User talk:MLauba/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

Hello

It's me Valkyrie Red. I remember those good times we had a while back, and I would like to inform that I am a changed man, though I don't intend on staying with Wikipedia for much longer.

Well, the reason I contact you is that I want to understand something. You always seemed to be against me during our arguments, and I even suspect that you abused your powers on me, though you had plenty of support to get through this without repercussions.

Nonetheless, I have decided to forgive you for our past nonsense. I only ask in return for an apology. After that, you shant hear from me again.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Most certainly. Once you will be done apologizing to everyone you pestered, harassed, accused of bias, assumed bad faith of, annoyed, refused to listen to, attacked, and blamed for your own shortcomings which also included canvassing and socking; once these apologies have been presented, I will be quite happy to express that the fact that I was never able to communicate to you that your manner of interaction with other Wikipedians was and remains out of line is to be regretted.

And in terms of out of line communications of yours, this includes your latest request for an apology (with an accusation of power abuse, no less) here or on other users pages.

Your forgiveness for "our past nonsense" means nothing, unless by our past nonsense you really mean to say "for having to resort to blocking in order to get a point across to me"; but if that is what you meant, you should have said so.

Last but not least, your request lacks clarity: you state you want to understand something but you never state what you seek to understand. I'm afraid I will have to apologize for being unable to shed any light on an unspecified matter later on, so let me again pre-emptively write that if you are ever to make sense of this, my inability to guess it from the get-go will also be regrettable. In retrospect.

Best, MLauba ^(Talk) 22:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

PS. To your last promise that I shan't hear from you again, I don't care if you keep communications up as long as they are civil. I would further welcome seeing your transformation to a changed man to transpire in your contributions but I see very little of that. What I still see is an abundance of WP:ABF and the very same trend to take one completely minor issue, turn it into a major battleground and refuse, ever, ever, to bow to overwhelming consensus against you (to wit, your renewed attempts to get a warbox into the Troyan war article with, again, a good measure of inappropriate canvassing). The only reason you have not been brought back into the spotlight for this is that so far, nobody followed you into any of these drama situations you were attempting to create. MLauba ^(Talk) 22:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

So in other words you refuse to apologize because of your ego. Could have just said so. Best regards :)--Valkyrie Red (talk) 01:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Re-read what I wrote above. Changed man. Really. MLauba ^(Talk) 02:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

A discussion has been raised about you...

...that you may wish to be aware of. [1] Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 03:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think I have anything to add to the above, though. MLauba ^(Talk) 09:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Official request for input

In wake of the latest plagiarism/copyright uproar on ANI, User:SandyGeorgia has suggested that we do something that can be publicized in the Signpost. I'm collecting thoughts at User talk:Moonriddengirl/Copyright. Yours would be most welcome! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

copyvio/plagiarism

Hi !

Just a feedback regarding your rant, it was much needed. You also may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page. The discussion of plagiarism there is much worse (imho it has gone completely overboard), it is particularly disturbing that many editors don't distinguish between plagiarism and copyvio at all and worse they apparently intend to apply the approach of universities/schools towards plagiarism to WP articles, which is completely inappropriate.

regards, --Kmhkmh (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yup, thought I'd address the easier one first :)

I believe you'll find I disagree with your stance on dealing with plagiarism in Wikipedia, but I absolutely concur that the pressing issue is copyvios. MLauba ^(Talk) 11:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Well the problem is, as I've just discovered myself, that WP has its very own notion of plagiarism, i.e. a properly attributed/sourced "plagiarism" without copyvio is essentially none. The latter is however what I've mostly have in mind, since the other cases strictly speaking are more or less covered by the guidelines for copyvio and sourcing/verifisbility. And there is a bit of mismatch regarding the use of the term "plagiarism" in and outside of WP.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Victor Dahdaleh

hi - this was deleted by you a while ago and want to make you aware that i recently stumbled across it and wanted to create a better version

Diginerd84 (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You'll want to take care not to copy / paste content from that person's website without permission (and if you believe you can get his permission to reuse his material, please follow WP:PERMISSION to ensure we document it properly), but also that this person meets our inclusion criteria. Good luck. MLauba ^(Talk) 10:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I had a look at your latest recreation, and unfortunately noticed that the article was, in its entirety, a series of sentences copy / pasted verbatim from Dahdaleh's blog. This violates our copyright policies - you may exact quote brief verbatim passages, but building an entire article on nothing but quotes is not possible.

