Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nmate (talk | contribs) at 16:30, 18 March 2011 (→Invitation for a discussion at WP ANI: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Status: Unknown

on English Misplaced Pages

Home

Talk (Archives)

Contributions

EditCount

Sandbox

Sandbox2

Awards

Userboxes

Gallery

CSDlog

Subpages

Adminship

This is Ronhjones's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 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, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45Auto-archiving period: 14 days

User:MrKIA11/Archive Box

TUSC token 8fd3211ebe04214532d860745d268de2

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Thanks?

Ron,

Is it a good thing you touched my page?

In my first few hours I've already attracted more attention to myself than I wanted.

Regards,

- Jeff (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

At least you still have it, some would have just deleted it.  Ronhjones  22:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes happy to have the page

I used the question mark for the last title since I didn't see any reference as to why you left the note. If you copied the page for me thanks. - Jeff (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It was put up for deletion - I moved it instead - See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Jeffrey.A.Limpert/Project_Content&action=history  Ronhjones  23:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Informational note: this is to let you know that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regards, The section is "Hasty decision". Enjoy. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleted article

Dear Mr. Jones:

I am writing to you regarding the recently deleted article, Argentine people of European descent, because I believe you were misled into deleting it by someone who jumped to certain conclusions without really looking into the matter.

It's a long story, but it dats to February 11, when a related article, White Argentine was deleted by Beeblebrox (see: ) because of what he felt constituted a "synthesis" based on a social construct (i.e, "white" people). I excised any such language, and any inference thereof, keeping only the history, data, and their references.

That Argentine people of European descent exist is common knowledge (, for background), and is an interesting subject to many. They are also distinct from other communities in the country (Indigenous peoples in Argentina, Asian Argentines, Arab Argentines, Afro Argentines, and others), though they share many common experiences, of course. The article itself, moreover, meets and probably exceeds guidelines for sources, throughness, and balance met by those on White Latin American, White Hispanics, White Brazilians, White Cubans, White Mexicans, Peruvian of European descent, and other similar entries.

I wrote to Beeblebrox about all this. He skimmed the surface of my article, noticed that it looked similar to the one that had caused so much offense, and put it on the chopping block, responding simply that: "a few portions of it are new or lightly rewritten, but for the most part you have simply reprinted the same article" (see: User talk:Beeblebrox#Speedy deletion). As an administrator, he should know that this is a very arbitrary, almost capricious way of using his power. I, by the way, did not contact ou as I don't see how any of this was your fault; you simply noticed a speedy deletion tag and acted accordingly.

In any case, I was asked to mention the problem to the Deletion review board. As I told Beeblebrox, I hate all this. I was writing an article about a major political party in Argentina which lacked an English-language page, and would already be done had it not been for this, for example. I'm sure you feel the same way.

Regards, Sherlock4000 (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd really appreciate it if you would knock of the whole "abuse of power" argument. I did not use any admin tools here, I nominated the article for speedy deletion, something anyone can do. It's not an order that must be obeyed. Ron or any other admin could have declined the nomination if they thought it was flawed. There is also the matter of attribution that was brought up at ANI, you are obviously re-working an old version of the article without giving proper credit to those whose work formed the foundation of your alleged "new" article. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I have commented at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Hasty decision  Ronhjones  22:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Xander Kostroma

Please revert it back to the db template, as the author clearly intended to blank the page, and only now has information due to the editing of another editor, in contradiction to G7. 128.61.18.21 (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

db-author is just for the author to post, or he blanks the page. No other scenario is allowed.  Ronhjones  23:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

There may be too many other edits from other editors to allow him to blank the page or apply db-author anyway, if may have to go via a different CSD or PROD or AfD.  Ronhjones  23:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably not, since the major author User:Abc1233ac is the only supplier of content, while all the other editors made only grammatical/minor edits. In one of the previous edits, the main author left it 13:17, 5 March 2011, without adding any more content, compared to the continuous changes that occurred over the past few hours. Then, another editor User talk:Fairtraderrr comes and restored the page contrary to G7, which was added as the page was blanked.128.61.18.21 (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

