User talk:Mfield/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Amazing Pictures

Thanks for sharing your pictures! DavisGL (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Josef Kieffer listed as a Stub

I have noticed your recent edits to Josef Kieffer. You have added the{{stub}} template. This is fine and your contributions are appreciated. But in future, to aid in the expansion of articles, such as this one, please use a more specific stub template. A list of stub templates can be found here:Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/List of stubs. Thank you. -- Patchy1^(talk) 10:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

International Freezone Association

Hi there,

You deleted the International Freezone Association for potential copyright infringement.

I thought that, as I am the President and Founder of the International Freezone Association (IFA), I would be allowed to add the content, then I realised there was no way of you knowing that I was who I claim to be. I can send emails from the IFA and ID if required to demonstrate my authenticity and that I own the copyrights of the website and image concerned.

Failing that perhaps I can rewrite it to exclude direct content from the website? Can I include quotes from the website? Also can I direct that the image of the IFA I posted is posted with my permission?

Appreciate your help.

Many thanks

Michael President International Freezone Association Inc.

Log in: Michael IFA —Preceding unsigned comment added byMichael IFA (talk • contribs) 07:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

warwingsart.com

Hi, Thank you for your message and explanations. You are very helpful and provide more details than I ever expected. It's appreciated. I am an amateur and agree that diverse topics on the warwingsart.com site look rather suspicious. I am not the "operator" of this site as you suggest, but I have been given full access by the owner/operator to post some of my interests, admittedly quite a wide variety of content and topics.

Consequently, information about WWII aviation history, Anna's Hummingbirds, and other topics can be found there. I seriously think that my careful observations, monitoring, and photographic documentation of annual nestings of Anna's Hummingbirds is of key relevance to the Wikipedia Anna's Hummingbird article. For the past 7-8 years I have carefully observed and recorded the nest-building, egg-laying, nurturing, and fledging of Anna's in the very same tree. I feel the information is valuable for the location, number of eggs laid (not mentioned in your article), lifespans (not mentioned in your article), and the timing of the activities above (not mentioned in your article). Some of my photographs are very amateurish but some are of excellent quality. The emphasis is on my observations and the dates on the photos establish the temporal relationships. I am unaware of any other published, even scientific observations, that clearly show the details noted above for a single nesting site over 7 years. *Cheers* 489thCorsica (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba Article

Dear Mfield, I was just following up on my request to extend the protection to 5 days instead of 3, due to the limited amount of editors currently discussing the issues. Thank you. Yours.Sbs108 (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, please see my reply on article talk, I suggest contacting any regular editors that have not joined in and encouraging them to participate. Mfield (Oi!) 21:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you watching this discussion page? because its going to need a lot of input from a neutral source to get any consensus and stop any gang up. Thanks. yoursSbs108 (talk) 03:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I am watching it, I am a little busy in real life but i am keeping an eye to make sure it does not descend into incivility or attempts to game the system. I also think it would be worthwhile asking for some extra eyes from a forum likeeditor assistance, Wikiproject BLP or Wikiproject Biography, especially given the history of this article. Mfield (Oi!) 04:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

