Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:46, 14 May 2009

Before leaving a message, please read Misplaced Pages's policies on verifiability/reliable sources and biographies of living persons (BLPs), because many of my edits are in response to messages sent to the Wikimedia foundation because of unsourced or poorly sourced material in BLPs.

Threads are usually archived after 3 months without discussion: 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009.

Complaint threads are marked with an ! before the section title.

Nofootnotes not at the top of pages.

Hi, concerning this edit I would like to note that {{nofootnotes}} must be added into the references section of the article and not on the top. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I didn't know that. I still think ELs with no footnotes are as bad a book refs with no page numbers, and deserve warnings at the top of the page tho. ~~

It's good to help editors to add information in the correct place so the warnings should be in the appropriate place. Happy editing! -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books." -- wp:v

Footnotes aren't put in the references section, they're put in the article sections where the info is. The more obvious the warning for incorrectly cited articles the better, since that could lead to an encyclopedic article. -- Jeandré, 2009-01-28t06:14z

Still they should not put on the top as you did here. Nofootnotes reads in its manual: "To add this template to an article, copy and paste {{No footnotes|{{subst:DATE}}}} into the references section of the article." Moreover, "nofootnotes" is not for "incorrectly cited articles". Try "refimprove" instead. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC) 2009-04-21t20:29z (UTC)

Jane Garvey (broadcaster).

Re

I see that you've removed the "Personal life" section from Garvey's article. Her marriage to Chiles is certainly undisputed, 2 children likewise (although details might be inappropriate). Chiles' fondness for West Brom is widely known (although incomprehensible). Their separation was widely publicised at the time and there was a ref, albeit to the Daily Mail (the Daily Mail is printed in tabloid format but it's not widely regarded as a "tabloid", although some find its political reporting unreliable). Here's an alternative source: - I would think this is ok and it confirms their marriage. Her involvement in the Southall crash is confirmed here: .

I found these in 2 mins via Google; perhaps a call for better refs before deletion or, even better, adding them, would have been better. A message to me, who added some of the info, would have prompted me to do the job. Are these suggested references ok, in your opinion? Other aspects of the article remain unsourced - but have been left in place. Folks at 137 (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply. -- Jeandré, 2009-02-08t15:28z

Ok, I'll add suitably ref'd info. My initial concern was that there might have been an attempt to censor personal data & if so, whether there was a sound reason. I'm aware of the need for care with bios of the living, but the issues are whether the Daily Mail is a reliable source and the lack of forewarning. Most people listening to the BBC and reading British "quality" newspapers would have been aware of the Garvey/Chiles marriage and separation. It was not tabloid speculation. Although the Daily Mail has faults, there are aspects where it does well and in this case, the report was reliable. As cetainty is so important in this group of articles, why were other unsupported facts not queried in detail and/or removed? Just curious. As far as "burden of proof" is concerned - I agree with you. However, when I delete in this way - and I have - I would usually either have used the cn tag first or, where reasonable, left a note on the other editor's talk page. It's not just courteous, it gives a chance to validate good info which might otherwise be lost. Not everyone rummidges through watchlists & contributions lists to follow up edits. Anyhow, no war intended. Folks at 137 (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Stella Vine and Rosy Wilde photos.

Re

Message at User talk:Tyrenius#Stella Vine and Rosy Wilde photos.

Reply, note. -- Jeandré, 2009-02-09t09:25z

Assumeing we don't hear from Madeofstars in the next few hours I plan to deal with the situation this evening.Geni 16:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion request.

I have removed your third opinion request from WP:3O as it falls outside the scope of the project and there are already several editors involved. It seems best to me to let the conversation die and just move on with constructive work on the project. I think your edit was with good intentions (in good faith) and that you did not distort the other editors comments, just removed what was potentially derogatory. It is probably best to avoid doing so in the future unless it is egregiously offensive. Let me know if there is any additional way I can help. Happy wikiediting! (EhJJ) 16:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad - wrong place to escalate to. -- Jeandré, 2009-03-01t09:39z

Mitchell Brothers.

How do you like the Mitchell Brothers article so far? George415 (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC) (originally posted at ).

Needs more references. -- Jeandré, 2009-03-08t15:46z

Ticket:2009030610026154: Commission for Taxi Regulation.

Re

Someone brought this ticket and your RFPP request to my attention. I don't think it will be indefinitely full-protected, per WP:NO-PREEMPT. While I can't access that queue, I am fortunate enough to live in the same city as the Commission for Taxi Regulation, and if the context of the ticket suggests that it would be helpful for someone to telephone or visit them in person, I am happy to do so — you can leave details on my OTRS wiki talk page or email me. Stifle (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply. -- Jeandré, 2009-03-06t18:43z

!Michael Steele (musician).