OTOH, if deleted, there's nothing to stop User talk:Fairtraderrr re-creating the page (which is a reasonable assumption), which User:Abc1233ac would be powerless to blank - a PROD or AfD would be more sensible.  Ronhjones  00:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Alrighty Then Possibly Homosexual British Mate

I understand your concern ;Implying; (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Implying;

Possibly is not allowed - only verifiable data from reliable sources  Ronhjones  22:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

History

What I tried to add to the on hold messaging section is 100% true. Yet, it seems that only companies who know how to BS are worthy to make it into WP. It's sad to know that WP will not acknowledge my contributions to this industry. Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.62.65 (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTTRUTH  Ronhjones  23:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

IP protection

Nice work on that! Just a lot of IPs trying to make the results fiction! Quick question: Am I right in saying that merchandise sites in external links applies under WP:SPAM? Tried to revert one on the Scott Redding page but stopped due to 3RR threat. Regards, Cs-wolves(talk) 01:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

My mouse button is getting hot with all those protects... Spam, always a bit pov as to inclusion - all the relevant bits are at WP:EL, and official links are covered by WP:ELOFFICIAL. That said, I suspect an official merchandising site is going to be a grey area. Good idea to avoid the 3RR!  Ronhjones  01:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the site in question, and placed above the official website. Something's a miss, surely! ;) Cs-wolves(talk) 01:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Post the issue here - Misplaced Pages:External links/Noticeboard - you'll find those with a firm knowledge of EL policy.  Ronhjones  01:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Shall pop it on there, pronto! Cs-wolves(talk) 01:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? How is this a justification for indefinite semi-protection on so many articles?--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Pedro de la Rosa

Hi, could you unprotect Pedro de la Rosa? Your stated reason for indefinite semi-protection was "IP hopping vandals" but there has been no vandalism to the page since at least August 2010. Did you protect this page by mistake? --Pontificalibus (talk) 08:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Not so, the same group of IPs hit it on 16th February - WP:DUCK on the edits, similar ones appear on other articles - still I've not problem unprotecting, but they might be back.  Ronhjones  20:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, how about the rest of them? Indefinite protection surely isn't justified just in case one vandal might come back some time. If anything it's more work for you as you have to unprotect manually rather than e.g. letting a week-long protection expire. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Just lazy me :-) Mind you we don't know it's one vandal - it might be a concerted effort. Indef is the default. I'll get round to trim them back after I've finished checking all the years (I only did 15 years checks last night 1990 to 2004 - IIRC).  Ronhjones  20:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

• News and notes: Foundation looking for "storyteller" and research fellows; new GLAM newsletter; brief news

• In the news: "Truth in Numbers?" interview; 94% women; Google algorithm update; brief news

• Deletion controversy: Deletion of article about website angers gaming community

• WikiProject report: Talking with WikiProject Feminism

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: New case opened after interim desysop last week; three pending cases

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

"Professors are notable by default"

Based on? WP:PROF seems to be the most applicable policy and it says no such thing. Is there a different policy that you are referring to?--Terrillja _talk 00:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You could be right, looks likes my error. So many policies to remember! Feel free to revert.  Ronhjones  00:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The establishment of a (scientifically accepted) new research field is certainly an indicator of importance in science. The request for speedy deletion according to Misplaced Pages:CSD#A7 by Terrillja was unreasonable as importance has "a lower standard than notability". Of course, professors are not notable by default, but I already added some references which show the notability. Blauenfels (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Blauenfels, the joy of Misplaced Pages editors working together... Such a nice feeling, if only it could be sustained throughout WP.  Ronhjones  19:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Re:Scott Redding