What happen to our fair use discussion it looks like it was deleted and also my other post which wasn't part of the video vote discussion got deleted, Can you look into it and/or explain what happened. thanks. Sbs108 (talk) 07:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is going no where, I've offered two compromises (please see talk) with regards to the videos even though I don't think any videos should be in the article, yet user Dilip_Rajeev keeps pushing his agenda to have three videos in the body of what's going to be a small section of the article. Can you offer more input.Sbs108 (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I like your idea about a sandbox. I went to this page, is it the right page?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sandbox. Can you tell me how to set up a sandbox for the Sathya Sai Baba article so people can start working together and get our discussion centered around content. I think we should start out with the miracles section as a guinea pig test for the rest of the article. I think if we can hash that out and make it acceptable to WP editors then the rest of the article will be easier.yoursSbs108 (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Due to the extremely controversial nature of this article, the 5 years of edit wars, and two arbitrations, I request that the Sathya Sai Baba article be protected indefinitely until a consensus is reached on the entire article. This may take a long time. I have no faith that consensus will happen by June 21st considering it hasn't in five years. My suggestion is setting up a sandbox with a duplicate of the entire article. Let WP editors work on it with the supervision of at least three or four admins to keep everybody in line.Sbs108 (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sbs108 suggestion. Trying in Sandbox first rather than directly editing the article is a better proposal. I think this article needs to be protected until we arrive at a consensus. Radiantenergy(talk) 01:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The best thing for a sandbox would be in userspace - so User:Sbs108/sandbox, Wikipedia:Sandbox is a sandbox for general experimentation by everyone so is not the right place in terms of keeping anything from not being wiped.Mfield (Oi!) 23:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean here. I guess my question is, is there a way for the article to be worked on by everyone before the page protection is lifted to work out stuff instead of getting into an edit war. If I set up the sandbox on my user page will that mean other users will think I have control over the article? Maybe we can use the one set up by Onopearls. What do you think or can you set one up since you are the admin. Sbs108 (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well anyone can edit the page even though it is a subpage in your userpage, I see what you are saying about others assuming that you think it is yours but that would be their assumption of bad faith and you can post a message at the top inviting everyone to contribute and edit it. The alternative is just to start a section on the talk page and use it as a scratchpad. I am not certain on the precedent for protecting an article indefinitely whilst it is edited somewhere else, it seems to defeat the object of the protection in a way as all that might happen is it might move the dispute elsewhere. The point of WP is that consensus editing takes place on active articles. Maybe the thing to do is to work on one section at a time in talk. Everyone really needs to get a general consensus on the format of the article first or there will be no moving forward onto the smaller details. To reinstate, I don't think that indefinitely protecting the article is a> policy or b> the best way to proceed anyway. If these major details cannot be worked out and the edit warring resumes, the next step would probably be article probation. Mfield (Oi!) 01:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes User:Mfield, I agree with you that you cannot protect this article indefinitely or forever. But Can we atleast extend the protection till the end of this month. So that we will have enough time to first set up the sandbox. Then we need time to plan out and decide on each and every section and how to coordinate the changes. I would recommend to have this sandbox in your talk page atleast during the inital period till all the disputes are resolved. We really need an admin to oversee these edits even in the sandbox for sometime. Thanks Radiantenergy (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The miracles section is one-sided at best because it does not make the pivotal role clear of SSB's claims and acts. One of the main characteristic of SSB, in contrast to most other gurus, is his explicit repeated unambiguous claims about his divinity and miralces. This should be stated clearly. Other gurus simply accept, endorse or do not contradict followers when they make claims of miracles and divinity about them. Andries (talk) 08:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Andries/sandbox01 See also [1] regarding SSB's claims about miracles. Andries(talk) 09:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox Update: Sbs108 created sandbox for the Sathya Sai Baba article. Please see the related discussion from the Sathya Sai Baba talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#Sathya_Sai_Baba_Sandbox.Radiantenergy (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hard Disk Drive Article Disruptive Behavior

Since u intervened once in the "discussion" about operating hard disk drives in airplane cabins, you might want to intervene again at HDDs in avionics; loss of cabin pressure andTom being disruptive again. I think if you read the two sections you will find that Glider87 is being disruptive by peremptorily deleting an entire section apparently in response to my proposal to rewrite the sentence in question so as to eliminate the need for a fact citation. Much of the paragraph he deleted is not in dispute. A careful reading of the entire dialog will find that Glider87 has not presented any evidence at all in support of his argument, he simply denigrates anyone or evidence that he disagrees with. Note his attacks on Therealdp. I will watch this page for a while in case u choose to respond here. Tom94022 (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Hi there Mfield. Tom is editing on an old issue and the talk page contains links to your comments about this old issue, the consensus is that Tom is editing against that consensus. It now looks like Tom is trying to cite a new accountSpecial:Contributions/Therealdp to pretend that consensus has changed when both accounts have not produced any valid reliable sources for the claims in the article. A careful reading of the talk page shows that Tom makes claims and then claim that he doesn't have to produce any evidence to support those claims. Tom then claims that others have to disprove what he claims even though Tom has not proven anything related to his claims. This is in violation of WP:PROVEIT andWP:RS of course. I need not remind you that Tom did say about your comment that "Unfortunately Mfield apparently has not read my argument or examined my evidence...", so I think it is Tom that is acting in violation of WP:POINT.Glider87 (talk) 06:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I won't bother going thru the long list of misstatements by Glider above, but I would like you to observe that he hasdeleted an entire paragraph basedupon a disputed fact tag attached to one of the sentences in the paragraph. The original paragraph was posted in September 2006 and has remained essentially unchanged thru several thousand edits since then. The disputed sentence:

Note that modern commercial aircraft have a pressurized cabin, whose pressure altitude does not normally exceed 2,600 m(8,500 feet) - thus, ordinary hard drives can be used safely by passengers in flight.[citation needed]

is being considered for revision and rather than wait for it, Glider is acting in a disruptive manner by deleting the entire paragraph, using as an excuse the opinion you rendered about the above sentence. Since u intervened in the original dispute you need to get involved with this one to stop Glider's disruptive editing. Tom94022 (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Tom is misrepresenting the truth. The paragraph was removed in accordance with with what you said Mfield where if Tom is unable to produce any valid reference then the text can be deleted since so reference was found. Please help to stop Tom from being disruptive in the future.Glider87 (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Now a couple of other editors have appeared, one mentions an http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thumperward&diff=298030456&oldid=297985866 RfC] against Tom's behaviour and theother says "it's flat out wrong" for Tom to claim what he has been claiming. The consensus here is clearly against Tom's behaviour and actions so hopefully Tom will now lay low for a while and reconsider.Glider87 (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to the intervention of other editors the paragraph has been restored so your intervention is no longer requested at this time. Tom94022 (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba Sandbox