Please stop reverting the edits to this page. The birth date is well referenced, and it is common knowledge that she is a bassist. Future reversions will be viewed as vandalism and addressed as such. -- Elaich 01:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Replies. -- Jeandré, 2009-03-09t14:28z

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Los Super Reyes.

Article creator provided a link with proof the album of this group charted. Please revisit the AFD. - Mgm| 13:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"A 130 peak on The Billboard 200 and a high peak on a genre list does not qualify per Misplaced Pages:Music#Criteria for musicians and ensembles." -- Jeandré, 2009-03-10t14:00z

UEFA Champions League 2008–09.

Re .

Simple. Both references are identical to the information which UEFA official website provided. Also, the game number is for giving references to the further rounds, i.e. semi-finals and Final. Raymond Giggs 14:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No use replying (low priority: sport), user will delete refs and put back game numbers under aggregate scores column for the 3rd time. -- Jeandré, 2009-03-27t19:41z

Club Mahindra Holidays.

Hi

Apologies for the "spam"; I'm writing to you and other editors because you have edited the Club Mahindra Holidays article recently.

Concern has been expressed that the article is too promotional and is about a non-notable subject. I do not necessarily agree with this, however I am concerned that unless these issues are addressed then the article may be deleted. I am therefore asking for your help in improving the article, and wish to make the following suggestions:

• The article should avoid being a promotional vehicle for Club Mahindra: the article should adhere to Misplaced Pages's policies of neutral point of view.
• The article should avoid being an attack on Club Mahindra: while some criticism is to be expected the article should not be an attack page.
• Positive and negative comments about Club Mahindra should be referenced by reliable sources such as major newspapers and business magazines.
• Controversial claims - either for or against Club Mahindra - should be discussed on the article's talk page.

Once again, apologies for disturbing you with this matter but I hope I can look forward to working with you on improving this article!

Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 10:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Finkelstein protection.

Re

Hi Jeandre. I've fully protected the Finkelstein page for 1 day to allow the SPI case to go forward. Let me know if it needs to be extended. You own the ticket so I haven't replied. Cheers, Xymmax _{So let it be done} 13:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

After having a bit more time, I looked at the contribs of the offending accounts. Since the named accounts had no constructive edits, I indefinitely blocked them, and unprotected the page. I did not block the IP. I also have placed the article on my watchlist. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 22:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability versus comprehensiveness.

Re

Thankyou for your advice about the Australian and New Zealand Society of Indexers page. It has been a bit of a steep learning curve but I have learnt step by step. -- CalRhiannon (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

wp:ERRORS post not error.

Re

I moved it to Talk:Main Page, as you are not discussing an error. --Dweller (talk) 10:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarification on Ottava Rima RFA oppose.

Re

You mentioned that you did not like my response to number seven. Was it my statement that using "hanging" is inappropriate or was it my response that there is little that we can do to end rampant foolishness on Misplaced Pages during April 1st besides undermine the attention seeking behavior by not praising those who act in such a way? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarification. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-01t21:44z

Ha! If you think that I wouldn't help get such a person desysopped, you haven't paid enough attention to me. It is hard to get them removed for one edit to the mainpage. If it was a series of them, or if they reverted it back in, then yes, there is grounds to do so. I try to pick and choose my battles though. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/AlexiusHoratius#Oppose.

Hello, just dropping you a line to inform you that I requested additional clarification about your oppose. Would you mind reviewing the page at your earliest convenience? Thanks. GlassCobra 19:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarification. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-02t20:40z

Daniel Malakov AfD.

Re

Now that his murderers have been found guilty, the subject of the Daniel Malakov has reached the point that people are interested to understand the facts and are turning to Misplaced Pages for that knowledge. The new article is different from a previous article that was apparently deleted about a year ago, as is the information which focuses on the legal process and facts that were established in the trial. This is not the usual "tabloid" murder.Distaffperp (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Still fails wp:blp and wp:v. -- Jeandré, t14:19z

All the information is from multiple reliable news accounts (verifiability). Does "biography of living persons" applies to convicted criminals?Distaffperp (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

W.r.t. the last sentence, I should rather say, does "BLP" prevent Misplaced Pages from quoting secondary sources who themselves base their reporting on courtroom proceedings and ancillary interviews relating to which the individuals were found guilty? I believe Misplaced Pages mentions the name "David Berkowitz" in connection with the "Son of Sam" killings (several of which in fact occurred not far from this one).Distaffperp (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

BLP applies to everyone, even murderers. Comment about problem with sourcing and notability. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-14t12:35z

Belarus–Netherlands relations AfD.

