Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:10, 26 February 2009

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Ref: SS Ponzi Scheme

Hi Padillah, It is not my opinion that I am trying to impose here, although it may appear to be so. I am just highlighting the fact that it remains controversial whether it is or isn't a Ponzi Scheme (even if a legal one), so you cannot state as a fact that it is not a Ponzi Scheme (I saw the reference, and the perpetrator itself cannot be treated as a "reliable source"). In fact, claiming it is not a Ponzi Scheme seems to be an opinion in itself. My point is that a claim should not be made either way, and the edit in question just accomplishes that. Thank you, Virat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virat1208 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The base problem with claiming it's a Ponzi scheme is the assertion that it's a "scheme". Social Security has never misrepresented it's growth system, and has never promised a "Return on Investment" that is what the references at the bottom of the article say. It's not just that they "claim" not to be a Ponzi scheme and use "no, really" as their defense. They present reasons and logic as to why they cannot be considered a scheme. Reliable sources have nothing to do with logic. It may operate using the same mechanism as a Ponzi scheme uses but, since there is no misrepresentation, it's not a Scheme. In short, it's the "SCHEME" part of the moniker that is refutable. Regardless of the mechanic of collecting monies. Padillah (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Alan Greenspan

Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_Threat_in_9_Feb_DRV, the linked DRV, and Special:Contributions/Naegele. This user is using Misplaced Pages to promote himself by adding his own articles. Just because somebody says something doesn't make it true or appropriate for inclusion in an article, especially not when it is part of a spam campaign. Calling Greenspan worse than Obama is a potential libel and sourcing it with a column by a non-notable lawyer doesn't come close to meeting the threshold of sourcing. "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." --B (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That particular incident is what got me poking around that particular users contributions. I Googled the article and it has gotten mention in other, secondary sources. I agree the initial entry was about as self-serving as they come, but I tried to remove any author-centric POV I could while retaining the reference. The quote is there, it's real, it's sourced - it has nothing to do with us, or even the referenced article. It's a real quote. (And, for what it's worth, the quote says he hurt America almost as bad as Osama. It makes no judgment call on his worth.) If you had read the entry you would see it had nothing to do with the authors self-promotion. If you had read the quote you would see it was not comparing the worth of one person against another but the harm they had done. And since this is a content dispute I'd like to move it to the article talkpage where it belongs. Padillah (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Just being a "real quote" doesn't make it appropriate to use. Just because something is "sourced" doesn't mean it belongs in an article. There are many quotes from every newspaper in the country about Alan Greenspan. Misplaced Pages exercises editorial discretion in deciding which ones to use. Unless you can find multiple people with this opinion about Greenspan (including, preferably, at least one who doesn't think Misplaced Pages is free advertising), it is an extreme minority view and has no place in the article, especially not a biography of a living person. --B (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see the article talkpage like all content disputes. Padillah (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding defamatory spam to an article is not a content dispute. --B (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

And if I were you might have a point. Please see the talk page. Padillah (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Black Eyed Husband

Need your comment on Black_Eyed_Husband --Bziona86 (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Request to move article New Writings in SF 1 incomplete

You recently filed a request at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves to move the page New Writings in SF 1 to a different title - however your request is either incomplete or has been contested for being controversial, and has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete will be removed after five days.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

1. Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
2. Added a place for discussion at the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved. This can easily be accomplished by adding {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the page, which will automatically create a discussion section there.
3. Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Misplaced Pages talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Peter Petrelli

Thanks for finding that source. I figured it was a bit BS when I saw the IP change "going to" to "gonna", and realized that they were the same ones that added the quote in the first place. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of New Writings in SF

I have nominated New Writings in SF, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/New Writings in SF. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. SilkTork * 18:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Daedalus969's WQA

How exactly has Daedalus969's incivility been dealt with, as you claim that it has? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Read the claim and you will see. Daedalus has been talked to on their talk page and has backed away from the conflict. There, dealt with. Padillah (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Not good enough. Not dealt with at all, just ignored, as usual. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

What did you expect was going to happen? This is the resolution for civility issues on WP: Stop the incivility. That's all we can do. We made the editor stop being uncivil, what else could you possibly need from the resolution of this? Padillah (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

What I expected to happen was exactly what happened. Abusive administrator is given a mild rap on the knuckles which he ignores. Those he abuses get threatened with blocks, called trolls, and much worse. You're welcome to your world; I'm just glad I don't have to live in it with you. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)