Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:48, 7 August 2022

Archives (Index)

2020/September 2020/October 2020/November 2020/December 2021/January 2021/February 2021/March 2021/April 2021/May 2021/June 2021/July 2021/August 2021/September 2021/October 2021/November 2021/December 2022/January 2022/February 2022/March 2022/April 2022/May 2022/June 2022/July 2022/August 2022/September 2022/October 2022/November 2022/December 2023/January 2023/February 2023/March 2023/April 2023/May 2023/June 2023/July 2023/September 2023/October 2023/November 2023/December 2024/January 2024/February 2024/March 2024/April 2024/May 2024/June 2024/July 2024/August 2024/September 2024/October 2024/November 2024/December

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Speedy deletion nomination of Dead Air Silencers

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Dead Air Silencers, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Misplaced Pages:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. scope_creep 17:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Consecration of Russia

Why is talking about prayers recommended by Our Lady of Fatima non-encyclopedic in a topic about "conversion" of Russia? Jesuitsj (talk) 07:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

There is no independent coverage I can find, coverage in a Catholic newspaper isn't going to cut it. Prayer recommendations aren't really encyclopedic and just to be clear the topic of Consecration of Russia isn't the conversion of Russia to christianity its the fringe religious concept know as the "Consecration of Russia." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

So you have to remove all the Catholic topics in the entire Misplaced Pages because most of their sources are from Catholic sources! Jesuitsj (talk) 12:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

How do you get there? Please review WP:RS Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Dead Air Silencers for deletion

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dead Air Silencers until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

FalconK (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Absurd ideas about the rules

First of all, you are not an admin to decide on 3RR you opinion has no value beyond this.

Second, Regarding your post on my talk page:

== Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons ==

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Misplaced Pages about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Draft:Alina Lipp. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

That's a draft, not in mainspace. Mathmo 18:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The draft article 2 sentences is covered in the sources mentioned. In other words, you are completely wasting my time and I am quite annoyed that I have to justify anything I do with you. 666hopedieslast (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page." Any means any... including main, wiki, user, draft, and talk. All are covered by our BLP policy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

stop editing the draft article

It is a draft. Quit the bullying. 666hopedieslast (talk) 22:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to drafts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

This is not a BLP issue. you bully 666hopedieslast (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Of course it is, the subject is a living person. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

3RR warning on draft article warning

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that manually reverses or undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions

666hopedieslast (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

"See below for exemptions... Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Misplaced Pages's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy." WP:NOT3RR Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Horse Eye's Back

Thank you for creating SIG MCX Spear.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A Third Opinion has been requested for an interpretation of reliable sources on Pray and Work. Manannan67 (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Taiwan foreign relations - Donetsk and Luhansk

The whole point of adding that paragraph about Donetsk and Luhansk, despite it being unsourced, was that I wasn't sure whether to put these two territories into the article in the first place. According to the main article "List of states with limited recognition", it is indeed necessary to add these two territories. It is obvious that Taiwan has relations with neither Donetsk nor Luhansk, and that Taiwan recognises the territories as belonging to Ukraine. There should be sources available about Taiwan denouncing Russia's recognition of the two territories as sovereign states. If Donetsk and Luhansk are deemed to be unsuitable for the main article, then there's no need to add them to this subsection of Taiwan's foreign relations article. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Don't add unsourced material. End of story. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

That's a false pretense. According to the current state of the Misplaced Pages article "list of states with limited recognition", the Donetsk PR and Luhansk PR belong within that category of entities. As such, both of them, according to that article, also belong in the relevant subsection of Taiwan's foreign relations article. E.g. Transnistria and Abkhazia are both there, and the Taiwan FR article says that Taiwan has relations with neither country, nor does it recognise them. With that being said, I've been arguing over at the unrecognised states article that Donetsk PR and Luhansk PR should be removed from that article itself due to not fitting with the article's own criteria. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

If you want, you can go over to the unrecognised states article and argue your case for why Donetsk and Luhansk can be removed, as I've been doing. Because, if they aren't removed, then they belong in that subsection of the Taiwan article. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