Re

Hi Jeandre, this article has undergone some changes. Please have a look and see if it's enough for you to change your mind on the AfD. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 04:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete changed to keep. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-16t09:30z

Thanks for your effort. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Orfeh sourcing.

Re your request here, I'm not quite sure why you made it. First of all, I didn't add it so much as reverted my own removal of that in the first place. Second, I've been dealing with this issue and have reviewed the OTRS ticket as well as having been e-mailed to regarding this issue, and the information I re-added was never even in dispute. There is absolutely no objection to including this subject's spouse or birthplace. I re-added this because it makes no sense to remove an infobox (which all biographies should have) which contains uncontroversial information, and it shows good faith of working with both sides on the issue about what to include rather than blindly reverting to the lesser-information version without regard to the good content that may be removed. The things in the infobox are 1. The picture, 2. the caption, 3. the birthplace, and 4. the spouse (along with marriage date). Out of these things I re-added, I can't fathom you objecting to the picture or the caption. It's a free image and there is no dispute that it is of her, and no objection to its inclusion. Even if there were an objection, we don't bow to requests by subjects to remove their picture for no reason. As for the caption, it's impossible to source that, and they are never sourced, so I will assume what you want me to revert is the birthplace and spousal information. I found a source that I believe is reliable that includes the spouse and date of marriage, which was never in dispute in the first place and is widely available information on both Orfeh and her husband's websites, so once again I don't see why you would have objected to this info being added, however I added a source so whatever objection you may have is hopefully alleviated. As for the birthplace, once again this was never in dispute, its inclusion was never in dispute, and there are in fact several sources that say she "grew up" in New York and went through the NYC public school system. However, just to appease your request since I couldn't find anything specifically saying she was "born" in New York, I removed that bit, even though I personally think "growing up" there is sufficiently valid information for "birthplace" in absence of any information to the contrary. I trust you no longer have an objection to what I re-added? VegaDark (talk) 02:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-20t08:22z

Abdul Hameed Dogar referencing.

I have undone your changes to page Abdul Hameed Dogar. The facts with the references are in the text of the page in question. Same facts were summarized in the infobox. First I dont see much need to double reference and also I have not seen same kind of formatting on any other pages. Please see pages Samuel Alito or Colin Powell or George W. Bush just as example. Thanks

Could you please explain to me why are you putting references in the infobox ?Rizvisa1 (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Reverted, and explained referencing. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-22t14:20z

All the facts that were summarized in the "INFOBOX" are mentioned in the detail text of the same page and are properly referenced. If a fact is stated more than once, I dont think that we have to again give reference each time. Once is sufficient. Please look at the INFOBOX of Samuel Alito or Colin Powell or George W. Bush or any other. You will not find that the facts summarized in the "INFOBOX" are stated with reference.Rizvisa1 (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Replies. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-22t21:26z

Ok I am still lost and need your help in understanding issue that you are finding.

You said ""The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." Are you saying that each time a fact is mentioned in same article, the source should be mentioned. As example, if it is stated Chief Justice Dogar, I have to each time give a reference of his being a "Chief Justice? In the article I said he was born on this date and gave it a reference. At other places, when I again refer to his date of birth, I am not giving reference as it already has been refered. Please clarify this for me. Are you saying a fact when ever mentioned, no matter how many time, each time have to be given a reference

You said "The term starting date as Supreme Court Justice is only given a month and year in ref 1" But you are looking at wrong reference. I am not giving it ref 1, you gave it that. In reality is is in ref#3 (as you would also find in the text in page in question under section "Judicial career"

You said "Inline citations mean I can check for birth_place in the annual-report2004 and since I can't find it in there I can remove that citation" But it is there. I quote from reference 'Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar Born on 22nd March 1944. Passed B.Sc. from University of Sindh in 1966; LL.B., from Law College, Lahore, University of Punjab in 1969; enrolled as Advocate in 1970 and practiced law for 25 years; elevated as Judge High Court of Sindh on 10th April, 1995; elevated as Judge, Supreme Court of Pakistan on 28th April, 2000.'

You have indicated "citations needed" under section Posts held in other fields. But the citation is listed. example 1996 to April 2000: Member, Syndicate, Shah Abdul Latif University, Khairpur - Rizvisa1 (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Replies. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-23t06:30z

A. I understand the point about facts listed in the article be verifiable. What I dont understand is when ever same fact is listed, it why it needs to be cited each and every time. If I say Earth is a planet, and I give a reference for it, next time I call earth a planet, it surely does not need to be cited again. That is the standard practice every where. I might be wrong, but it seems that you are saying that each time I call earth a planet, prove it. Please clarify this point.