I've set up a sandbox for the Sathya Sai Baba page.Sai Baba Sandbox —Preceding unsigned comment added bySbs108 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

SSB

Hello. Just wanted to warn you that while the SSB page hasn't really been active since the unlock, I suspect it might be because Dilip Rajeev hasn't been active since June 18. I fear that there may be another edit war on the page in the near future, as they really didnt touch on all of the subjects that needed to be addressed while it was locked. I believe that it may be prudent for the edit lock to be extended another week so the editors may address more of the issues on the article. That's just my opinion on the matter. Best wishes, Onopearls ^(t/c) 04:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. As Onopearls mentioned above Dilip Rajeev has a history of violations and had caused disruption to this article several times. He initially edited the Sathya Sai Baba article using his pseudo account [User:White_Adept]. He started editing this article in Jan 2009. With in 10 days he changed the earlier neutral version of the Sathya Sai Baba article into NPOV nightmare with his 180+ edits.
• Inspite of his earlier arbitration enforcement case against adding questionable sources he has edit-warred several times with other editors to add Dale Beyerstein source which was declared as unreliable by WP:RS. He also added material banned by second arbitration into the sub-article under Sathya Sai Baba article several times. I will request you to closely watch his edits if he decides to disrupt this article again. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Columbia River Gorge: External Link to

Hello. What is your specific objection to the external link to Gorge Outdoors? We are a new, non-profit public service resource dedicated to issues and information that affect the people and visitors of the Columbia River Gorge. There is no advertising, no self-promotion and all articles are written by journalist residents.EGarvin(talk) 23 June 2009

Thank you for your reply on my talk page and excuse me for not replying sooner. I appreciate your adherence to the Wikipedia guidelines, but you assume bad faith and I think interpret the rules and purpose too rigidly. I am aware of the no follow code. The site I would like to link to is not spam. Per your request, please see my addition to the article talk. There is precedence for sub-category of external link that you may find more acceptable and appropriate.

EGarvin (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)(talk) August 3, 2009

Sathya Sai Baba Article-Request for indefinite semi-protection

I am requesting indefinite semi-protection for the following reasons.1) The article has reached a neutral status in my opinion. Any more criticism in the article would violate WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. 2) It is still the subject of vandalism. Most recently an unknown user blanked out critical sections. There are also forces rising who are once again trying to turn the article into a charge sheet against Sai Baba to further their agenda, in particular one user who is banned indefinitely from editing the article and runs a web site solely devoted to criticizing Sai Baba 2) Given the history of this article its only a matter of time before there is another edit war and most likely a third arbitration.Sbs108 (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I have semi protected it for an initial month. Indefinite protection is not justified purely by removal of content, which whilst unhelpful, is not potentially detrimental enough to the subject, the encyclopedia or the reader to merit indefinitely preventing IPs from editing. The protection can always be extended if the disruption continues once it expires.Mfield (Oi!) 20:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Lupusalliance

I have unblocked Lupusalliance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I have asked them to change their user name before editing again and counseled them regarding Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. Fred Talk 12:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?

Are you seriously kidding me with the Jury Duty thing?

The show is not airing in any market nationwide. The fact is this: when the show was airing recently it was in time buys, where there was a disclaimer at the bottom of the screen saying "This program paid for by Radar Entertainment." Those reruns have disappeared and the show is not airing in any market nationwide. Another fact is the editor in question was severely disruptive in the editing, was warned once before about this, was BLOCKED once before FOR this, and has not learned his lesson. I am more than a little offended that you would even THINK of yelling at me for this when I'm not the one who caused the trouble. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you are defending the actions of the accused party. The accused party has been warned about this before, has been BLOCKED for this before, and still continues to do it. I'm not amused by any of this and your response did not do any good on that regard. The show was canceled. Plain and simple. That should be it. The fact of the matter is that by allowing this trolling and vandalism to continue you're being extremely counterproductive to the Wiki. I will agree with you that better referencing on said article is needed, but that's IT. The anonymous IP is only making these edits to cause trouble and a quick note of the history of this and the two other IPs I cited will show that. I'll be waiting for an apology from you but considering your attitude I won't hold my breath. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 06:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see my replies on your talk and article talk. You seem to be making the assumption that the other editor being blocked for 3RR is proof that you are right and they are in the wrong. It is no such thing. 3RR blocks are not handed out on the basis of who is right or wrong, they are only based on reverts. This is a content dispute and the other editor is well within their right and within policy to challenge unsourced material that they believe to be incorrect. Please see the first paragraph of our Verifiability policy. This edit war needs to stop and there needs to be engagement at article talk where both sides provide proof to back their claims and counterclaims. The IP may have made some mistakes in their attempts to remove information that they think is incorrect but that is to be expected of new editors. No one has made any attempt to engage them up until this point, it looks from the edit history and edit summaries that the only action has been only to revert them (even bate them) until they breached 3RR, a policy they were no doubt unaware of. Their subsequent request for assistance has been looked at even handedly and a solution offered that both sides should embark upon if this is to be resolved without further aggravation and stress. Mfield (Oi!) 07:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Filecleaner