In order to both conform with copyright laws but more importantly to keep with our mission to create a free encyclopedia, Wikipedia cannot accept content that has been copied from third party sites without explicit permission. My recommendation would be to start over from scratch, avoiding the use of the copy / paste function in your browser at all cost, and writing a summary of Dahdaleh's life in your own words. To that effect, it would be best to read multiple independent sources, then put them away before summarizing their content into a new article. MLauba ^(Talk) 10:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Review a rewrite?

Hi. Do you have time to review a rewrite at Talk:Marcelline Jayakody/Temp? Diversity of review is important in close paraphrasing issues, and I tagged the article. See the bottom of his talk page here for some examples from the original and note the bottom here. Another contributor has been helping him, so perhaps it's okay now, but I'd really like a second set of eyes on it. :) It's at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 October 25. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, will do either today or tomorrow. MLauba ^(Talk) 17:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much! As you know, things are a bit nuts right now! :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

As you suspected. Early life is useless. Checking further... MLauba ^(Talk) 13:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. :/ If I get a chance today (I've got a meeting this morning), I'd like to pitch in with your Dispatch thing. Would you prefer that I edit it directly or bring up any questions/comments/suggestions at the talk page? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Done Yuck, that one was a PITA to stubify.

For the dispatch thing, don't hesitate to edit directly, but I have a special request for you (and please don't take this the wrong way), I'd be grateful if you could edit as if this were almost aimed at simple.wikipedia instead of us. This is in no way a criticism of your usual contributions but you write in a dense, precise, and extremely rich style. I'd like to keep this piece as simple as possible, even if it is at the cost of precision or detail. I'd see that as the first part of a series where your own piece is the next step up from there. MLauba ^(Talk) 14:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not offended. :) I've known for quite some time that writing simply is a challenge for me. If I do edit directly and you think I've failed the "KISS" philosophy, you are very welcome to revise me. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Your draft signpost article

I don't find your syntax bad at all! If I can find any constructive comments to make on the draft, I shall make them: however, you know my positions on "plagiarism", so I shall try not to bore you with a rehash of those. Physchim62 (talk) 19:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I fully expect to get horrified reactions from some editors who believe a much more stringent standard needs to be applied anyway, so since I believe your stance is more liberal than mine, rehash to your heart's content :D MLauba ^(Talk) 19:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Mandating URL in history deletion?

In some situations where I've used {{copyvio-histpurge}}, the URL that was being plagiarised was itself linking to a copyright violation (eg. scanlation aggregator sites). I feel that including the specific URL that is being plagiarised would be counterproductive in such circumstances, especially if the infringing history revisions include the URL. (as in "Download this manga here!") --Malkinann (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that if the deleting admin cannot verify the claim, he cannot perform a revdelete. But I get the gist of your point, I'll soften the language a bit. MLauba ^(Talk) 10:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

So it would be as simple as explaining that 'the reference/external link given in the revisions I'm disputing is a linkvio'? Cool. :) --Malkinann (talk) 11:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Rather being circumspect, couldn't the deleting admin revdel through the tagger's revisions containing the linkvio? Flatscan (talk) 05:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Res ipsa loquitur

WP:DENY MLauba ^(Talk) 16:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

So just to get this straight, you demonstrate that you are stalking the edits of a user you agreed to completely ignore at the risk of a block in order to get her blocked? Is that what you are trying to say? MLauba ^(Talk) 16:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, I am not at liberty to address that question. All I can do is gesture mutely at the section heading. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

All right. You alluded in one comment a few days ago that you had direct reports in the past. I'm going to assume that having being in a position of authority, you are familiar with the concept of harassment, in particular harassment by a person in authority over subordinates.

