User talk:Plange

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plange is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia 11-13-2006

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User talk:Plange.

Archives
start – August 2006 August 10 - end of August 2006 Sept 2006 Oct 2006

Contents 1 Virginia Footnotes 2 About your edit to AIAV 3 The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VI - November 2006 4 Family history 5 AIV work 6 AIV 7 Thanks! 8 AIV header 9 User:Videocom 10 From My Talk Page 11 Pictures 12 Thanks for assessing Sathya Sai Baba so quickly 13 Thanks, Plange 14 Copyedit help for a fellow Whedon article! 15 More questions 16 Prechter 17 wikEd 18 Peer review needed 19 RfA thanks! 20 Maybe time to wrapup Al Gore III? 21 Another POV 22 Getting out the vote

[edit] Virginia Footnotes

Plange, Those two do go together. I tried to get it to work but failed.

Thanks, Rutke421 04:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About your edit to AIAV

Hello there. I've seen you've removed a vandal report I made on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Here's the diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=next&oldid=85079834

Your motivation for removing the report without taking action was "No vandalism after last warning". I have to disagree: he had indeed done further damage since receiving test4.

17:29 - User vandalised Commodus again
17:35 - User received test4
17:38 - User vandalised Commodus yet again
17:43 - User reported (no further warning issued, since he had received a final warning)

After that, the report was removed. What's the use of having final warnings that state "the next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked", if when the user does vandalise a page again, the vandal report is simply removed? --Nehwyn 21:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I usually discount edits done just mere minutes after a test4 to give them the benefit of the doubt that they hadn't seen the message. I saw your report just a few minutes after you posted it and waited until 18:23 before I removed them just to see if they had gotten the message, or had definitely ignored it and was still vandalizing. To me it appears they did get the message as they have not vandalized again. Blocks are not punitive but preventative, so if the message works, no block is necessary. --plange 21:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I get the principle, but I disagree in this case. Test4 specifically states that, if vandalism continues, the user will be blocked. Lower-level warnings are there to see if the user stops vandalising pages. Once a final warning is issued, and the user keeps going on anyway, that's definitely grounds for blocking. Otherwise, there's no difference between test1 and test4. --Nehwyn 17:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

When it's continued by just one more edit a mere minutes after the last warning I give the benefit of the doubt. If it keeps continuing, I block (because if there's more than one edit past the warning, I know they've seen the orange box letting them know they've received a message). --plange 17:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but I respectfully disagree. --Nehwyn 18:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Noted. --plange 18:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VI - November 2006

The November 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Family history

I would sort of agree with you; the only quibble is that the Frelinghuysens were a pretty prominent family in early NJ, and people might object to getting rid of the article because of that connection. I would use the example of an article I sent to AFD on Leutenant Helmut Frohberg, a minor officer in the German army in WWII. Nice article, pictures and everything... but the guy was just not notable. The AFD discussion is archived, although the article is gone.

I suppose that one way to save articles like Helmut Frohberg and Sanford Ransdell might be to allow a certain number of articles on "foot soldiers" - otherwise non-notable combatants - in each war - maybe 5 on each side, more for a major conflict. That might be an interesting addition to the military history. As a bit of an exclusionist, I sort of feel like I'm opening a can of worms here, but still - might be worth considering. Brianyoumans 04:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AIV work

This is usually a pretty thankless task. So... ***thank you***. --Dweller 16:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) --plange 16:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and for what it's worth (not much), I think you're spot on with your arguments above about blocks, following a test4. I particularly liked your comment about the blocks not being punitive. That's something us RC patrollers lose sight of... it begins to feel a bit personal and I'm sure lots of us begin to feel subconsciously that blocks are justified on a punitive basis. --Dweller 18:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I just had my willpower tested with that myself as one of my articles Serenity (film) just got attacked, but I waited until it was obvious they were not stopping. --plange 18:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AIV

My apologies for blocking people as you deal with them. I've been refreshing the page before you put the investigating message on. Coincidentally, you might just be better not putting that message in. I follow the following sequence CONTRIBS-> TALK -> BACK -> BLOCK -> TALK -> REMOVE. Alphachimp 16:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

no worries - I was doing the message thing as suggested on the talk page, but if you think it's not needed, that's cool. --plange 17:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Haha, it's totally up to you. I just figured I'd tell you how I've done it for the last 2.5 months. I really do appreciate what you're doing, no matter how you decide to do it. Alphachimp 17:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually I was glad to get your tip on sequence! Saves me learning by trial and error :-) (the part I was referring to above was about leaving a message on the page) --plange 17:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks to you, Plange, for sorting out the vandalism on both the Jobcentre Plus page and my own User Page. I have to say I was out of my depth, and didn't know quite how to cope with this very childish individual.