A discussion taking place

A discussion taking place here may be of interest to you. The corresponding material at Scott Ritter has been removed until consensus is reached at the Open Discussion page. DO NOT restore the material until agreement fully in your favor has been reached. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 07:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Merging of Spotting rifle into Sub-caliber training

I added some illustrations and text to the latter article, as well as wikilinks leading to and from it, please check it now. What do you think about merging the quite detailed, but too specifically named article (all spotting rifles are sub-caliber training devices but not vice versa), into a more general topic which you marked as possibly not notable? Here are some sources which may demonstrate notability and in generally help to understand the wideness of the topic in general: https://www.rifleman.org.uk/Morris_Aiming_Tube.html, https://talesfromthesupplydepot.blog/2020/05/09/two-pounder-sub-calibre-training-round, https://www.warrelics.eu/forum/world-firearms/british-sub-caliber-training-devise-1971, https://armamentresearch.com/2x35-sub-calibre-training-device-used-as-amr-in-syria, https://books.google.com/books?id=C9QsLVcm474C&pg=PA393, https://www.police1.com/police-products/firearms/training/articles/training-with-sub-caliber-firearms-m79uie4uyJJ7pps1 Ain92 (talk) 11:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately not all spotting rifles are sub-caliber training devices. However thank you for the sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

July 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Alliance Defending Freedom. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

You're at three reverts... I'm at two reverts... And you're warning me? Classy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

excessive, uncesscary, redudant, and unessacary

user loves to provide excessive, uncesscary, redudant, and unessacary additions to articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1234567890Bobdob (talk • contribs) 18:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Bobdob's now indef blocked for making personal attacks after I defended him on his talk page. Weird! If another user shows up to make the same edit, we'll be able to revert per WP:DENY. Yippee! BilCat (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Block aside I kind of love it, might add "user loves to provide excessive, uncesscary, redudant, and unessacary additions to articles." to my user page Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Go for it! He wasn't blocked for that comment anyway! BilCat (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Rewriting of WP:SERIESA

Hey! I see you making a ton of changes to Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is not Crunchbase, many of which change the meaning or remove major assertions. I think I'm going to revert it to a prior version; if there are some things you'd like to see changed, can we discuss it on the essay's talkpage first? It's an essay, not policy; while it's certainly not mine alone to edit, I fear you're trying to attenuate the point being made. FalconK (talk) 04:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Sure, just open a talk page discussion with your preferred changes and I'l let you know what I think. You appear to be trying to make a number of side points about capitalism and the societal value of capital which significantly detract from the point being made, but again thats probably best for the talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I really do appreciate your feedback about internal consistency and congruence with established policy. But also, the essay is primarily about a thing that's the result of an interaction between Misplaced Pages and capitalism, so I feel it's worth discussing. I'll chat more about it on the talkpage. FalconK (talk) 04:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, perhaps thats why half of the essay appears to be about notability while the other half is about COI. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. It's necessary to combine those two concepts when describing the flood of interchangeable COI articles about non-notable companies that tend to waste our time at AfD. FalconK (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

This is probably better left to the talk page but I don't feel that combining those concepts is wise, COI and notability are separate issues. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

D. A. Carson

I don't understand this edit. What do you mean by failing WP:V. Is it because there's no page number? With the Festschrift, of course, we could easily copy the details in a ref tag - would that be OK? StAnselm (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The sources don't seem to actually cover all that they're supposed to, they appear to be sources for just part of the statement and the rest would appear to be based on original analysis which is prohibited per WP:OR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Ways to improve Grooming conspiracy theory

Hello, Horse Eye's Back,

Thank you for creating Grooming conspiracy theory.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Hello, I reviewed the article and I have some thoughts. The article uses the word conspiracy 15 times including in the title. 2 sources of the 7 you provided use the word conspiracy in direct relation to grooming. 2 others use the word to describe q-anon and other right wing groups. One reference to use the word in relation to grooming is Global News, another is the Intelligencer. It seems like a WP:POVPUSH to use the word both in the title and 14 other times in the article.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bruxton}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Bruxton (talk) 03:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Bruxton: that appears to be its WP:COMMONNAME, if you don't agree please suggest a name change to whatever title you fell is appropriate. Also just FYI but you're missing a few sources, Vox clearly says that "The new pedophile conspiracy rhetoric is essentially the same as all the old pedophile conspiracy rhetoric" with the "new pedophile conspiracy rhetoric" clearly being the grooming rhetoric. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bruxton (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	It's edits like this that make me love Misplaced Pages. StAnselm (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