Isn't it drastic to put an indefinite ban on an account that has not made a single edit in article space, only two edits in an AfC submission (Special:Contributions/Filecleaner)? The account has caused no disruption at all. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the user created a promotional page for their product FileCleaner which was speedily deleted and you consequently won't be able to see that in their contributions history. They then submitted the AfC after that. The spamblock is routine to require them to change username and to make them aware of the issues that their username has with being related to their product. They are free to request an unblock to change username as explained in the template. Mfield(Oi!) 07:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I should have looked in the logs. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Proof Jury Duty is airing

http://www.wciu.com/schedule.php

http://www.americaone.com/schedule/July_MF_1.htm 

http://www.wbnx.com/schedule/ http://www.knws51.com/default.asp?page=CourtShows

http://www.fox5vegas.com/tvlistings/index.html

if you need more proof, i can show you copies of station agreements

Thanks, Vincent —Preceding unsigned comment added byVimon911 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Troubles on Manuel Zelaya article

Hi, you said you were willing to follow the situation on the Manuel Zelaya page after I pointed to edit warring on the protection requests page. So, I hope you don't mind if I nudge you to have a look at the latest development (diff). I've tried to both compromise and find reliable sources, but now I'm made to feel intimidated, so I'll refrain from making any further edits or discussing on the talk page. Thanks for having a look. LjL (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments on talk page

Mfield. I appreciate your concern, but if you read the complete discussion, changes were routinely made without regard to the discussion in hand. After the first undo of personally did, I stopped editing and moved to the talk page. Most importantly after the constant personal abuse and lack of civility shown. I re-read the whole string, and expressions like "i don't care if this is a chihuhua and so on were routinely used. I am surprised though that no mention of this series of attacks is even mentioned on the other user's page. Again my proposal has and continues to be one of neutrality, but lack of civility shouldn't be tolerated in wikipedia.Wikihonduras (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually I was getting to that, I have recommended that the other party be more careful with their language too. I have suggested to you both that you engage with each other on usertalk and clear the air independently of your current dispute, doing so will help you move on an be able to resolve your dispute less personally and more effectively.Mfield (Oi!) 17:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I have also recommended that the other party be more careful in their choice of language and tone. I have suggested to them as I do now to you that you engage with each other on usertalk and clear the air so that you can return to resolving your dispute and drop the current accusations and assumptions of bad faith. Mfield (Oi!) 17:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing so, I apologize if I missed the other user's warning since it's not in his user page or talk page, although is his right to delete such warnings. Wikihonduras (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Disney protection

Thanks for doing that. I saw that Collectonian had submitted the RPP earlier, and entered the RFC in the meantime to get a more formal discussion going. SpikeJones (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the RFC has come to a close with agreement (and explanation) for consensus. Feel free to remove protection earlier than it is currently set to expire... better, just set it back to semi-protected. Your call. Thx SpikeJones (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Clara Elsene Peck

Greetings, you are cordially invited to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Clara_Elsene_Peck/archive1 , Cheers, --Scott Free (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ear Training again

Hello Mfield,

It looks as though the same issues are happening again with the Ear training article. It appears that, again, discussion will require intervention. If you (or another admin) could take a look it would probably be helpful-- otherwise it seems an edit war is inevitable. Thanks. aruffo (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Pit bull v. BSL

Hi! I plan to prepare for a shift of the BSL stuff on the Pit bull article over to the breed-specific legislationpage once my recent deletion proposals on the Pit Bull page have had a few days to mature on the discussion page. IMHO the breed-specific legislation page is in even worse shape than the Pit Bull page was a couple of months ago (was it really "B" rated? Yikes!), so I think a fair amount of spadework, discussion, and reorganization on the breed-specific legislation page is in order before I drop a huge slab of tables, court opinions, etc., into the middle of it. I plan to submit for a re-evaluation of the pit bull page once the bulk of the BSL stuff is re-hosted to breed-specific legislation.Astro$01 (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Nobody's Fault but Mine

I have no idea who the editor is. Ironically, the editor made some good improvements on It's Nobody's Fault But Mine, a related article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you please check the IP for User:SockpuppetWG? I suspect that it was created by the same anonymous editor.--Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

article on John Crippen

Hi mike, I'm having difficulty getting an article accepted. I'm making every effort to be in compliance and make this article appropriate. I feel that my resources are above standard, but I'm still getting grief from a couple folks. I really don't want this article to be deleted. I've gone thriugh the rules and feel that I've met the proof of evidence and relevency standards of Wikipedia. Please don't make me delete the article. I will make any revisions needed.