Things weren't helped by the fact that, ironically, for about 48 hrs I was out of action as – at the crucial time – my own IP address had been inadvertently blocked by an over-zealous anti-vandal Wikipedian. Thanks again - your intervention was much appreciated. – Agendum 19:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

no problem! You user page happened to still be on my watch list from a previous post there. That vandal was very bizarre! --plange 20:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AIV header

I accidentally deleted it. Sorry. --KeithB 21:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I figured it was by accident, that's why I didn't name you ;-) No worries! --plange 21:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Videocom

i notice you recently blocked this user, in past few minutes i have noticed 3 pages vandalised by them(1, 2, 3) im not sure what to do about this, or how to go about warning them. cheers mate. --Dan027 09:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From My Talk Page

The answer to your message to me:

I am not directly involved, no, but I have been following the project since January, and yes, Joss Whedon gave his direct approval using Whedonesque.com, his blog site. I will find the permalink to the entry that is somewhere in the message board of ITB. Additionally, Nathon Fillian not only voiced his support for ITB, but also gave some of his own money to help finance the project.

To respond, post on my talk page. -- Ubergenius 16:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the link about Nathon Fillian's support: [1]

And this is the link about Whedon's support: [2]

-- Ubergenius 16:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Hey Plange, I have a question about downloading pictures. If I took my own picture and wanted to download it onto a site, say Virginia for instance, what would I put down has a copyright or where I got the photo from so it would not be deleted? Thanks RUTKE421

This image:

was taken by a fellow project member at WP:VIRGINIA and you could use it as a guide for what to put in there for licensing, etc. --plange 05:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for assessing Sathya Sai Baba so quickly

You may have noticed that the article contains little biograhical information. This is due to the lack of independent reputable sources on the subject. There is an official biography, called Sathyam Sivam Sundaram by his follower Narayana Kasturi, but this is more a hagiography and I believe unreliable even for basic facts. Do you think that this was a good decision? User:SSS108 thinks I am wrong. I put some of the contents of Kasturi's book in Beliefs and practices in the Sathya Sai Baba movement. A comparable figure in this respect is Jesus. Andries 15:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually what I would like to see happen, is if you and the other editor can agree that you would like to have a peer review, then we can give you one -- the Assessment area is just for quick assessments. The reason I'd like to ask that the other editors agree is that we just had a situation where we reviewed an article in good faith -- Mitt Romney -- having no idea it was in the middle of a POV war, and the other side had no understanding what a peer review is and attacked the reviewer. We do not like to get dragged into POV disputes (that's what arbitration is for), so if you guys are willing to let us tell you what we think without us being dragged into the argument, that's fine. You can then just take or leave our comments and it's up to you guys to implement them. --plange 15:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The article already had a peer review more than two years ago, Wikipedia:Peer_review/Sathya_Sai_Baba but then it was very different and was authored for more than 80% by me. Almost every edit that I now make on the article will lead to a request for comments, because user:SSS108 disagrees with it. If I request a new peer review then I will announce it on the Sathya Sai Baba talk page. Andries 15:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Try our biography peer review, you might get more responses there than the regular PR process. But if you could also have SSS108 say that he'll also be ok with a peer review. I know I'm being like a mother hen, but it's hard to get good peer reviewers and after last week, I don't want them to get attacked again :-) --plange 22:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Another case in which the peer review was not announced was Prem Rawat. I learnt it here [3] I am one of the main contributors to the article and in perennial disagreement with another main contributor i.e. user:Jossi. Andries 08:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least on that one we were allowed to give our peer review without the other side (I guess that would be you in this case) jumping down our throat :-) Thank you! We're asked to do these and have no idea of sides or that there are even any sides, so we innocently go in and give our 2 cents and in that one particular case, were lambasted. --plange 00:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks, Plange

Thanks for your help on the Tillie whatshername thing.Jeffpw 08:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit help for a fellow Whedon article!

Hello! Looks like I'm in the same boat you were in last month with the Buffy article (congrats BTW!)-- I just nominated Firefly (TV series) for FAC and Tony also suggested we get a copyeditor - who did you end up finding? --plange 23:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I contacted User:Deckiller, but he is already extremely busy (with both real life and wikipedia) but said he would be willing to look at the Buffy article. I did come across several professional editors (who I haven't yet contacted) who have helped get sci-fi (Star Wars) articles to featured status and I would suggest asking one of these users: User:BrianSmithson, User:Fuhghettaboutit, User:Myleslong. Also if you're interested in a trade, do you fancy giving a complete copyedit for fluidity and grammar to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and I can give a complete copyedit to Firefly (TV series) over next few days? -- Paxomen 12:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a deal :-) I'll go take a look at it today~ --plange 15:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