Mentorship agreements on Wikipedia have one fundamental flaw in that they place the mentee in a position of automatic subordination not just towards their mentors but also the community. Whatever the legitimacy of complaints being raised against them, mentees have to overcome the assumption that since they are being mentored, they cannot be trusted. The hurdle a mentee has to cover in order to overcome this perception is typically higher than what another a user with a long block log has to deal with. Further, even if a complaint is without merit, the mentors cannot intervene in the favour of their mentee at the risk of being themselves tarred with partisanship.

Independently of that, in order for mentorship to succeed, the mentee has to be able to discuss situations relevant to their mentorship with their mentors. Due to the very nature of Wikipedia, it is normally out of the question that such discussions are held off-wiki.

Mentorship pages are supposed to be a safe environment where mentors and mentees can examine the latter's reactions to a situation and advise them. They're the Wikipedia equivalent of a client / attorney discussion.

There is, in general, no valid reason for any party outside of the mentorship agreement to pry on these discussions. I do consider attempts to use and leverage discussions held in that privileged space meant to be a safe environment to be an utterly shocking attempt at harassment against someone who is currently in a position of weakness.

Blocking you at this stage would, fortunately for you, be punitive. And while I will have another word with Malke about her choice of words, let me be clearer again.

You have been instructed to disengage and ignore Malke. You have absolutely no business stalking her edits. You will stay away from her mentorship pages in particular, and if you have any cause of concern with Malke in the future, you better make damn sure that this cause has been generated on a place where it was impossible for you to ignore it, in other words, on a common page where you do have legitimate business, and were legitimately present before her.

Should that prove impossible for you, it will be a clear demonstration that you are incapable of editing with the right level of collegiality required on Wikipedia, which will lead to a removal of your editing privileges. MLauba ^(Talk) 01:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

As before, I am not at liberty to address the exciting issues that you raise, though you can be sure that I listened attentively. As it happens, entirely by coincidence, I've decided to trim my watchlist by removing user pages of people who I have no current interest in communicating with. It's amazing how those tend to accumulate and then show up as distractions in your new changes list, especially if you're in the habit of systematically clicking on the unvisited "diff" hotlinks. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

MLauba, I just read WP:DENY, and it turned out to be an essay that was about vandalism, specifically excluding harassment. At risk of being overly sensitive, I'm concerned that you might be inadvertently suggesting that I'm a vandal. Would you please consider changing the label on your collapse section to something more appropriate? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party Movement MedCab case

Hi MLauba! Thanks for your note on the interaction ban. As I am not an admin, I can do little about it if it happens. Would you be willing to assist me in enforcing the ban? I can keep an eye out, and will let you know of any violations I see. Thanks again. Ham tech person 18:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if and when I'm around, though if there are any further issues, ANI can help as well. I wish you patience and wisdom in the mediation. MLauba ^(Talk) 09:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hallo

Hallo M.Lauba,

I did as you asked, and posted a reply on my talk page. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate questions at ACE

Hello MLauba, you seem to have inadvertently posted the same question to multiple candidates in the ArbCom elections. The general questions, which are asked of all candidates, are here and were open to discussion and alteration by the community until the opening of nominations. Voters are welcome to ask an individual question of each specific question, but mass-posting isn't fair on the other voters, so I've removed your question for now. Please take a minute to read over the election page and the questions page for background and guidelines. Thanks, and sorry for the inconvenience, Skomorokh 13:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand the role of the election officials, but I'll be glad to answer your question, either if you can re-post it on the questions page in accordance with the rules, or on my talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I should have added that you are of course free to post whatever you like on the candidates' user talk pages, and SirFozzie has elected to use the talkpage of his questions page for overflow (something the other candidates are welcome to do), so I'm sure he wouldn't mind you posting it there. It's just the flood on the candidate question pages the average voter will have to digest we are trying to avoid. Cheers, Skomorokh 13:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha both, I have to confess I had not really given too much thought to the overall process, apologies for the inconvenience caused. MLauba ^(Talk) 13:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks for your understanding. Skomorokh 13:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Note about questions