Can't say I'm all that surprised, to be honest! Yep, had a read at the comment over the IP copyright earlier on...seems a weird one. But as you say, it may be tampered with when the protection comes off. Still a bit to wait until that occurs though! Cs-wolves(talk) 20:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

SDPatrolBot

- Kingpin (talk) 06:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Mm-dsma2.jpg

Thanks for the pointer... I have completed the source= section as per your suggestion. Can i remove that speedy deletion tag now? or do i need to ask the dude who put it there to remove it? I wish more admins on Misplaced Pages are helpful like you! Okkar (talk) 08:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Once you filled in the required fields, the the DI template can be removed. I've done that for you. As to if the copyright "experts" will like your source, I'm not saying - image copyright can be a real minefield, and is also very country dependent (I'm happy with UK situation, but the US does have some oddities...)  Ronhjones  20:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello. You are my unblocking admin and I'd like to invite you to express your opinion at the following discussion: . I've made a report against User:Nmate 's behaviour, but he did not respond the issues raised by me, preferring to attack your unblock decision, together with (his partner) User:Hobartimus

Instead of accepting that I am again a member of the community, they keep disregarding me and contesting my unblock (instead of WP:LETGO). I've tried to respect all the policies since I became again a member of the community in December 2010, but they keep writing about my old socks in every discussion we participate, thus breaking WP:HUMAN (in my case, unblocked users are human too). (Iaaasi (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC))

Question

Dear Rohnjohnes, did you know that Iaaasi lied to an admin on IRC to get him to support his unblock? Were you aware of this? And that the result of this lie was that the admin in question reposted the lie on Misplaced Pages? On September 27 administrator Muzemike states He has been consistently constructive over at simple.wiki and at ro.wiki since his block this past March for disruption, and he has not shown to have socked during this period of time. There it is, flat out stated that Iaaasi did not sock since March(!!!). Please compare this outrageous lie to the list of CheckUser confirmed sockpuppets and the number of edits made by them in full violation of the block . I must ask you about this, since you cited that very discussion when you explained your deliberations. Is it acceptable for users to outright lie on IRC to further their unblock agenda? If it is not acceptable how can it be stopped how can it be avoided that it's repeated again and again. Is there a noticeboard or something on wiki dealing with IRC abuse? What can be done in cases like this? Hobartimus (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

"Iaaasi lied to an admin on IRC to get him to support his unblock"

Hobartimus, you are breaking WP:NPA. You have no proofs for this accusations. (Iaaasi (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC))

Just to make it clear, Do you deny saying the above to Muzemike? Your claim is that you did not say these things to him? Hobartimus (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You are the one who must prove that I am guilty. Why don't you ask directly him? (Iaaasi (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC))

Thanks I have all the confirmation I need, you do not even deny it... Besides the links posted above and the word of Muzemike are more than enough proof. said on September 27 check dates before September 27... Hobartimus (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to make this more annoying for you.  :) I have blocked Iaaasi on a 3RR for a week. After reviewing this, the current spat at WP:ANI, and the rather tepid consensus to unblock him in December, I would welcome your review of his editing status. I have not been able to parse through all of the conditions of his original indefinite block, so I do not have an opinion yet. Kuru (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh what fun... As far as I'm concerned, any activity pre 20:38, 8 December 2010 is now irrelevant. User Iaaasi achieved a mild consensus for a second chance (but it was a for!), he then accepted that offer, and was later unblocked at that time stated. If he had not been unblocked then, then I suspect he would have been unblocked a month or two later. Users must remember that an indefinite block is not infinite - WP:INDEF, any blocked user who shows willing to following Misplaced Pages policies is likely to be unblocked. Harping on about the past is just a bad case of I don't like him (which really falls under WP:NPA) - like him or not Iaaasi was unblocked, and I for one am unlikely to block on any old bit of data pre Dec 2010, it's time everybody moved on and concentrated on good editing, instead of bitching about other editors. I feel that any review of the conduct of Iaaasi should be solely based on editing post Dec 2010 - assuming he has not reverted back, since that date, to any of the issues that caused the original indefinite block.  Ronhjones  00:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