On the other hand, it looks like you made this edit after looking at my contributions. Note that tracking other users' edits "should always be done with care, and with good cause". StAnselm (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Please note that you don't need to add a source to decline a speedy deletion , you can just do it by clicking on the icon in the middle of the speedy deletion box. The tag had nothing to do with your contribution, it had everything to do with a search I conducted failing to come up with any significant coverage of InFaith in WP:RS and searches for its previous names also turned up only passing mentions as well as the purely promotional nature of the page prior to your most recent addition. Note that I will be tagging the page for notability as GNG is still undemonstrated, but I don't plan on nominating it for deletion anytime soon (how long is long enough to leave a notability tag undressed before formal deletion proceedings is context dependent but in my opinion is almost always measured in *years* not days or months). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, it's totally notable - it has an entry in the Encyclopedia of Christianity in the United States. StAnselm (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Encyclopedia entries do not generally contribute to notability, consensus is that they're equivalent to a passing mention. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Could you point me to a page that explains that? StAnselm (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I can not off the top of my head. What are the other two sources you think satisfies GNG along with the encyclopedia entry? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Tagging notability on state reps

Hello. I noticed you tagged Andrew Murr for notability concerns. Murr is an elected member of the Texas House of Representatives. People who serve in state legislatures are assumed to be notable per WP:NPOL. There is no need to tag such articles. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 17:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

As the page page notes "This is a secondary criterion. People who satisfy this criterion will almost always satisfy the primary criterion." So you can still nominate if you feel it doesn't fit, remember that a page can meet the notability criteria and still be found to not be notable by consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Jumping on this because I saw that you left (and then quickly removed) an odd message on my talk page about this. Just so there isn't any confusion, WP:NPOL states that The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. That means any member of a state house or senate is automatically notable under WP:NPOL. Unfortunately, sources on state legislators can be severely lacking or non-existent. Many of these pages need more sources, so feel free to tag them as such. However, their notability is not in question. I do plan on removing the tags you placed on the state legislators and would recommend avoiding that strategy in the future. If you have questions about a specific page, start a discussion on that page's talk page. If you really feel the need to nominate one of these pages to test your theory, go for it, but it would only serve as a waste of time and effort for yourself and other editors. Thanks, Novemberjazz 21:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

August 2022

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Misplaced Pages again, as you did at Jason Colavito, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Stop removing this source from Misplaced Pages. If you want to discuss its reliability, you may do so at WP:RSN. Further disruption in this regard will be reported to administrators. jps (talk) 23:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jps: its a WP:BLP: "Misplaced Pages must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Nope, you don't get to hide behind BLP here. You have been going on a systematic campaign to denigrate this person and have removed sourcing to him on what I can only surmise is a misguided personal vendetta. That's not okay. jps (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes of course... I also have a misguided personal vendettas against RT, CGTN, and all of the other non-WP:RS I've removed... You're letting your imagination run wild. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not talking about those sources. I'm talking about Jason Colavito. I don't know why you decided this was your particular cause right now, but I'm telling you that you have picked a really bad tack. jps (talk) 23:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

You mean this Jason Colavito who is a self published non-expert? Please lay off the WP:PA, this ain't no cause. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

If you think Colavito is a "non-expert", I encourage you to take your case to WP:RSN. Having read two of his books published by, y'know, reputable publishing houses, I'm pretty sure that trying to poison the well by mentioning books he has self-published is not exactly disconfirming here. But go ahead and keep arguing. jps (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Thats backwards, you have to establish that they're an expert not the other way around... What books would those be? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