I have removed all but one instance of your question about paraphrasing as the rules do not allow mass posting the same question to all candidates. Feel free to ask one specific question customized to each candidate. Questions must be 75 words or less. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 15:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh come on, I did make specific efforts to give all of them a different angle. How much more distinctive do you expect them to be so that they become acceptable? MLauba ^(Talk) 15:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If you mention a specific action of the candidate or include a diff or reference something they've done that concerns you, that would satisfy my concern. Otherwise, you're just asking the same question but in different words. Feel free to post to the election talk page Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010 for clarification if you think I'm being too strict. I'm happy to comply with whatever standard the group of editors watching that page thinks is appropriate. Jehochman ^Talk 15:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

To specify, the question to NYB was focused on dealing with copyright cleanup and editors who may be embroiled in issues, the question to PhilKnight focused on how to balance between WP:NOR and WP:Close paraphrasing. The question for Chase me was about dealing with the fallout of one specific case for the future. I fail to see how this still qualifies as mass-posting, with the exception of the Harej / Chase similarity. MLauba ^(Talk) 15:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, those two you mention are what I noticed and what triggered my clearing out all of them except Harej's (because they already answered, and because you're allowed one instance of each question). The others are still uncomfortably close, if not exactly the same. We don't want to encourage other editors to see how closely they can skirt the rules or force the candidates to answer massive amounts of questions. Having run twice myself I know how difficult it can be. Is there any chance you could ask the other candidates something specific about their doings on Wikipedia? There was an opportunity to propose general questions, and the community selected those most widely desired. Jehochman ^Talk 15:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Under those specific constraints, considering I'm interested in getting a feel on how a future arb would deal with complex and / or conflicting policies, I understand that there's no room for my line of questions - fishing for specific issues in particular, on such a topic that is still a raw wound for the community, would probably amount to a silver bullet for any candidate. Even re-shaping the questions to become even more distinctive makes little sense, as asking them to any candidate at random would be completely arbitrary.

I missed the deadline for general questions (and aside from the recent dramafest doubt there's enough interest to ask questions in that area anyway), my own fault.

In light of the above, leaving the question just for Harej remains arbitrary and despite his response, I'd actually prefer if it were removed as well. Any objections if I re-ask the question I originally had left for NYB on the candidate page as my one sole survivor? MLauba ^(Talk) 16:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and ask NYB. I will post a note at Harej that it's a duplicate, but since answered already, we'll let it stand. Jehochman ^Talk 16:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Sorry for being super-slow on the whole matter. It's one of my high-density days. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

A second opinion

Hi. There's a rewrite at the CP from Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 October 31 on which I'd like a second opinion. Would you mind? I've already weighed in at the talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It's the top ticket under "manual" and the only ticket left from the day. If you agree with my conclusions, would you mind relisting it under today and closing out the 31st? If you don't have time to weigh in, just let me know, please, and I'll ask somebody else. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I'm determined to catch up at CP today! I've got a good clear block of time ahead of me, if I can just avoid any drahma. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

NP. I'll be on travels for the rest of the week and this again harder to catch. And you're about to get mail from me :) MLauba ^(Talk) 13:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Enjoy your travels, and I'll look for it. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

If you have spare time, could you pitch in at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 November 7? There are a couple of outstanding issues. :) I'm going to try to get a dent on today's listings, but have to leave in about 45 minutes and will be gone all day. (please read that in a properly whiny tone.) Meanwhile, I am distracted by a multiple article issue which I'm checking for need of a CCI. Copyright work. Never ending. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Give it another 24 hours and I'll have time to do so. MLauba ^(Talk) 17:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Victor Dahdaleh

The above article was deleted 3 times, twice by yourself for copyright problems, it has been recreated and I can't check the website you cited in you deletion edit summary as it appears to be under construction. Could you check to see if it still has copyright problems thanks. Mo ainm~Talk 11:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It's still almost word-for-word compared to the first versions I deleted. I have little doubt that the editor is somehow connected to the subject but if he doesn't want to conform to WP:PERMISSION, there's nothing we can do. Salted, thanks for the heads-up. MLauba ^(Talk) 11:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I thought there might be some COI good work. Mo ainm~Talk 11:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Violation de copyright

