MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 4 thread(s) (older than 7d) to User talk:SarekOfVulcan/Archive 19. |
→Move clarification: new section |
||
Line 154: | Line 154: | ||
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">'''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Read this Signpost in full]]''' · [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single|Single-page]] · [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe|Unsubscribe]] · [[User:EdwardsBot|EdwardsBot]] ([[User talk:EdwardsBot|talk]]) 12:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)</div> |
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">'''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Read this Signpost in full]]''' · [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single|Single-page]] · [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe|Unsubscribe]] · [[User:EdwardsBot|EdwardsBot]] ([[User talk:EdwardsBot|talk]]) 12:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)</div> |
||
<!-- EdwardsBot 0026 --> |
<!-- EdwardsBot 0026 --> |
||
== Move clarification == |
|||
''When El Paso-Juárez Metropolitan Area was moved to El Paso-Juárez Region and then El Paso–Juárez region, that was the original article, under a different title. When you edited El Paso-Juárez Metropolitan Area after the move, you weren't restoring the old article -- you were creating a new article at the old title, losing all the edit history which is required under the licensing we use here. Hence, when you urge people to edit the original article, you actually aren't following your own advice. It is possible to merge the histories of the articles, but I'd recommend that you just edit the article at El Paso–Juárez region, and continue to discuss the move at an appropriate venue, like the article talk page. See WP:Requested moves for more details on how to move it back properly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)'' |
|||
:Thanks for getting in touch with me. |
|||
:With respect, this is an abuse of Wikipedia policy (i.e. misconstruing policy to do something not intended by the policy makers). The original move was done deliberately without consensus and based on [[WP:OR]]. The user did this knowing that I could not move it back. I requested that the damage be repaired but the admins so far have been hesitant to merge back because they don't want to get in the middle of a disagreement. That, of course, creates an awkward situation. |
|||
:I am ''not'' going to discuss this at the revised location. That sets a bad precedent and rewards bad behavior. There was a discussion started on the original page which Polaron chose to circumvent. Neither am I going to stop contributing to the article. The solution is simply for the admins to remerge the histories as requested (made more complicated now by the stalling but that's not my fault). |
|||
:Please don't encourage this behavior. Instead encourage [[WP:Consensus]] and [[WP:Reliable sources]] as a means to make progress. |
|||
:--[[User:Mcorazao|Mcorazao]] ([[User talk:Mcorazao|talk]]) 21:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:52, 24 February 2010
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
Please add new comments in . Thanks. SarekOfVulcan |
---|
Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.
You
Are a turd of an editor.--Otterathome (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I appreciate the positive feedback. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Can you please move this now? Gnevin (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Still don't see a consensus to move it. Try the requested moves process. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Your the only one objecting , will you please move the page and not force me to have too waste my time with a RM just because you moved the page back Gnevin (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, no, I'm not the only one objecting. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Your the only one objecting , will you please move the page and not force me to have too waste my time with a RM just because you moved the page back Gnevin (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Langerado wiki page
Hi SarekOfVulcan,
I am writing you regarding the Langerado wiki page. A user named Drmies has been systematically removing factual information from the wiki. Drmies admits on the talk page he isn’t familiar with the facts he is removing. He is vandalizing the wiki by removing accurate and easily verifiable information. It appears he has added a couple of links to the article, so that when I fixed his vandalism it says I am removing references. I did not intentionally remove any accurate references he may have added. I am simply trying to include the most up-to-date and accurate information regarding this topic. The information regarding the lawsuit is easy to find on the Broward County Clerk of Courts website. The information Drmies is removing is taken verbatim from the clerk of courts website. Drmies call this information libelous, however I just don’t see how public information taken verbatim from the clerk of courts website can somehow be libelous.
Additionally it is worth noting I am personally connected with the Langerado organization. I am well aware of the history of the festival, and I have a personal interest in keeping information regarding this festival up-to-date. How can I maintain accurate information on the Langerado wiki when Drmies continues to vandalize it?
Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.130.219 (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- First, I'd just like to point out that this is Wikipedia, not "the wiki". Anyone can run their own wiki, so mentioning "the Langerado wiki" makes it sound like part of the festival's website.
