Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:38, 17 October 2010

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

RFA

I know it's a long shot but I'm not going to close it. I still want to know what people are going to say that I need to improve (besides my edit count). Thanks for the advice anyways. Nations United (talk) 05:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It's fine to keep it open--it will be closed as a snow close anyway--I don't think you're actually going to get any feedback other than "keep editing." Qwyrxian (talk) 05:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I withdrew my request for adminship. I got some feedback though and that's what I wanted. Thanks for the advice. I'm glad I took it. Nations United (talk) 06:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou

Thanks for reverting vandalism from my user page :)--NotedGrant Talk 12:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! Qwyrxian (talk) 12:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Michèle Dionne

You're right that she's probably not independently notable; if you view the edit history, you'll note that it's been bouncing back and forth between a redirect and a new version of the same article for a couple of months now, and I'll redirect it back again in a few minutes. But nonetheless, I thought I should let you know that a stub template doesn't replace other categorization on an article — it can be placed alongside other categories, but every article still has to be filed in all the applicable content categories regardless of whether it's feature-quality or a stub, and an article is considered to be uncategorized — which no article is ever supposed to be — if it has only a stub template and no primary content categories. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 00:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that's true. I don't know what I was thinking, as I learned this specific point a few months ago. I should have just added the stub rather than remove the rest. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Reidsville NC

I completly disagree with you removing the extra links which you did this morning. I reread WP:EL and most of not all the links which were removed should not have. By your standards you need to go to any major city's page and remove tons of links. I quickly went and looked at NYC and Boston and I would say that other then Reidsville being a small town the links that you removed fit better then the ones on those pages. Unless you can back up your reasons I plan to undo your changes. Drumzandspace2000 (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

First, the fact that other pages have bad links is irrelevant (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). But I'll go back to the article and check those specific links again, then leave a comment on the article's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Cheers Drumzandspace2000 (talk) 11:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Koji Okada

I've given him a 3RR warning and he's ignored it. I've reverted him three times now, and I've got to go (to doctor...). Over to you... Peridon (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist; I should be on for at least another 20-30 minutes or so if he reverts again. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Renaming of category

I have proposed here to rename Category:Hindu terrorism to Category:Hindutva terrorism, as to be more accurate to the meaning that the terrorism is politically and nationally motivated and not religiously motivated. Please join the discussion. Silverseren 22:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Succession boxes

I can't tell if you actually prefer to have succession boxes for #1 songs or not when you reverted my removal of them on You're Beautiful, or if you just feel that because they are on so many articles, it's just accepted now. Anyhow, there has been a discussion ongoing at WT:CHARTS regarding their removal. I have removed the boxes from a number of articles, referring editors to the talk page if reverted. If you are against the removal, I hope you will add your reasons to the discussion, and I will leave this article alone. If you don't care either way but are just trying to follow community consensus, I hope you will allow me to continue with this project, as consensus appears to be changing. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 07:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I had no idea of that mini-consensus. To be honest, I think I agree with the removal reasons given, as I don't like clutter, and I can't actually imagine that there are too many people who want to navigate using them--I mean, if you want to look at all of the number one songs/albums in a year, it makes more sense to me to navigate from that table/list page. I'll go back and remove the boxes myself. One suggestion--you may want to say in your edit summaries something like "Removing succession chart per discussion at WT:CHARTS," as that might help point others to the issue. Thanks for following up and explaining! Qwyrxian (talk) 08:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi, It doesn't seem there's any edit warring on merely content dispute. I've made a few reverts on the articles and about two of my reverts were reverted by other editors who stated that I made a mistake by canceling their efforts on improving the article, but they never said that the cancellation of vanadlism was wrong. In response to it, I've spent some time on figuring out what they've done and those new reverts aims at keeping all recent changes while removing vandalism. --Winstonlighter (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so if I understand you, you're saying that in the middle of the content dispute, someone also vandalized the article, and thus one of your reverts doesn't count. Well, if that's the case, then you've got the policy correct. Do still know, however that edit warring can occur regardless of the exact number of edits you make--3 reverts in 24 hours is an absolute maximum, not an entitlement. I was just worried that you were misinterpreting policy, which would be an unfortunate reason to be blocked. I've watchlisted the article, but I won't have time to look at it in detail for probably a few days at best. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

For the record, Qwyrxian, I do not accept that Winston was reverting any vandalism in the edits I listed in the original 3RR report, especially given that I was making the edits he reverted. Thanks, John Smith's (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. The name ordering in this article has caused many troubles for a long time and probably gets more attention after Japanese arrested Chinese fishermen. What administrators have done so far is to see those changes as vandalism and revert all those changes, no matter it's pro-Japan or pro-China. I'm disappointed that John Smith's who spend tremendous efforts in reading Misplaced Pages guidelines ignores the discussion and other adminstrators' actions and keep pushing forward his unconsensus change on name ordering.