Boujour, je te contacte pour une purge de l'article Toubou people. La partie "Society" a été directement recopiée depuis "Encyclopaedia of the muslim world" p.32 (a partir du second paragraphe) et p.33. Voir ici Cordialement--Kimdime (talk) 04:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Je m'en occupe. A tout hasard, tu peux maintenant en demander une en plaçant {{copyvio-revdel}} en tête de l'article, ce qui laissera plus d'admins pour le faire. MLauba ^(Talk) 11:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Y terminé. MLauba ^(Talk) 11:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Done! (de mon coté) et je tacherais à l'avenir de me souvenir de ce template--Kimdime (talk) 12:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

MLauba, I must say I'm quite disappointed by the quality of your work in this occasion and, forgive my bluntness, I really hope it's not your habitual standard of work as an accusation of copyright violation is not something editors, or at least me, take lightly. At least, it would seem the edits you put in question are mine (memory isn't perfect and it's quite a few years ago), and while in my Chad-related articles I used a lot the public domain source Chad: a country study, and I remember to have copied for the Toubou article this page in particular (again, let me repeat, a fully public domain source). On second thoughts, I may be being too harsh in my criticism towards you: it was probably not all that difficult to fall in mistake as the encyclopedia itself copied large chunks of text from the same one I used. Unless there are edits from a different origin than me, I hope this will solve the misunderstanding. Bye, Aldux (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I have not accused anyone of anything - while you appeared to have added the text in question, you marked it as part of a merge, so I assumed you were not the editor who placed it there. It is not always possible to ascertain that a text identified as a copyvio has in fact an older PD source. Indeed, the source you mentioned was floating at the bottom of the article as a link, and I failed to follow it - which would have made obvious where the text came from. That error is mine.

However, since we're exchanging views on mutual quality of work, allow me to be equally frank and point out that lifting whole passages from PD sources without clearly attributing them becomes a case of plagiarism. Category:Attribution templates is where you can find the templates needed to mark when you borrow content from PD sources, and doing so saves the admins reviewing potential copyright issues time, and the contributors needless grief.

For material coming from the library of Congress' country studies pages, {{Country study}} is what you will want to use.

So my apologies for my error here, and if you remember other instances where you used PD text in your contributions, you can spare yourself a repeat of this experience by ensuring they are properly attributed. I'll revert myself accordingly. Happy editing, MLauba ^(Talk) 03:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Touché. I couldn't see the versions of the article, since they were deleted, but now that I can, I have to admit I didn't put the adequate template in the article on that occasion, a bad mistake on my part. But what counts is the issue is now resolved; forgive again my excessive harshness and regards, Aldux (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

No hard feelings on my part - I'm bound to make errors and more than glad when I'm given the opportunity to fix them. And my gut reaction above put aside, let me be clear that I'm in no way shifting the blame - I have not verified this article sufficiently, and I am grateful that you were able to set the record straight. Cheers, MLauba ^(Talk) 13:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hilfe?

Können sie Deutsch lesen? Ich weiß, sie sind in der lage. Mein Deutsch ist nicht so gut. Werden sie kümmern sich um diese? Bitte? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit on the fence for the second one. I'm convinced both texts stem from the same source but beyond the first para of the biography, focus on salient life events diverge a bit. If there's any evidence that the editor speaks Czech or has a habit of forming Czech machine translations into proper English text, my guess would be on a mix of the German source and the cz wikipedia page (although that would beg the question why he left out the additional sources in cz.wiki).

Instinct says delete on precautionary principle but I'm not 100% sure about this one. The other was more clearcut. MLauba ^(Talk) 15:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I should have mentioned that it's a CCI instead of getting cute with German. :/ The contributor has a history of both copying from English sources and directly translating specifically that German one. I've seen some that were obvious direct translations, but could not tell how much of a problem it was here. Is the Czech Wikipedia article okay? If so, maybe we could just get somebody to translate it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, I forgot to update you. I slept over it and then deleted it today - with a CCI, the burden of proof is to demonstrate something is no vio rather than the reverse, and the article fails that test.

