Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:37, 5 September 2016

This user has been on Misplaced Pages for 18 years, 4 months and 28 days. This user has been editing Misplaced Pages for more than ten years. This user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Misplaced Pages. (verify) This user has rollback rights on the English Misplaced Pages. (verify) This user fights vandalism. This editor is a Journeyman Editor and is entitled to display this Service Badge. This user is a participant in WikiProject Software.

Request on 16:32:06, 2 September 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Jhannafin

• Jhannafin (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Logan Sandler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! I've tried to make this Wiki page for this up and coming indie film director twice now, and it's gotten rejected on account of notability. I'm not sure why! He's had movies in several short festivals and his last movie featured big stars along with a premiere at the very notable Tribeca Film Festival. All of my sources - of which there are many - are independent of the artist himself. The Wiki page for his first film, 'Live Cargo', was accepted - so why not the director behind it? Need some help on why it's getting rejected.

Thanks!

Jhannafin (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jhannafin: The main problem with this draft for Logan Sandler is that the sources are mostly primary and not independent, third party sources. When reviewing the page for "Live Cargo", note that several third party sources such as "The Guardian", "The Hollywood Reporter" and "Deadline" are used. If you can find sources that have covered him in mass media besides these specialized sites, the articles notability can be established without a problem and there is no risk of deletion once the article is moved into the main space. -- Dane2007 16:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfair deletion

You recently deleted an edit to the "2016 Milwaukee Riots" page, stating that it violated neutrality and that it was from a non reputable source (Daily Wire). Might I point out that the quotation cited is on video, filmed by the news station TMJ4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1Ex5NZKvCg If it is on news video, it qualifies:

"The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources." https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Definition_of_published

TMJ4 is a reputable local news agency for Milwaukee and the entire interview is on video.

Moreover, exactly how does including the quotation "this what happened because they not helping the black community, like you know, the rich people they got all this money, and they not like, you know, tryin' to give us none" violate neutrality??? Especially when it was included in the section titled "Influence of Inequality?"

This is a local Milwaukee resident, giving his opinion about the riots, on a perfectly reputable news station. The fact of the matter is, that you just don't happen to like what he had to say, and are using your position to keep the page free of any such things.

So no doubt it's also verboden to mention the fact that the rioters were "beating every white person" according to their own words and as shown on video by Fox News: http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/08/14/they-re-beating-every-white-person-riots-fires-after-fatal-shooting-sparks-chaos (Personal attack removed)107.217.74.192 (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@107.217.74.192: I have responded here so that other editors can give input on the section I removed. Your implications that I "don't like what he has to say" are simply unfounded and wrong. My problem is entirely with the sourcing and undue weight of the addition and I am always open to having my edits and reverts reviewed by others to gain consensus. Please remember to assume good faith. -- Dane2007 01:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Draft:BeeSafe

Dear Dane2007, I would like to ask in which way of meaning the draft article BeeSafe does not meet the notability criteria. I have already discussed the topic with Jimfbleak and I believe I have provided enough verifiable resources (yet some of them are in Slovak but that is OK). I will be grateful for your answer so we can figure this out. Regards Matobeno1 —Preceding undated comment added 14:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@Matobeno1: I apologize, I thought that I added a note to this review. I was having the sources reviewed because I couldn't understand the ones not in English. I got the answer I needed and just actually accepted it and moved it to the article space. Sorry for the confusion!! -- Dane2007 19:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Worth a sockpuppet investigation?

Do you think it is worth filing for a sock-puppet investigation for the IPs complaining about MShabbaz and calling me an anti-semite? I wasn't really thinking of doing so until reading your comments. Thanks. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dan Eisenberg: I don't know if it would get accepted. It would need a CheckUser and I don't think theres enough evidence for one to take it on. I may be wrong though, I'm not super familiar with the actual sock puppet investigation process yet. -- Dane2007 03:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry

I put the wrong url. it was User:85.74.31.101