OK I may need a a few days to give a proper copyedit, but I'll get there :) I will attempt to be bold, and trust in others to bring any of my changes into line if neccessary. - Paxomen 23:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'm glad we're doing this trade because going over yours gave me ideas for the Firefly one. Nowhere do we mention Mutant Enemy and we should; I also liked how you did your production area, and I didn't know about that Espenson article on writing, so I'll try to work that in... I had to leave after doing Buffy, so I didn't get to leave comments on the Talk page, but will do so now... Thanks for your help! --plange 23:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That's great to hear that doing this has been a help. Btw Mutant Enemy is very briefly referenced in the 'Writing' section but the Mutant Enemy article could use some expansion which I'm sure Wikipedians will eventually get around to. I've only started copyediting Firefly article, but am so far really impressed with the citation format, and the content is really interesting, and look forward to doing some more in next few days. -- Paxomen 00:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More questions

I'm confused on the Sean Hannity page. I don't have problem with the criticism staying in, I was just trying to figure out how it's supposed to work. The criticism does not come from a staff editorial in the New York Times but an editorial by Frank Rich. Is that still the full opinion of the NYT's editorial staff? I'm not familiar enough with how the paper works to know.

I'm putting this on your talk page because I really don't care one way or another if it stays in and I don't want it to look like I'm fighting for the criticism to come out when I'm really just asking a question. --PTR 19:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That's cool--I've only been barely watching that page, so could you help save me some time of going through the Talk stuff and provide a link to the editorial? I don't even know what it was saying, just saw that note about NYTimes and chimed in... Thanks! --plange 23:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you found it before I noticed this. Thanks for your input. --PTR 01:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prechter

Thanks for taking note of my request on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, but I'm still unable to access the Robert Prechter article...

Rgfolsom 16:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I know, I was just making it easier for others to respond to you... --plange 17:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks -- I thought you were an administrator. Rgfolsom 17:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I am but am at work, so can't take the time to investigate... --plange 17:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. I'm grateful for any help you can offer. Rgfolsom 18:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wikEd

Hi, I have seen that you are using the Cacycle editor extension. This program is no longer actively maintained in favor of its much more powerful successor wikEd.

wikEd has all the functionality of the old editor plus: • syntax highlighting • nifty image buttons • more fixing buttons • paste formatted text from Word or web pages • convert the formatted text into wikicode • adjust the font size • and much, much more.

Switching to wikEd is easy, check the detailed installation description on its project homepage. Often it is as simple as changing every occurrence of editor.js into wikEd.js on your User:YourUsername/monobook.js page.

Cacycle 22:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review needed

Since you have experience with featured articles, I could use your assistance. I am working on criminology topics which is an area that Wikipedia sorely lacks. Last weekend, I discovered there was no article on "Gun violence", so started one. Most of the research literature pertains to the United States, so the article has become Gun violence in the United States. Obviously, people have strong POV on this topic, and I'm perhaps entering a minefield here. To try and rise above politics, I have only included the highest quality reliable sources (most are from peer reviewed, scholarly journals). Personally, I really don't have a POV on this. The article basically presents the current state of research on this topic, and I think is close to featured status (if POV pushing can be kept out of the article). Nonetheless, someone has already come along and place a neutrality tag on the article. I could really use some peer review on the article, at this point. Do you at all agree with the person who placed the neutrality tag? Do you have any suggestions on improving the article or making it more NPOV? are there aspects of the topic that are missing? Any help would be appreciated. --Aude (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks!

My RfA done I hope to wield my mop well (Her name is Vera) I appreciate The support you have shown me (I hope I don't suck) Anyway, I just wanted to drop you a line (damn, haikus are hard)

I never would have guessed that my own RfA would be passing so soon after seeing yours pass with flying colors... obviously, we browncoats are just very dependable and mature. ;-)

And looks like we're even on the whole "updating RfA tallies" thing. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe time to wrapup Al Gore III?

The comments have gone pretty quiet in the last week. Certainly no screaming like was occurring earlier. Premature? BusterD 13:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another POV

I know I dragged you into a bad one last time on Hannity but I was wondering if you'd take a look at Al Sharpton. It's mostly controversy written very POV. Just in case you are interested. --PTR 22:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Getting out the vote

Hi Plange, Firstly thanks for helping out by intervening on the Joseph W. Tkach editing. Definitely progress was made, thanks to the anonymous editor. I have another favour to ask. The article is now a FAC. I am uncomfortable about soliciting votes (conflict of interest), so I was wondering if you could ask your colleagues to review and vote on it. Thanks. --RelHistBuff 08:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)