The cz text seems fine, and could serve as a new beginning. MLauba ^(Talk) 13:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Danke! I've cobbled together a machine translation. I've lost some of the bits I couldn't make sense of, but it's a start. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Feedback?

Hi. There's a question about a paraphrase on my talk page, here, with which I'd be grateful for a second opinion. Any chance you can provide one? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

First look: I agree with your reading but the sense of discomfort remains. I'm abroad with limited computer access this week though, and didn't have the time to read beyond 1807. MLauba ^(Talk) 18:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Privatair

Thank you very much for getting the shot of the Privatair HQ! WhisperToMe (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I meant to do it for ages but always kept forgetting to stop when driving by the place. I also have a shot of the TAG Aviation building next to it if you want. MLauba ^(Talk) 17:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Block Evasion

Sorry to bother you, the same user you reverted and blocked here is at it again here and here. I've had a few "discussions" with him on Moonriddengirl's page and I simply cannot talk logically with him anymore. Please note the multiple IP addresses on her page as well in the "Warning" section of her talk page. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't around but it seems it has been dealt with now. Unless he return to acceptable forms of editing, he should now be treated strictly under WP:BRI. My advice to you is to stop engaging them or defending yourself, but to simply revert any edits you spot as block evasion going forward. If you do have the patience, feel free to list future diffs here for my attention, it may become necessary to take more radical measures to avoid wasting time with manual reverts. MLauba ^(Talk) 23:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks... WP:BRI sounds perfect... please notice he is using at least a dozen IP addresses. I can only use WP:Duck to guess if it's him or not. Luckily it's a single purpose account and he is focused on two articles. Robert Garside and Jesper Olsen (runner) CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Communities That Care

Hi. :) If you have a chance, would you mind addressing Communities That Care at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 December 9? It's not up until tomorrow, but I think we may not need to wait for it. I'd rather fresh eyes make the call. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that one took a while to figure out. I'll be honest, I cleared based on a gut feeling more than rock solid evidence this time. MLauba ^(Talk) 17:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yet again

Hi. Another one that could benefit from your eyes is at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Older consolidated--specifically, the (currently) second listing down on Glücksgas Stadium. A contributor thinks it may be a machine translation, and since the source is likely to be German I thought perhaps you could help out. More info at the listing. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Finding the right source is going to be oh so fun... MLauba ^(Talk) 13:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Winter of Terror

MLauba - Thanks for assessing Winter of Terror for me. It's appreciated. Anything in return I can or could do for you please let me know on my talkpage. Adamdaley (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

PhanuelB

A while ago PhanuelB sent me an email in which you were mentioned. If you are interested you can see both the text of the email and my response to it at User talk:PhanuelB#Response to email request for help. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up and the implicit endorsement. MLauba ^(Talk) 12:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Your comments to IP user from Murder of Meredith Kercher article

While the IP's comments were probably not in the correct forum, I feel both that your reversion of his civil comments was unwarranted, and that your warning to him on his talk page borders on unfair bullying. I think that there are more constructive ways to engage other editors, and I respectfully request that you try these before taking drastic steps like reverting talk posts and making threats.LedRush (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't make threats, I issue reminders, and for that matter, consider yourself reminded in the same fashion. MLauba ^(Talk) 20:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

PS just having noted that you took it upon you to restore a clear violation of WP:NPA, I will caution you against doing so again in the future. If you have issues with reversions of personal attacks, bring it to WP:ANI. MLauba ^(Talk) 20:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

M- While I disageee that I violated WP:NPA and I feel you could have handled your admonishment to me more politely, I do thank you for taking the time to post (albeit harshly) on my talk page. That said, perhaps you've helped me make my point: Sometimes there really is no nice way to state what's on one's mind. I tried my best to be polite to Pablo and I'm sorry that my efforts annoyed you. Thanks again for your feedback. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

There is definitely truth in that statement of yours sometimes there really is no nice way to state what's on one's mind. And on a site like wikipedia, it is often necessary to keep such sentiments to yourself when they drive you to comment on the supposed motives or intentions of others, rather than discussing concrete improvements to an article.