article on John Crippen

Hi mike, I'm having difficulty getting an article accepted. I'm making every effort to be in compliance and make this article appropriate. I feel that my resources are above standard, but I'm still getting grief from a couple folks. I really don't want this article to be deleted. I've gone thriugh the rules and feel that I've met the proof of evidence and relevency standards of Wikipedia. Please don't make me delete the article. I will make any revisions needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyswords (talk • contribs) 05:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

John Crippen

Hi Mike, I understand about the autobiography thing, but my resources included the PSA Journal (Not self published) and the Worldcat systen for the books, again nit self published but noted by libraries all over the world. My external links sectino included PSA, Nationa Geographic, and the National Wildlife Federation (Not a personal website). Awards and charites were mentioned as well. Would the content itself be appropriate at this point? Thanks you for your help. --JC 20:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW it's Matt, not Mike :) in answer to your question, The notability guidelines for authors specify that "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book" this means, when taken alongside the reliable sourcing guidelines, that self published works do not count as evidence of notability. Even though libraries may refer to the Worldcat system, the books themselves are self published and they do not inherit notability from whatever system they are listed in. I can't speak to the specifics of the books, but neither can anyone else - as no independent book company took a decision to publish them, and they have not been reviewed by an accepted source, nor have any other coverage, they are not deemed enough evidence to prove the notability of the author. Aside from the books, notability of the author/individual could be established by multiple non trivial coverage of the subject in independent secondary sources. This means not simply stories by the author that have appeared (otherwise every journalist would merit their own article), it means stories that cover the author themself as a subject. If you can provide these sources then they need to be not just added as external links but specifically cited out alongside the claims made in the text. Mfield(Oi!) 22:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Matt, --Writer of this article 23:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC) —Precedingunsigned comment added by Johnnyswords (talk •contribs)

Chloe Vevrier

Requesting reduction of the protection level to semiprotection, per my comment on the article's talk page. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, dropped it to semi, apologies for getting distracted IRL before getting back to looking at it further.Mfield (Oi!) 17:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba article

Hi Mfield,

• There is a new problem in the Sathya Sai Baba article.
• User:ProEdits / Robert Priddy - who is well known 'Anti-SaiBaba' activist in the web and also whose websites were banned by the second arbitration commitee is edit-warring and adding more and more defamatory material from an old BBC documentary inspite of WP:RS recommending to remove the BBC material.
• We reverted his disruption a couple of times and he seems to continue edit-warring.
• I request you to provide Page Protection to the article to prevent any further disruption to this article. Thanks.Radiantenergy (talk) 02:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Kanye West Apology

Can you add the link to Kanye West's apology. I see it's in article, but not reference. Well here's the reference:http://thesocietyevents.net/blog/?p=10605 --Ron John (talk) 05:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That source doesn't pass WP:RS as a secondary source being a blog itself. The apology should be sourced to West's own blog or a real reliable source. Mfield (Oi!) 05:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The statement "It was reported later that he was removed from the remainder of the show for his actions. [79]" and subsequent reference [79] does not support that statement. The source says nothing about him being removed from the remainder of the show. —Preceding unsignedcomment added by 98.248.41.81 (talk) 07:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mfield. You have new messages at Talk:Kanye West.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} /_{What I Say} 09:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mfield. You have new messages at ESanchez013's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} /_{What I Say} 04:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I seek Admin help

We definitely need Administrator help to stop an 'Anti-Sai Baba' activist - Robert Priddy aka User:ProEdits from Vanadalizing the Sathya Sai Baba article. In the last 2 days he vandalized the page several time removing important reliable sources. Please see the discussion here.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#Repeated_Vandalism_by_ProEdits_aka_Activist_Robert_Priddy. Thanks.Radiantenergy (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello! I hope you and any other Admins will take a sympathetic view on this issue. I have also apologised for not undertanding the 3 revert rule properly... but unfortunately I did break it, it seems (though I am not certain, since vandalism is not a straightforward matter, according to Wikipedia:Vandalism. Please clarify.

Please also consider alkong with this the wider picture, including repeated attempts by the conspiring pro-Sai "activists" Radiantenergy and J929 (with intermittant revert backing from Sbs108) to rig me up with and Arb. Com. and a COI and generally confront me and revert my edits rather than discuss properly. I have explained my position on deletion of unsubstianted articles as being unreliable sources due to massive errors, one which is based on an outright lie about my blog. Particularly Radiantenergy has reverted my edits without the slightest attempt at dialogue and with patronising advice, which has proved wrong in the case of my linking to my website on talk pages, for a start (most likely invalidating the COI claim against). I experience these episodes as virtually the same edit war in content and language, agenda and tactics that was fought against me by SSS108 (Gerald Moreno) untyil he and his conspirators were banned indefinitely by an unanimous panel of 6 editors). ProEdits (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• User:ProEdits - First stop your accusations. I would like to remind you about assume good faith. Nobody is conspiring anything. Please stick to the questions and don't write elaborate explanations about your past animosity with some old banned user SSS108. To be frank with you I have stopped reading your explanationa as most of it does revolves around SSS108 and does not make any sense to me and I am not interested in knowing your animosities with that user. Please write short answers explaining the reasons about the current edit-warring you are involved with.
• Both The Daily Pioneer and the Asian Voice have been discussed in detail in WP:RS notice board and declared as reliable sources.
• Inspite of knowing these two sources are reliable if you try to repeatedly delete them its considered as disrupting and Vandalizing the article.
• In your response to deleting the 'Daily Pioneer source' in the talk page - your words were