But of course he reverted back to them as it is evident when looking at all the edits with familiarity with the whole case (as opposed to small parts here and there). This is the whole point that he reverted back and such all of the previous conduct must be taken into account. (you can realize it is already being taken into account because blocks in first instances usually given for a day, while blocks received after taken the history of abuse into account are for longer periods as the case with the latest block). Hobartimus (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Ron can you help?

Hi Ron -

You helped me last year with my organizations page Parents Via Egg Donation. I got into a pickle editing it and not realizing it was against the rules. You folks heard my case and were kind enough to unblock me from Misplaced Pages, and I was thankful for that.

Since that time we have been gathering information about the organization (as requested by Toons one of Wiki's editors) which appeared in the media for the reference section. Our page received a tag of orphaned which made me nervous as I feel our nonprofit is Wiki worthy, and has encyclopedic value. However, my hands were tied as I am not allowed to add anything to that page.

In the meantime we found a user who took an interest in our group who is a writer and wrote a lovely bit of information about us. And now our page has been deleted. Even after this user followed the rules.

I am asking for you help in sorting this out. I do believe we are Wiki worthy, we helped thousands and thousands of people each year in the field of Reproductive Endocrinology. We are not self-serving if anything we are a public service organization much like the American Heart Association, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, INCIID, or RESOLVE but on of course a much small level.

I appreciate your time - Marna Gatlin MDG 00:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marnad1963 (talk • contribs)

Sigh... It's always difficult for organisations to keep their page, so many end up with a "advertising" tag. I see several choices...

1. Talk to both the deleting admin User:Martijn Hoekstra and maybe (but see next comments) the editor who placed the CSD User:XiaXia11, and ask them what was so bad about it that they needed to delete it. Ask what they would change to allow it to stay. You may want to point out to the admin that adding the CSD tag is this only edit User:XiaXia11 has ever made, and I do wonder if this is some WP:SPA, of someone who does not like your organisation - he created the account 7 minutes before applying the CSD tag - NO new user would know how to do that!  Ronhjones  00:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Ask your writer to ask me to userfy the article - I can then make it a subpage of that editor, he can then use any comments you obtain from the above editors to improve. Also one can get a review of the page before moving it back to an article.

Hope that helps  Ronhjones  00:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank for your help Ron.

I appreciate you taking the time to listen and to give us relevant direction, it's muchly appreciated.

I shall trudge on now.

Cheers!

MDG 01:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marnad1963 (talk • contribs)

non-profit org. assistance!

Greetings! I am very interested in the organization Parents Via Egg Donation and would like to get the PVED article on the right track. There appears to be some enemies of the organization that are making this very difficult. Do you have any suggestions? In particular, I am interested in non-profit organizations as a whole getting a fair shot at wikipedia! I thought an "in the news" section might be appropriate to incorporate news articles. Thanks! Andie-Portland (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Andie-Portland

I'm glad to see the page is back. One useful page to read may be WP:ORG - which deals with organisations and companies. I would be wary of news - see WP:NOTNEWS, since most "news" may not be significantly referenced for inclusion, and also that there is already a sister project for news - Wikinews.

See if you can link the page to an exiting WikiProject - then you can discuss the page with like minded editors, who can better assist you. I would ask at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine if they think the page should be included in their Project. If so you add {{WPMED}} to the top of Talk:Parents Via Egg Donation.