I do trust that this recovered awareness of yours will prevail going forward and we can all spare ourselves further unpleasantness. As I stated on your talk page, there is definitely a need for more diverse viewpoints on the Kercher article, and I would really look forward to see such make their way into the article's text without the distraction caused by unnecessary personalization of the debates. Those will not improve the article but merely leave all parties pissed off at each other. We've seen in the past that this rarely helps anyone, least of all the current minority POV. MLauba ^(Talk) 00:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Your disruptive edits and attacks

I would appreciate it if you could endeavor to be more civil with regards to the edits and discussions involving the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. I am trying to assume good faith, but it seems as if you are trying to threaten anyone with a dissenting view point so that the current group of editors can continue to mold the article as they wish. Your bullying of editors and your disruptive attempts to end discussions only foster more ill will in an article that already has high tensions and strong feelings. Things have remained relatively civil on the board despite some temper flares, but your actions serve to inflame the situation.LedRush (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

LedRush,

Accusing anyone who requests that people remain civil and stop attacking each other of bullying people is an age-old tactic. I note that you again took it upon yourself to interfere with administrative action, action taken with the intent to avoid participants place themselves in a situation where blocks begin to be required, including recommendations meant to move your preferred POV forward.

The next such interference will be treated as WP:DE. MLauba ^(Talk) 07:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry that you feel that you can be uncivil and make threats with impunity: you cannot (actually, you probably can as I won't stop you - but I won't alter my actions based on your bullying and disruptive edits). Turning around and making more threats and more accusations is unhelpful. A simple "I'm sorry" would have sufficed.LedRush (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Your sentiment is noted, and the warning stands. MLauba ^(Talk) 13:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You're probably not in the mood to discuss this, but what "adminstrative action" did you make that I reversed, and what is the wikipedia policy on this? Are normal edits (like removing comments on a talk page or archving threads) endowed with more power (and therefore cannot be altered) when an admin takes them? I looked at the wikipedia policy page for admins and didn't find any answers.LedRush (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed inflammatory comments that you restored with the intent to avoid an escalation that would lead to a block. I then archived a discussion that had further escalated due to said restoration, again as a last resort alternative to doling out blocks, and you reversed it again. I have little hope at that stage that you will not immediately begin to finagle that measures taken in order to avoid taking a concrete administrative action counts as one. If that is your intention, bring it to ANI. Let me simply state that my initial choice was to start issuing blocks before realizing that archiving was the better way to go about it, and that I have no doubt that a review of such blocks would have been found valid by the wider community.

I stand by my choices and by my wording, I have nothing I feel requires any apologies at that stage.

It may have escaped you so far, but many proponents of a more pro-Knox POV join the discussion from a background of forums and blog comments, where posturing and questioning the credibility of others are part of the acceptable discourse. Issuing a stern warning when statements begin crossing into WP:NPA territory is not done with the intent of silencing a specific point of view, but rather as a firm caution against using language and debating tactics that are considered unacceptable here and would, if maintained, disqualify them from commenting further. If to you a "comment on content, not on contributor, or else" counts as bullying, so be it, but rest assured that any editor who heeds that advice will also keep their privileges to explain and defend their views.

The one point on which you and the IP were quite correct is that articles on perpetrators don't necessarily follow an universal standard, and involved parties on a specific article's talk page are poor representative of the wider community's mood on this. It also follows that nobody requires a consensus of the editorial college on page A to write page B (though the overly long discussion will most definitely give you a feeling on the opposing concerns that any draft will need to address to recreate an article).

Long story short: Do you believe you can write an encyclopedic article on Amanda Knox that fixes the concerns of the last AfD? If yes, write it and submit it to WP:DRV to replace the protected redirect. If not, there's no point in arguing the issue any further, even less so when tempers on all sides are heating.