Comments from User:ProEdits for deleting daily Pioneer source from the Sathya Sai Baba article:

• "If he can prove that the statement on the Pioneer article about me is true, then it would be a different matter. But he cannot because it is entirely false! Therefore this particular atricle is UNRELIABLE as a source, whatever others may have opined about the general reliability of the Daily Pioneer on-line. Why was my rebuttal under comments to the article not included? ...""

• I have already given my answer its not up to the editors in wikipedia to prove anything to you or to any other activist who is directly involved with the subject Sathya Sai Baba. Declaring a reliable source as unreliable just because it mentions your name is an unacceptable reason. This called as POV pushing. Again this source was decalred as reliable in theWP:RS board. Don't get angry with me for pointing the rules.

• I am trying to explain the wikipedia rules once again. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources publishes.

Also don't expect editors to include your comments to the Daily Pioneer in the Sathya Sai Baba article.

• You removed 2 important reliable source from the article based on your personal view. This is not the way wikipedia works. This disruption and POV pushing has to stop. Again this is the reason why activist are not allowed to edit-war in the articles they are directly involved. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 04:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I am going to attempt to address all this on article talk to keep the discussion in one place. Mfield(Oi!) 04:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Protection expiry dates don't display anymore

Thank you for protecting the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now article. However, why is the protection expiration date shown only on the history edit summary and not on the logs? I can't find a page that explains the sudden change in the log page. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Travisharlem at the Kanye West article

Will you comment about this at the talk page? This user is relatively new with few edits, and yet proceeds to act as though he is right over more well-experienced editors. He clearly edits largely with bias from what I have seen. Flyer22 (talk) 06:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Assistance

Hi MField. Earlier I had a taken a source to the WP:RS board about a 'BBC documentary and Alaya Rahm trial'. It was discussed for a week by 4 independent wikipedians. In the end it was concluded that 'the 0ld BBC documentary' can either be removed as the following trial made it questionable (or) if left in the article the other secondary source 'The Daily Pioneer by Sandhya Jain' which covers the 'Alaya Rahm trial' must also be included.

• Not including the 'The Daily Pioneer covering the Alaya Rahm trial' will be a BLP violation.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=304058770&oldid=304057209#Question.

In the conclusion the source referred by Priyanath is the 'Daily Pioneer' article.

• New developments:

There are some editors and other activists who don't want to follow the earlierWP:RS recommendation as its not favorable to them. They took it to the WP:RS board again and did not present case / facts correctly. There was not even a mention about the 'Alaya Rahm trial' which is mainly covered in the 'The Daily Pioneer' article. The discussion started with a totally different article not even related to the Sathya Sai Baba article.

• I informed in the WP:RS board that this source 'Daily Pioneer covering Alaya Rahm trial' has already been discussed for a week and declared as 'reliable' by independent wikipedians.
• Response from Fifelfoo herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Daily_Pioneer_.2F_Sandhya_Jain was 'I don't particularly case what past RS discussions found. OP-ED pieces do not present facts, but opinions'. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC).
• WP:RS supposed to be helping the editors but in this case its causing more confusing. If the WP:RS commentors says he doesn't care about earlier WP:RS discussions then why should editors care anything what the WP:RS board says in these discussion?
• Why should a source already declared as reliable discussed again in the WP:RS. I don't know who is qualified to write in the WP:RS noticeboard?.
• Since you are an administrator and you know all the politics going on with the article - Any suggestions from you herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Daily_Pioneer_.2F_Sandhya_Jain

will be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Update:

• Finally User:Ombudswiki stated what their real problem in using the 'Daily Pioneer by Sandhya Jain' in the Sathya Sai Baba article.
• They don't want this source in the Sathya Sai Baba article since it mentions 'Robert Priddy's name (User:ProEdits).

We already had this discusion in the talk page before. You had added this discussion here -[2]

Here are the conclusions from the earlier WP:RS discussion:

• Daily Pioneer was declared as a reliable source in the earlier WP:RS discussion.
• Daily Pioneer which covers 'Alaya Rahm trial' has important refutations to Criticism on Sathya Sai Baba. Removing it will be a BLP violation. This was clearly mentioned in the earlier WP:RS discussion.