Keep a close eye on edits made by others - check http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Parents_Via_Egg_Donation&action=history from time to time - I'm always interested in any edits by a red user name - it "tends" to show that they are a new editor (as they have not yet got around to creating their user page).  Ronhjones  17:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The Proof Of Vandalism is Clear

Saturdayseven said that Oprah had teenage parents-yet the article states that her father was born in 1933 and she was born in 1954- and added an irrelavent statement that Esters "spoke out against Winfrey after Winfrey refused to promote her memoir." The user showed nothing to suggest that Esters said this about Oprah for that . The source I mentioned also said: "The 82-year-old Esters, who still lives near the central Mississippi town of Kosciusko—where Oprah spent six years of her childhood—was quoted several times, usually attached to non-flabbergasting statements that, she concedes, Kelley conveyed accurately." The only dispute even mentioned in this article that Esters made was that Kelley said Oprah had a different biological father.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Mother born 1935 - makes her 19 - anyone can work that out - article says an unmarried teenage mother - correct.

You said Katherine Esters later said that Oprah lied about being molested - the source does not say that.  Ronhjones  23:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

NB: You have deleted material 3 times in less that 24 hours, that is your limit.  Ronhjones  23:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

And at least these website state that Kitty Kelley claimed Esters told her Oprah lied about being molested in her book. Think about it. The website said that Esters conceded Kelley conveyed much of their conversation accurately and did not mention that Esters disputed that Oprah lied being molested.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Those refs are not in the article. Maybe you should discuss it on the talk page? Adding negative items to BLP is always very difficult (and "lied" is very negative), and the references to allow that have to be very good and very reliable.  Ronhjones  23:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Nothing in anyone's edit comes any where near the definition of vandalism as per WP:VANDALISM - it's a simple content dispute.  Ronhjones  23:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Your very good and very reliable remark doesn't make sense. You put back in Saturdayseven's comment Esters " spoke out against Winfrey after Winfrey refused to promote her memoir." That isn't a reliable statement at all. If you are a biased Oprah fan, I suggest you read this Misplaced Pages:Fancruft — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoetheMoe25 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an Oprah fan. I reverted your edits as incorrect, that automatically goes back to the last editor.  Ronhjones  00:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You sure don't seem to be looking at it from a neutral point of view, however, and that makes me think you're lying. My edits were not incorrect, and either you know it or you not calcuting the meaning of what I typed correctly. Sources claimed Kelley stated this in her book and the source I added implored that it was true. Read it for yourself. It said "The 82-year-old Esters, who still lives near the central Mississippi town of Kosciusko—where Oprah spent six years of her childhood—was quoted several times, usually attached to non-flabbergasting statements that, she concedes, Kelley conveyed accurately" and didn't claim she disputed that she told Kelley Oprah wasn't molested JoetheMoe25 (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem to forget - I'm not the one editing the page - I've added nothing that was not already in the system. If an editor's edits get reverted because they are incorrect, then the page goes back to the the last undisputed version. If I was adding or removing data as an editor - then that is different. You need to discuss with the other editors, not me. Remember Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTTRUTH  Ronhjones  00:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Rewritten article

Ron:

Thank you. Pablozeta and I have indeed rewriten this article extensively in the part week, re-named it, and, above all, refocused it on the history of these people, why they are there, and their influences from other peoples (such as Afro-Argentines and Natives), as well as their contributions to the nation's culture. If you look at other articles about similar communtites in the region (such as the ones I mentioned in the AfD discussion), you'll find that this is one of the most thorough, well-sourced, and frankly, balanced such articles for the region.

Feel free to look at the new article and share your thoughts at your convenience.