- Second, all information in Wikipedia has to be verifiable in reliable sources. Reliable sources, for our purposes, need to be secondary sources. If you can find a news story talking about the suit, you may be able to use that. Personal knowledge is not sourceable -- otherwise, several of the articles I've worked on would be significantly longer. :-)
- For the moment, the Langerado page is protected so that only registered and established editors can work on it. I'd suggest setting up an account so you don't have to worry about this.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Hiya SoV,
I was checking back for other reasons and noted the conversation above... perhaps this section may help and be non-COI for the above editor? (it's not a suggestion, it's a question, as I am still learning my way around here)
"The information regarding the lawsuit is easy to find on the Broward County Clerk of Courts website. The information Drmies is removing is taken verbatim from the clerk of courts website."
And thanks again for your help the other day...
Best, Robert
RobertMfromLI | User Talk STP2: Producer/Gaffer/Webmaster 22:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- That wouldn't really work, either. After all, just because someone is accused of fraud doesn't mean he's guilty of it. If he loses the lawsuit, that would be more-reportable, but until it's resolved one way or the other, it really shouldn't be here. How would you like it if someone insisted on putting information into the Phase II article that you had ripped off their story before a judge had decided in their favor?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Ooops... I made the (wrong) assumption that the link was to a lawsuit that already had a resolution. Not one that was pending verdict. But, on my incorrect assumption, you've clarified my question on the matter, which was (again based off my incorrect assumption) would such be more reportable and something that was citable (assuming a verdict). So, I guess my question still pertained to my quest for more knowledge, but I picked the wrong example to base the question upon. The rest I am aware of (innocent until... etc) and am part of enforcing that on our forums (for not just us, but for the variety of fan films that post on our forums too).
Best, Robert
RobertMfromLI | User Talk STP2: Producer/Gaffer/Webmaster 23:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Death and the maiden
Hallo, I dropped a note on "help" on the project page. One remark concerning the article: "mäßig" translates to "moderately", so "moderato" might be closer than "slow". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Wrong
Baned from kosovo related articles. by the way thanks for the info-- LONTECH Talk 23:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
SuaveArt seems to be evading his ban
See this AN/I I just posted. Seregain (talk) 06:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Bouley Talk Page
Sarek - I don't care if AFriedman told JoyDiamond to move that talk content to the Bouley page - it was originally a communication between AFriedman and me that was a direct result of an email I sent het. JoyDiamond removed it from *my* talk page without my permission and placed it on hers. I never gave permission for communication meant only for me to be taken from my page to another user's page, and I certainly never gave permission for it to be moved to an article talk page. Because it was origianlly meant for me, it does not belong on the Bouley talk page. If AFriedman wants to put it there as an item for Bouley article editors, fine. But as it is, it is a communication originally meant for me. I request that you remove it - if you do not, I will take this to another administrator who is unbiased and get their opinion. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- AFriedman asked JoyDiamond to move his edit to the article talkpage. It's irrelevant where he made that edit in the first place. Granted, Joy shouldn't have moved it to her page in the first place, but once the original editor asked for it to be moved, you lost standing to complain that the later move was done.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, what should have occurred is that Joy should have removed it from her page, and stopped there. AFriedman never should have put Joy in the middle (especially since she is aware of how things between Joy and I have been in the past) and had Joy move anything other than off of her own page. If AFriedman had then put it on the Bouley talk page, fine. But, other than deleting what never should have been placed on her own talk page to begin with, Joy never should have been in the equation. And, frankly, you just reverting it without taking any of this into consideration and saying something to me other than in the edit summary just made it worse. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Re: what you just left on my talk page: I guarantee you that my personal life is none of your business nor is it your place to wish that sort of thing on me. And, frankly, I don't care what you think about what I said to her. I wasn't wishing ill on her, nor on her family. What I meant by "I don't buy it" was not about her sister's illness, but that she doesn't have time to do what I asked her to do. Next time, please act like an administrator and try to find out details and ask some questions before giving such a knee-jerk reaction. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
ScienceApologist
Given ScienceApologists previous history on similar articles, which has earned him a subject area ban in the past, and his previous use of WP:FTN as a get-around for WP:CANVAS a notice of some kind seemed appropriate. If you have a suggetstion for less combative wording that nevertheless gets over the key points I am all ears. Artw (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Please note that Artw is well aware that posting to relevant noticeboards is not a violation of WP:CANVASS, as was confirmed at WP:ANI when he raised the same complaint against me. Verbal chat 18:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Question about Current Event article
Hi SarekofVulcan,
Sorry to bug ya again, but I have a question regarding this article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Andrew_Koenig
Would it be appropriate, as the page is listed as a "current event" if I were to add to the "missing" section the pertinent contact information for anyone who may have information about Andrew?