As I told John Smith's, ScorchingPhoenix or Phoenix777 (I don't remember who is who, they look the same to me in terms of tones, use of grammar, writing and editing styles), when there was a pro-China changes on name ordering, I was in fact the first one to revert. When the pro-China change happened again, I was also the first one to ask administrators to revert. If John Smith's see the revert on his futile changes are not "pro-China" or breaking the consensus (with who?), he simply overlooks what has happened in this article in the whole month. --Winstonlighter (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Winston, I have already asked you to stop making unfounded allegations against me. If you have evidence that I use puppets, please present it so that it can be soundly rejected. If not, stop it and grow up. John Smith's (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I would like to thank you for your contributions to the article misogyny. I would also like to thank you for noticing that all my edits are being reverted by Sugar-Baby-Love/Cybermud no matter how legitimate they are and for stepping in. Randygeorge (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm just doing what I think best matches policy...on that last revert, it wasn't the information content itself, it was the claim "easily sourced." I'm a really big believer in WP:BURDEN. If an editor wants to include a certain piece of information, in my opinion, it's up to them to prove it's legitimate via a reliable source. Sometimes, if I know a source, maybe I might add one. Or, if a new user doesn't understand sourcing, I'll help find them or at least explain in detail. But an experienced editor should know better. If xe thinks the info can be easily sourced, then great--xe can find a source and then re-add the sentence with the reference, and then we'll all be happy. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly

How's the research coming? I am very interested in seeing how you make out with the evaluation and proposed solution.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I haven't even looked at it. It's still in my queue of projects I want to work on, but I keep pushing it down due to other more pressing things, and due to the fact that it's not exactly going to be pleasant work...some day...Qwyrxian (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Indio Bandida

I left a note in both english and spanish to Indiobandida. Thanks for your concern. Osplace 00:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Qwyrxian (talk) 00:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice

I'm sorry for all the fuss. I didn't know my User talk page. Now,I see what you're saying.--Koji Okada (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

"Good contributors don't make new articles"

(Posted here in response to your comments at the PUMP because second-class netizens can't post there.)

I've been watching RFA for a while now because I am curious about the kind of person the community accepts as an administrator. One thing I have noticed is that, quite frankly, if you don't have a substantial number of new articles under your belt (and preferably articles that went on to become GAs or features), you will inevitably face a lot of opposition purely on that basis.

Now, I agree with you: this seems illogical. Eventually, WP will have an article on every notable subject in the universe. Even if that is not true, we will asymptotically approach precisely that point and it will become exponentially harder to produce new articles as we get closer to it--so having "new article creation" as something of a measuring stick for a valued contributor is silly, in the long run.

...But we're fallible, and we don't know any better, and we do use that as a measuring stick, and because we do people will always feel driven to create new articles. They will do so on inappropriate topics and with questionable skill levels and with the best and the worst of intentions and the one thing we can count on is that, in all fairness, they are expected to. Just as the FBI is a gun culture, WP is a content culture, and you can't get ahead here without writing something. Contributors of new content may not be our most valuable contributors, but they are our most valued. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.19.84.33 (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. First a question--did you want me to copy-paste this over there, or was this intended just for me? Second, I think you are correct on many counts. I've only started watching RfA in about the last two months, although I did go back and look at some of the archives. I think you're definitely right that content is considered one of the key required things for many successful RfAs. There are even a number of editors who will almost always oppose any candidate without "significant content contributions." I have, however, usually found that measured in GA/FA (and sometimes DYK) levels--that is, I think that even those people who consider significant content creation to be mandatory recognize the transforming a stub into a GA is just as important/valuable as creating a dozen new stubs. Nonetheless, you are correct that there are editors who will oppose based strictly on the rationale that (paraphrasing) "Until you've driven to another town to get a rare book to complete an article, you'll never understand the difficulty of content creation enough to be trusted with the mop." This extreme stance is the one that makes me saddest, as to me it fails to recognize that much of being an admin has nothing to do with content creation. Plus, I feel like it hides a problematic ownership problem, as if an admin should give deference to someone, even if they break one policy or another, just because they have done a lot of hard work. However, I feel like I have been seeing more and more RfAs turn on policy rather than just content; I was particularly pleased to see Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Ron Ritzman pass--an editor who works almost exclusively behind the scenes, with very little content creation experience, but who needed the mop to make their very useful work be performed more easily.