All the best,

Sherlock4000 (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

• News and notes: Foundation reports editor trends, technology plans and communication changes; brief news

• In the news: Paying US$1,000 to correct a Misplaced Pages error; brief news

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: New case on AE sanction handling; AUSC candidates; proposed decision in Kehrli 2 and Monty Hall problem

• Technology report: Left-aligned edit links and bugfixes abound; brief news

• Editcountitis: Report on Editcountitis. 27% of all edits have been done by just 4,000 editors

Please help with Myanmar Armed Forces

Hi Ron, I wonder if you could help with Myanmar Armed Forces article as some users kept removing chunks of military related information and instead replacing them with political ones. For example, Units and battallion details were removed from the page and instead replaced with text copied from some political POV news article. I am not adverse to them including alleged Human Rights issue 'etc. and I have asked them to put them in a proper section. I have also warned the user about the fact that Myanmar Armed Forces is a military article and that all political messages should be included in other relevant pages such as Human Rights in Burma or Politics and Military section in Burma country article. However, I'm not being able to convince and I can see that its leading to edit war. can you please help? Okkar (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You helped by saying "copied" - we are not allow to copy text. I've found the original text at http://www.freeburmaalliance.org/burma-101/history/46-a-brief-history-of-burma with a nice claim to copyright at the foot of the page. I've left the user a standard message.  Ronhjones  20:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyright tag

Hello, you placed a copyright tag at my talk page. In reality, you should check that your sources are actually copied from Misplaced Pages. See History of Burma. Thanks. Soewinhan (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I cannot guarantee that - the web article claims copyright, not an attribution to Misplaced Pages. The other page could be incorrect.  Ronhjones  21:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not asking you. I am saying you that your cited webpage is a replica of History of Burma article from Misplaced Pages. http://www.freeburmaalliance.org/burma-101/history/46-a-brief-history-of-burma You can even see links to Misplaced Pages. And, I didn't copy from that webpage. I drew some related facts from History of Burma article. Soewinhan (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I can only go on what the web pages claim. The web page does claim copyright (rightly or wrongly - and it's not up to us to evaluate that claim), and the time pre-dates your edit. This is one reason why we do not copy material from one article to another, the other being that it loses the original author's attribution and date of inclusion, so should not be done - either way it was a bad edit. When necessary one can link to a section in another page with a variety of templates made for that purpose.  Ronhjones  01:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

There is absolutely no doubt that the article on freeburmaalliance.org, dated Jan 08, 2010, is a copy of this revision of History of Burma, dated Jan 08 2010, or perhaps a revision or two earlier. WP:COPYVIO says "Some cases will be false alarms. For example, text that can be found elsewhere on the Web that was in fact copied from Misplaced Pages in the first place is not a copyright violation – at least not on Misplaced Pages's part." This is clearly a case where this caveat applies. It does appear that this warning was made in error, and should be withdrawn. We are not required to take third-party copyright claims at face value when they are trivially contradicted by our own article histories. Thparkth (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by bad edits? The relevant information is not present there. That's why I took some information (Just four or five lines) so that other contributors could expand on it. There have been many times like that other Wikipedians do to begin sections or paragraph. Soewinhan (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

See WP:COPYWITHIN and WP:COPYPASTE - Yes, you can copy parts of one Misplaced Pages article into another, but you must link to the source article in your edit summary. Original content contributed by users can be freely used, but only if you recognise the original author – if you don't, this violates their copyright. As I said, a bad edit, it violates policy.  Ronhjones  16:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanations. Soewinhan (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Soewinhan and User:Hybernator

Hi Ron, sorry to bother you, would you please take a look at my talk page on a message left by Fletch the Mighty regarding the above two users and their suspicious activities? It somehow coincide with the comment you made regarding the user account User:Soewinhan may have been stolen. Okkar (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Invitation for a discussion at WP ANI

Hello Ronhjones,

This message is to inform you that a motion to the second chance type of unblock of Iaaasi has been filled at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Iaaas in either order for your decision to be approved, or to be repealed by community consensus. Inasmuch as you would like to let the community know that you were leaded by what sorts of inducements in your decision having taken, your participation in the discussion is most welcome. Regards.--Nmate (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

1. http://perezhilton.com/2010-04-13-oprah-lied-about-being-raised-in-filth-and-sexual-abuse-new-book-claims
2. http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/book-claims-that-oprah-had-lesbian-affairs-and-lied-about-molestation/