Something along these lines perhaps?
"If you have seen or been in contact with Andrew since Feb 14, 2010, please contact Detective Raymond Payette of the Vancouver Police Department at 604-717-2534"
It would be wonderful if due to Wikipedia's immense viewership, the Wikipedia Community was able to provide information or closure (hopefully not) to Walter and his family. I am not sure if it would fit within Wikipedia's Guidelines, or how the possibility of either saving a life or finding closure may override such.
I can monitor the page daily, and update as needed. In that respect, I am in contact with those who would have such information (as you may have already suspected from my Star Trek related affiliations).
Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 02:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
94.136.35.108
I posted a question there before I realized you had rendered it unable to answer, so I reverted my question. I still wonder, though, what "cult" it's referring to? A quick glance at Aunt E's edit's look like attempts to keep articles neutral and not support a particular viewpoint. What am I missing? (Besides the usual) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- The "cult" is "fundamentalist Christianity". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- That's one big honkin' "cult". And at least in spot-checking, I'm not seeing that in Auntie's edits. It seems like Auntie's trying to keep things neutral. POV-pushing is a constant problem in wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Contemporary incompleteness theorems
You protected a couple pages in response to an ANI thread about Carl Hewitt. Hewitt has also created a page, Contemporary incompleteness theorems, which serves primarily to include material that was rejected from the article on Goedel's incompleteness theorem. Two editors (including me) have redirected this back to the main page, but Hewitt has reverted it. The page was created by a banned editor and so it is actually a speedy deletion candidate. If you have a second, could you look at it? Either deletion or a protected redirect would be reasonable, and in line with the arbcom decision regarding Hewitt. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Collaboration for your alma mater
Brown University has been a recurring candidate for the Universities Collaboration of the Month but it has been short the votes necessary to win on several occasions. If you'd like to see a concerted effort to improve the article on your alma mater, please drop by the collaboration page to cast your vote. Also feel free to help improve our current collaborations during their last few days. Cheers! -Mabeenot (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
- Proposal to Close This RfC
- Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy
Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010
- In the news: Macmillan's Wiki-textbooks and more
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Mammals
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Move clarification
When El Paso-Juárez Metropolitan Area was moved to El Paso-Juárez Region and then El Paso–Juárez region, that was the original article, under a different title. When you edited El Paso-Juárez Metropolitan Area after the move, you weren't restoring the old article -- you were creating a new article at the old title, losing all the edit history which is required under the licensing we use here. Hence, when you urge people to edit the original article, you actually aren't following your own advice. It is possible to merge the histories of the articles, but I'd recommend that you just edit the article at El Paso–Juárez region, and continue to discuss the move at an appropriate venue, like the article talk page. See WP:Requested moves for more details on how to move it back properly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for getting in touch with me.
- With respect, this is an abuse of Wikipedia policy (i.e. misconstruing policy to do something not intended by the policy makers). The original move was done deliberately without consensus and based on WP:OR. The user did this knowing that I could not move it back. I requested that the damage be repaired but the admins so far have been hesitant to merge back because they don't want to get in the middle of a disagreement. That, of course, creates an awkward situation.
- I am not going to discuss this at the revised location. That sets a bad precedent and rewards bad behavior. There was a discussion started on the original page which Polaron chose to circumvent. Neither am I going to stop contributing to the article. The solution is simply for the admins to remerge the histories as requested (made more complicated now by the stalling but that's not my fault).
- Please don't encourage this behavior. Instead encourage WP:Consensus and WP:Reliable sources as a means to make progress.
- --Mcorazao (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)