As to the issue of asymptotically approaching a maximum number of articles, I think you are correct, although, as I said at the pump, we're definitely far from that in some very obvious areas, like India and Africa. But I think that now is the time for Misplaced Pages to stop worrying about the idea of content creation as much as content improvement. Certainly, some content areas will always languish, because either there literally are no reliable sources to move an article past a stub, or the topic is so obscure that very few people are interested in improving it. But I think that now is the time for Misplaced Pages to say "We've got this awesome foundation, and some of what we have is truly outstanding. Let's bring up as much of the base level stuff up to good or outstanding levels, and not worry about adding more foundation." This is why the idea at the pump seems so backwards to me. I think we want to encourage people to do content a fair amount of content editing before they create new articles.

On a related note, one thing I've been thinking about lately is the issue of immediatist vs. eventualism. I think that while, as a collaborative project, we will always be inherently incremental, it's time to start being a lot stricter on our core policies (the 5 pillars), and making sure that what information we do have meets reasonable standards. I'm contemplating writing an essay on the subject, although doing that at the moment would take away from other tasks (here and in real life). But my basic thought is that, when we look at the outside world, and, in particular, the academic world, Misplaced Pages doesn't get criticized for not having enough information--it gets criticized when the information it does have is wrong and/or uncited. Teachers, in particular, tell their students that they can't rely on Misplaced Pages, because there's no reason to believe any of it is "right". This is the challenge we need to meet--to create articles that can be accepted as serious, accurate, and useful. We do this not just by driving for more and more content, but by exercising good editorial judgment. It's no longer appropriate, I believe, to leave unsourced information floating around articles based on the idea that "someone will source that and improve it later...it's all about the step-by-step process." It gladdens me that we've at least moved past that on BLP articles, but I think we could stand to move towards more focus on WP:V on all of our articles. The problem is that our "content culture", especially from editors who were around since the beginning, makes some think that we have to preserve all of the so-called information we have here at all costs, and only remove it when we can persuade ourselves through hard, exhaustive work that no sourcing can be found. My hope is that, in part, longevity itself will shift the overall atmosphere on Misplaced Pages towards more immediatism and less eventualism--I have no doubt that my immediatism arises in part simply because I wasn't around at the beginning.

In any event, sorry for the wall of text. Let me know if you want your comments transferred to the Pump, and I definitely like your idea of us as a "content culture"--it's a quick easy way to encapsulate a lot of what goes on in a variety of different places on Misplaced Pages. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Clomiphene

Regarding the article on 'Clomiphene' where the change was made with 'this is wrong'.

That section of article as it currently stands is wrong. It displays a lack of understanding of the menstrual cycle. I don't have the necessary time to find references, but ultimately, it is the loss of Wiki if you decide not to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.54.162.129 (talk) 03:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I certainly accept that the article may be wrong--it happens all the time. But Misplaced Pages articles have to be written a certain way. They aren't written as a conversation "This is right, no this is right, no this is!" They need to be written as a single, cohesive whole. Furthermore, information must be verified by reliable sources. I see that the info currently in the article isn't sourced, either, which is bad. If you want to make the change, what you should have done is to erase the information currently there, and replaced it with the "correct" information. Then it would be up to other editors who are familiar with the subject to discuss what the correct information is. Eventually, the decision on what is correct should be made by reference to reliable sources. If the sources disagree, then both viewpoints should be included. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Another thank you

I really appreciate your rolling back the vandalism of my user page.Obviously the vandal is not an art lover.Skreen (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Xe blanked a number of few user pages, I believe in connection to the Goodbody Stockbrokers page. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Hart

Firstly, thank you for your patience in trying to keep this article under control. It really does appear that one (or several) of the editors have a significant COI. I noticed that the current anon IP is located at Virginia (USA) where apparently Hart works... Gillyweed (talk) 02:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