They are unwilling to listen if I state the wikipedia rules. It will be better if you could clarify the wikipedia rules on the above discussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Daily_Pioneer_.2F_Sandhya_JainThis will be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Right before you blocked the article, user: Crotalus horridus undid my revert back to the way the article was before the latest controversy. He removed the Pioneer source with no justification. Now that the article is locked the source is out of the article and he has achieved his end. The Pioneer had already been discussed at length and deemed reliable for the Wiki article on Sai Baba. The source is used in two paragraphs. Can you restore the article to the way it was before user:Crotalus horridus's vandalism while the new discussion is going on. he stated on the Reliable source noticeboard " Our sourcing policy on this matter is clear and any further attempts to insert this crap will be reverted without discussion as per WP:BLP. *** Crotalus *** 20:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC) Note his language and rationale for removing the source. Please revert his last edit until further discussion. Thank you.Sbs108 (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, please note the following information in the dispute template "This protection is not an endorsement of the current version". Protection is implemented to prevent instability, it is not intended to protect one version or another of the article. It is clear that there is no consensus on whether this contentious material is to be included, and that it needs to be discussed more completely. I am not espousing one version or another by protecting it at a certain revision, as that would imply that administrators are responsible for content which they are not. It certainly seems as though the recommendations of the RS noticeboard have not cleared the matter up, and policy is being quoted by both sides of the dispute. It looked like a consensus was clear the last time it was argued over but Crotalus makes some valid and reasonable points and this goes some way to balancing out the swing of the previous consensus to include. I really think that this dispute requires more impartial eyes, as it is clear that more that one party in this dispute has not only strong personal opinions on the article subject, but also a history of emnity towards other parties in the dispute. I am copying this response onto the article talk page as well. Mfield (Oi!) 23:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarifications

Hi Mfield, I wanted to clarify a few things from my side. When I started working in the 'Sathya Sai Baba' article in Jan 2009 - it was in a very bad state. It was written like a charge sheet on 'Sathya Sai Baba'. It had several pages of material banned by the second arbitration. That's when I took the challenge of cleaning up the article. I looked at all the earlier discussions and helped to clean up several unreliable sources. The remaining source which were doubtful I always took it to the RS board and implemented what they told me to do.

• I did the same thing with the 'Daily Pioneer' and took it to the RS board. They declared it as reliable after a week of discussion by 4 outside wikipedians.
• It has been kind of frustating to me in this new case since it started with incorrect facts. I did n't get any direct answers to my questions. My question is simple why a source declared as reliable is being declared unreliable for no valid reasons and with out proper discussion? Why is the earlier RS discussion not even being looked up?.
• I don't have any affiliations. I have a clean history. You can check my contributions if need be.

I have always followed all the wiki rules. I have cleaned up this article and brought it to a good standard from where it was. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Steven Seagal

Oops! - how do you want to handle this? Can we stay with the longer prot, as it's been a perennial issue over there? - Alison ^❤ 23:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep just noticed that, I've changed it to a month. Mfield (Oi!) 23:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry for the (edit conflict) :) - Alison ^❤ 23:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Downtown LA

Excuse me, but if you're really that offended by my including a reference from Family Guy, couldn't you just have deleted the section I added without your snotty comment about being "more grown up than that?" ZooCrewMan(talk) 01:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Apology accepted. I do however, believe that the reference in the Family Guy bit that eludes to the fact that there's "nothing to do downtown" is more than just a fleeting reference, but instead is an example of what many Angelenos feel, in that there really is, nothing to do downtown. As for the need to have pop culture references be mentioned in a "secondary source" I'm not sure I follow. Just like the requirement for things to be citied as to their source. The claim in the article that downtown is a very popular location for filming car commercials. That claim isn't cited. It seems that claims doesn't use an independent source to back it up, but you and I and about 3 million other people know there are constantly car commercials being filmed on Upper Grand Ave. in front of MoCA all the time. At what point, and by whom, is something deemed "trivial" and "not notable?" ZooCrewMan (talk) 05:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Freedom of Panorama

Could you enlighten me on the rules for Freedom of Panorama. I can find many pictures on Wikipedia of statues that are post 1978 that are also in public domain. media:Mahatma Gandhi statue near Embassy of India, Dupont Circle, Washington D.C.jpg erected in 2000[3] media:IgnatiusJReilly.JPG erected post 1980 (book was published then) and a few more, but I'm just wondering how these can stay on wikipedia.Michael miceli (talk) 03:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, if they are in the US and they were designed/commissioned/unveiled post 1978 then freedom of panorama does not apply even if they are installed in a public location. More information at Commons:Freedom of panorama No-one had got around to tagging those images yet. I have deleted the local ones and tagged the commons ones as I am not an admin there. If you can find any on commons that should not be there then you can tag them with {{fop-cv}} and put a note in the edit summary about no freedom of panorama in US. Mfield (Oi!) 04:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles related to Sathya Sai Baba

I find the working environment on this group of articles increasingly unpleasant and unnecessarily stressful.