And as far as this conversation goes, this is my final word on it. If this doesn't satisfy you, kindly take it to WP:ANI. MLauba ^(Talk) 17:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Without getting into your judgments regarding what actions were uncivil and which actions may have required blocks (obviously, we disagree on this and I believe you'd have no hope of success on ANI gettig consensus for either position), what you're saying is that your reversion on the talk page and your archiving of the thread are edits which can either be administrative actions or not, depending on the circumstances, right? So, assuming that in these circumstances they are considered "administrative actions", is there a wikipedia policy on how or whether I can change them that is different than how I would treat those actions if they were made by a regular editor (or if they were made by an administrator who was not taking "administrative action")?LedRush (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Victor Dahdaleh permission

Just to make you aware that I've requested more information about permissions from the website. This was granted by Victor and permission has been sent to OTRS volunteers.

Biggleswiki (talk) 08:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

National Episcopal Historians and Archivists (NEHA)

I attempted to creat this page when I was made its new webmaster but didn't yet have an email that reflected ownership. The contact parallels closely the website content because that's the logical place to start. I'd like to have this page activated again so I can edit it. The email that I can be contacted at as being a representative of the copyright owner is (redacted). Thank you. Canonpayneus (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC).

In the meantime, it appears the e-mail address used in connection with the OTRS ticket is also linked as a contact on the website, which is sufficient to verify permission. I will restore the article. MLauba ^(Talk) 10:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyright Cleanup

I responded at [[2]] Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

In the light of recent edits example, example 2, example 3, some level of page protection might be useful. pablo 13:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit too busy to review this right now, would prefer if you went to WP:RFPP MLauba ^(Talk) 14:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

OK will do. pablo 14:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Block of User:ChrisStefan

Hi. Can you explain a bit about your block of User:ChrisStefan? I'm sure it's justified, it's only that I can't see any sign of any warnings, or any discussion at noticeboards, so I'm not sure what the history to the block is. I'm curious as I was going to try and help him out with understanding why his page has been deleted and what he can do about it, and I wanted to know what I'm dealing with! Thanks.--Korruski^Talk 14:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You'll want to look at the AfD and the DRV he wanted mediation on. While he didn't get a formally templated warning, he was asked, multiple times, to stop his personal attacks. After a formal warning, he carried on, hence the block. MLauba ^(Talk) 14:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. By the sound of it, he's happy to sit out the block, and then I think he's taken on board the feedback about how he interacts with other editors. If I can get him to focus on contributions that he's less personally invested in, he may yet be a good editor.--Korruski^Talk 11:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Considering his latest statement, I'm a bit more skeptical here. I have no doubt that like many other new editors, he remains confused about what "notability" really means in wikipedia speak, but when over a dozen established editors keep telling him over and over that unfortunately the subject of the article does not currently pass our bar for inclusion, attacking everyone is not the right approach.

Granted, we're not really good at educating new users, but here the task is made more difficult by his vocal insistence that everyone else is wrong, must have a hidden motive or be incompetent. As long as that attitude doesn't change, regardless of the topic they work on there will be trouble.

That being said, I'm all for second chances, and an acknowledgement from the user that their enthusiasm may have driven them overboard as well as the acceptance that when multiple experienced users tell them that something works differently than what he thinks it is time to drop the stick could lead to an immediate unblock.

Oh, and someone may want to point out to them that when even DGG (who is perhaps one of the editors here most willing to go multiple extra miles to ensure that articles with a prima facie tenuous chance of passing our inclusion guidelines get another good look or three) endorses a deletion, it's better to move on than get annoyed at his analysis. Just saying. MLauba ^(Talk) 13:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right. On the other hand, I'm not sure I entirely blame a new user for going overboard. On 99% of the internet, vigorously and noisily defending your corner is the most effective approach, and it may take some new Wikipedians a bit longer than others to figure out that's not how we do things around here. That's especially true if they genuinely don't understand why a subject close to their heart doesn't conform to WP standards of notability.

Anyway, he doesn't seem to be looking for an early unblock. Not sure if that's a good sign or not, but having a seven day break from the project probably won't hurt, and then maybe I can gently make him see sense.

Not too sure why I'm involved, tbh, but I took on his request for informal mediation without quite realising that the page was already only hours from deletion, and now I feel committed to seeing at least some good come of the exercise!--Korruski^Talk 15:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)