. I also read her pages. Good luck to her showing I am a member of the great anti-Corby conspiracy, given that I'm an American. In the meantime, she is more annoying than anything else, and I'm being courteous to her and showing her ways to help improve the article, trying to convert her into a useful member of the project. If she rudely passes those up, she is merrily digging her own grave. Random edits to reach autoconfirmed status will not stop her from being judged a SPA. I take this calmly, we get intimidating editors every six months or so on Corby.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year

		CVU Anti-Vandalism Award
		Thank Goodness we have You watching Our backs! DocOfSoc (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on my edits

Hi, SarekOfVulcan,

I see you have recently had occasion to comment on apparent puppetry by a user whom you blocked quite a few months ago for gross incivility and personal attacks. That block came just before the August 2010 decision in the Race and Intelligence ArbCom case, in which that user was a party. It has been dismaying to observe how little enforcement of the ArbCom decision in that case has taken place on the related articles since the decision was announced. You and all administrators are volunteers, and all of you are extremely busy and have my sympathy. By and by some contentious editors and their sock drawers and meat puppets have been shooed away from those articles, but still the articles are visited by new I.P. editors who are apparently recruited off-wiki, and much work needs to be done to fix the articles. I have hoped to help the project improve by keeping source lists that all wikipedians can use to improve articles. As I resume article editing after updating those lists again, I would appreciate you keeping an eye on my edits to make sure that I am working collaboratively with conscientious editors here. I will take care to consider carefully any advice you have for me about editing on contentious topics. Wishing you all the best in a happy new year. --

Warning

Seriously, Sarek – you're supposed to be an admin, don't piss about like that. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 09:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)