My IP is located in VA. How is that relevant? As I've said, I am new to Misplaced Pages, and did not know that all changes had to be cleared first. I think we all have the same goal, which is to make Hart's encyclopedia entry informative and neutral. As it stands, the page is in need of serious work. There's so much extraneous biographical information, and an undue focus on "poetry." As I just wrote on Hart's talk page, Hart made his name as a poet, but most of his current publications are in the areas of philosophy and theology.Phainein (talk) 02:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't actually talking about your IP, but it is interesting that you too are in Virginia. Why are there two/three editors all editing at once from the same place. Especially when they are making similar edits? Gillyweed (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article has way too much biographical information. As for the focus on poetry, that's an issue we should discuss. Up until recently, almost all of the sources that I had access to talked about his poetry, and a little bit about his literary criticism. Now, I may simply not have had good information about his work as a theologian/philosopher; and good, sourced info should be added regarding that. Sorry if I/Gillyweed made it sound like you need permission before making changes. The problem is that this article is very contentious (I don't know why, but it is). As such, it has some extra editing restrictions not found on all other articles. You're still welcome to make changes, but if someone does "undo" one of your changes, you should go to the article's talk page and discuss the specific changes you are proposing and why you think they should be made. This will allow us to establish a consensus (that follows policy) about how to move forward. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Which I see is exactly what you've done. Thanks! I'll make more comments over there. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's a shield for you Qwyrxian

		The Userpage Shield
		Thanks for guarding user pages from vandalism Alistair Stevenson (talk) 14:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Of course, I must give credit to my wonderful co-star, Huggle. 14:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:VPR#Append welcome templates automatically to first talk posts on new editors talk pages

Hi Qwyrxian. Thanks for chiming in. We seriously need to do something about it - it's been bothering me for a long time already. A discussion now needs to be coordinated somewhere other than at the VP. Please keep in touch. --Kudpung (talk)

Proceeding with edits

It appears that we have a problem in the page where we have both been actively editing. While the divide in opinion is nothing new, the recent series of relentless reverts does make it difficult for certain appropriate contents to be corrected. Even though discussions have been made and justifications for the contents were given, they tend to be ignored or discontinued by certain parties whenever any inconvenient refutations were established. Misplaced Pages standards also seemed to be selectively cited exclusively for convenient purposes by certain people.

Now, since the admins refuse to step in to deal with this, I am wondering what can be done about this. An easy way of handling the situation is to keep allowing certain contents to be suppressed until others get fed up and start an edit war. Another would be to somehow work out some content management process that is not biased by cultural preference. A third option would be to ask for a mediation or arbitration.

I am not sure how interested you are in keeping the page's content neutral or tolerating content that contradict your political views, but it would be nice to know how you feel about this given your experience with the "Sea of Japan naming dispute" page. Bobthefish2 (talk) 09:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

How would you feel if I requested Full Protection, say, for a week? This would at least give us a week during which no one could edit the page at all. I assume you mean both pages (Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute). I hesitate to do so at the moment, since my edits were the last major ones (the moving of a chunk from the Islands page to the dispute page), so I don't want anyone to think I'm protecting "my version"--especially when what's up there right now is definitely not the version I prefer, if only because it's a great big fat mess.

Then, if after about a week, we've been unable to make any progress on the talk page, we could move into mediation. Personally, I don't think mediation will help right now, because mediation seems to work best when there are clear and specific problems that need resolving, whereas we have a lot of different and complex disagreements. Nonetheless, I will definitely agree to participate in any mediation (formal or Cabal). Arbitration isn't needed yet, because arbitration deals with user behavior, not content. In my opinion, there's been some borderline activities from a number of different participants, but not quite enough to go that far...although, I've been at this for less time than others have, so I may just not have experienced the worst of it.

As for my goals, all I want is to push the page to neutral and to clean it up (two goals which I hope are mutually compatible). As for my opinion...I, like everyone else, have both an opinion; nonetheless, I want to work (and want everyone else to work) within the framework required on WP for sourcing, due weight, etc. I do have a low tolerance for the idea that consensus can be used to override any core policy (here, NPOV in particular). I will say that I have, in the past completely switched my view point of a period of time in the face of clear and compelling evidence (on Kimchi, if it matters).

So...full protection? Like I said, I'm pretty much tempted to wait until after someone else makes a significant edit so that it doesn't look like I'm trying to protect my version. Alternatively, you or someone else could request it. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)