His book on mound builders and his book on Lovecraft. I have no clue why you think he is not an "expert". Do you think it possible, for example, to get a degree in debunking Ancient Aliens? jps (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, its called an archeology degree. You talked about a "misguided personal vendetta," a "particular cause," and a "systematic campaign" earlier. Have you reviewed your contributions to Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard? Specifically the section WP:BLPSPS, WP:FRINGEBLP, and WP:PARITY? You were going hard about this Colavito person for days before I touched the subject and you're here attacking me? WTF dude? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The man has a degree in anthropology. Did you miss that? I take particular umbrage to those who try to exclude sources that identify the mainstream understanding of a topic from Misplaced Pages articles. That it happens to be a campaign by you and a few others to remove Colavito's incisive criticism of the current UFO craze just happens to be this particular time. I have no particular attraction to Colavito other than to champion his work as a reliable source. jps (talk) 00:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

He has a split BA in anthropology and journalism, he has never published in a peer reviewed journal, held an academic position, or been awarded a graduate degree. The conspiracy you assert exists doesn't, its all in your head... There is no collusion or campaign here. On the 29th you wrote "We aren't here to fight about whether Colavito is correct or not in his analysis (I happen to believe he is correct, but I'll leave that argument for another venue)" so you were already on the warpath and I just happened to be the unlucky sap who you chose as your "venue" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I want to understand what weird world you think is out there where people with graduate degrees in anthropology spend their time debunking ancient aliens in academic journals? It doesn't exist. And besides, a graduate degree isn't required to see through the ruses that Colavito is investigating. That's rather the point of Carl Sagan's Baloney Detector Kit item to avoid arguments from authority. Sure, education is great. Degrees are great. But you don't need an advanced degree to identify the idiocy behind Ancient Aliens. There are no peer-reviewed journals that would accept a paper that wasted its time on showing why all that is wrong. This is a question of venue. Misplaced Pages, for better or worse, has decided to include certain WP:FRINGE content. This content gets discussed outside the typical academic realm. That's why WP:PARITY exists. That's why Colavito is a good source. Now, if he was being used in articles that discussed peer-reviewed literature, you might have a point. But that was none of the articles you removed him from. jps (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

What don't you understand? This is not the venue for you to soliloquize about Colavito or cast aspersions. Stop. Now. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

He's had a book published by an academic press. He's mentioned in Salon.com as an "author whose essays have been featured at The New Republic and Slate". An article by him in Esquire (magazine) Several in The New Republic. I'm sure their are more. You need to stop. Doug Weller talk 08:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Is something in there supposed to make him a subject matter expert? The passing in mention in Salon sure doesn't do it, neither does publishing opinion essays, nor does publishing a single book from an academic press. Consensus at Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard is that they're not a subject matter expert. If you want to challenge that I suggest opening a discussion at WP:RSN. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back@ජපස where do you find that consensus? Doug Weller talk 15:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Removal of sources

Without a WP:BLPREMOVE situation and when any editor can find a better source with a simple Google search, it's unhelpful that you immediately blank out passages and/or sources because you don't think they're good enough. You're more than welcome to challenge sourcing with {{better source needed}} or {{verification failed}} or similar, and even use the article's talk page to explain your rationale. There's a wide variety of ways to accomplish collaborative building of the encyclopedia. There is no WP:DEADLINE here.

For example, when there's a list of almost 20 events that have all been widely reported in the media, and many of those very reports listed multiple related events, and each and every list entry is accompanied by one or more sources, it's not helpful to blank out the only source for entries, because now they appear to be unsourced, when they were indeed cited and easily verifiable, but you didn't think it was good enough.

The very least you could do is to replace removed citations with {{citation needed}}, because that indicates that someone noticed it in the past and provides a date stamp for future editors to figure out how long ago that happened. Non-contentious information does not need to be removed unless it's also unverifiable, and you obviously are not doing any due diligence on this. Elizium23 (talk) 07:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I did replace it with CN when appropriate, the instances in which I didn't the whole page was already tagged as needing citations so it would be redundant. If you don't want poor sources removed don't add them, its as simple as that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)