B. How can I prove to you that Abdul Hameed Dogar in language URDU is spelled "عبدالحمید ڈوگر" -- Rizvisa1 (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Replies. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-23t10:44z

I have put almost every thing back and almost each sentence (in some case even part of sentence) have references. The page look awful as you insisted having same facts when ever cited, be given a reference and I have done that. If you still have concern with any sentence, please raise it. From my understanding, things that should be removed is things that are "libel". I dont understand how you see that for example, a date of birth of a person is a "contentious" item or a "libel" item and is fit to be removed immediately —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rizvisa1 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Making it easier to check references.

Re

Hi, mate. You have recently made a change on 9th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, a page that I created. The change seems incidental to me, however, I do not understand why you have done it. Basically you have changed the format without providing a reason as there was nothing really wrong with it. It is the same format that I have used for many Australian infantry battalion articles and it has not been criticised in the past. I specifically decided to use that format due to problems I see with the format you have changed it to. I have included a separate Notes and References section because if I want to include a note (i.e. not a citation but an aside point) I don't want it appearing in the references section. Can you please explain why you feel that my format is incorrect? AustralianRupert (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-25t14:24z

Okay, but it doesn't really explain to me why there was a need to change it. The reason why I made a separate Notes and References section was so that aside points may be added and not clutter up the bibliographic information. The original style did provide a link and all relevant bibliographic details, just in a References section that was separate to the Notes section. Changing it didn't make checking the sources any easier because it was just as easy under the older version — simply scroll and click. I still don't see how the original style ws wrong, or why it needed to be changed. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-25t14:59z

commons:File:South Africa national election 2009 winner by municipality.svg.

I've replied to your questions at commons:File talk:South Africa national election 2009 winner by municipality.svg. - htonl (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

GRUB4DOS deletion.

Re

All that I've written has been referenced accordingly. -- Panarchy (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Afd: n, rs. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-30t16:30z

Cape Party.

Re

Dear Jeandre du Toit,

I am an integral member of the Cape Party and as such have a wealth of information surrounding the Party, the History of the Cape and the movement for independence. I will admit that I am a novice to the workings of[REDACTED] and am not familiar with the conventional processes one is to follow. I have had a quick read through general procedures and have decided that my contacting you is the easiest and most suitable manner in which to publish a respectable article.

I would like as much information as possible to be available for those wanting to access information on the Cape Party. Considering your objections, what do you feel would be the most suitable way to proceed?

I could supply you with Cape Party information and sources, and you could compile the information in the required format.

Alternatively, I could publish the information and you could inform me as to the correct manner of publication.

For ease of communication would you be contactable by email?

Regards Freedom1910 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.139.28 (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-30t16:51z

Email username.

Re

Please be advised that I cannot change my username as that was part of my unban agreement with the Arbitration Board. It has been grandfathered in. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Nancy Jacobson clean up.

Re

Hi Jeandré, it's not clear whether your recent edits to Nancy Jacobson, which reduced the article to a stub, were done in your capacity as the editor who unsuccessfully nominated the article for deletion or as a volunteer for OTRS. Would you clarify the reason for your edit? Thanks, --Shunpiker (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply. -- Jeandré, 2009-05-09t23:03z

Thanks for your reply. --Shunpiker (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hell Has Harbour Views.

Re

This could be easily fixed by moving the telemovie article to Hell Has Harbour Views, which is where I believe it was originally before the "film" article was created. The clueless cleanup when that article was deleted left nothing at the main title, and no indication that the telemovie article ever existed. Rebecca (talk) 10:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

22 Midsouth Emmy Awards deletion.

Re Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/22ndMidsouth Emmy Awards

I do not know why you continue to nominate this section off of a main article for deletion? This is a sub page that connects to the greater subject page. I am unsure as to why you are after this subpage as a topic for deletion? It is not meant to be an article which would cause a problem with wikipedia guidelines for notability. However, it is a smaller part of a larger article. I moved it to a sub page because of its size. I have again removed the tag and would appreciate you looking at the whole picture before sticking needless deletion tags on the article. I have been an editor long enough to know when something meets guidelines. I thank you for your attention and concerns to keep[REDACTED] in great condition. Thank you.. Canyouhearmenow 17:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

!Chow Yei-ching.

Dear Sir or Madam:

As you are aware the above article already unanimously passed a WP:AFD vote see AFD here, in which you did not participate, which was initiated by myself, the article's creator, following your ill-advised WP:PROD. I believe your continued tagging of this page comes close to WP:STALKING. I do not claim the page is perfect but I would appreciate your finding an uninvolved, disinterested party (editor, admin.) to review the page in question. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply. -- Jeandré, 2009-05-10t21:30z