I have just found myself obliged to post a reversion notice to User J929 on the Discussion page of the articleBibliography of Sathya Sai Baba. As I suggest fruitful sources of information for editors of these articles, I feel thwarted and harassed at every turn. Do you have any advice for me on how to cope with the current 'litigious' situation in these several articles? Ombudswiki (talk) 08:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Criminal

y did u delete the mr. criminal page

Ok my bad i didnt know that im new so my bad ♦♣♠Arcangel11♠♣♦ 18:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool Pics

wat u up to now ♦♣♠Arcangel11♠♣♦ 18:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for your message. Thank you for your help also. But, I will never post a on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents after looking at the Noticeboard archives. --Zink Dawg -- 04:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoa.... my.... God.

I feel like the biggest loser. I actually told some guy that 21st Century Celebrations was correct, when in reality the text in Berlin Wall reads "20th Anniversary." I need to wear my damn glasses. Thanks for your kind notes in the reversion.GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Friends

Thank you for taking the time to help me out. I really appreciate it. I'm trying so hard to do things right on here. Endways, I just add you to my User:Zink Dawg/Friends. I would give you award but I don’t know were to go to do that. O by the way, Am i doing a good job on here.--Zink Dawg --17:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Gang

I just created a Portal (Portal:Gang) I need your help. If you have time, Can you help add some content to my portal. I would appreciate it, Thanks.--Zink Dawg -- 06:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Joke sites in a BLP article

Thanks about the Kanye West page comment. I found a reliable source to back the claim (MTV.com) and fixed some more stuff at the page.

Keep up the neat work Mfield! kodman (Oi!) Saturday, October 3, 2009 at 19:14:30 (UTC)

bum bright article

dear Mfield..

per discussion on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions (conflict of interest vs..)

there was one or two paragraphs of that Bum Bright that were original, and not plagiarized... i hate to see it all lost just because the other 90% of the article was a copypaste. . . . is there any way to notify the author of the non-plagiarized part so he/she can re-add a stub maybe?

thank you

Decora (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Question on copyright stuff on images

Ok, this copyright stuff on images is way too confusing for me. I don’t want to get into trouble. I need your help. I want to upload this for the Sureños article. I also have this one. I don’t know how to do it right without it getting deleted. Comment back on my talk page. --Zink Dawg -- 00:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I just uploaded File:Sunset in the mountains.jpg. I found it on Flickr /look here. It had No known copyright restrictions.

Did I do this right. If not, you can delete it and tell me what I did wrong.--Zink Dawg -- 05:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Can I upload this image. for example. This photo has a Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic copyright.--Zink Dawg-- 06:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I got it.. I have a final question regarding photos. How many photos of ME are allowed on my user space.--Zink Dawg -- 07:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

semi-protect my user space

Did you see the vandalism on my user space?

Can you semi-protect (indefinite)

Zink Dawg/Basic Info

Zink Dawg/Details

Zink Dawg/Contributions

• Thanks.--Zink Dawg -- 21:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Done Mfield (Oi!) 00:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you--Zink Dawg -- 00:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hall of Dreams

Please see my comment at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/HoryujiYumedono0363.jpg#Hall of Dreams.Kaldari (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Picture peer review

Hi, Mfield. Since you've mentioned about the image of a Korean celadon exhibited at a museum, can I get your input atWikipedia:Picture peer review/Spanish jewellery-Gold and emerald pendant at VAM? This image taken by a Flickr user is also stored at VAM, and I intend to nominate more museum pieces for FP, so your comment would be very appreciated. Thanks.--Caspian blue 14:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Regional Information Center for Science and Technology

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Regional Information Center for Science and Technology. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations Mfield! Your photo Image:Sydney opera house side view.jpg was the Random Picture of the Day! It looked like this:

Random picture of the day

The Sydney Opera House

Image credit: Mfield (talk · contribs)

. - Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 20:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&action=history

Just wanted to call the SSB article to your attention, since you are the admin that is usually on that article. Thanks,Onopearls ^(t/c) 23:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Onopearls,Mfield,this article still has a generalized factual accuracy warning since several months. This warning severely limits its usability as an encyclopedia article, because the reader does not know what statements s/he can trust and what not. I am sorry to say so, Onopearls, but you opposed reverting to a much older version that did not need such a serious warning, so I think you are co-responsible for the sorry state of the article. If it continues like this I will go back to the arbcom asking them for advice or extra measures. Andries (talk) 10:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the article and I am shocked to what degree unreliable sources have been used i.e. devotee sources and Kasturi and discourses by Sathya Sai Baba. I am also shocked to see that a crucial statement by Babb who was recommended by the arbcom as a source about the lack of reliability of Kasturi was removed. Three scholars (Lawrence Babb, Norris W. Palmer, and Poggendorf-Kakar in German) have stated that one cannot trust Kasturi's hagiographic writings or any writings derived from them (i.e. nearly all biographical writings about SSB). With hagiographic, I do not mean an uncritical biography but hagiographic in the original, literal sense of the word. Andries (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I just wanted to stop by to say "Happy Holidays" Are you ready for a week worth of rain. I hear it's going to be aEl Nino year.--Zink Dawg -- 17:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy New Year

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10