Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:40, 13 August 2011

Archives

/Archives/2009 /Archives/2010 /Archives/2011

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Warm Cookie Welcome

Thank you for the warm cookie welcome (belated or otherwise). Thank you also for the helpful links... hope to see you around. Ijil RHG (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing. Kind regards! VQuakr (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear profileration in pakistan

I can't see that as a copyvio of the link you've given. It looks like a copyvio of something, but I can't find it. Could you check that link again? The article might be better prodded as an essay. Peridon (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow up! Yes, I will have another look. VQuakr (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated Claim

Your warning for Advertising. If you are going to accuse me of advertising, please let me know what advertising you believe I am doing. I have spent most of my day researching, editing and adding content to make this reference material more accurate and thorough. So please, tell me what advertisements I have been doing.

Please note, this is not an attempt at being confrontational, but rather a request of further information of an accusation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKnight2B (talk • contribs) 19:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome! You might not have been aware that there are rules here against using the encyclopedia for advertising; please read WP:ADVERT and WP:COI. Several of your edits (ie , ) violate these guidelines. Feel free to let me know if you have questions, but please do consider editing topics in which you have no personal interest instead. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

reply could you please tell me which of these violate the policy, as I had read through it after your first comment. There is nothing on those articles which is not factual and taken from other sources, primarily governmental sources. Could you please specifically tell me what I had placed which was an advertisement, and therefore in violation so as we can ensure nothing like this ever happens again.

thank you AKnight2B (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC).

Both the edits I linked in my last post constitute advertising. "Factual" does not mean that it warrants inclusion. Again, avoiding articles with which you have a conflict of interest would be a great way to avoid issues. VQuakr (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

reply could you please inform me of the conflict of interest? If you were to read what I had posted on your request to delete, you will see that I merely added the information, as I could not find anything on companies that I was researching. I have copied and pasted my comments below:

Undisputable Facts

• As per your note about Knight Communications being deleted as spam. This was simply because I had not formatted the references properly and therefore did not show correctly in the article. By the time I had seen the notification, the article had already been deleted.

• As for the statement of no notable sources, nor reliable sources, the Government of England and Whales, as wells the The British Parliament, as well as two different states within the United States Governement have all been cited.

• The reason why I placed this here to begin with, was due to a hearing which was held in the House of Lords, where Knight Communications was asked to testify. I was present at this hearing and tried to research the companies on Misplaced Pages and could not find any mention of them. I then decided to join Misplaced Pages to add these companies to the Encyclopedia.

• I have requested a copy of the article written by the Parliamentary Press on this hearing, but have not yet been given this document. Once I do, it will be cited. AKnight2B (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC).

WARNING

As per Misplaced Pages's terms and conditions, I am giving you a warning due to you blatant Vandalism against the Misplaced Pages site. You have intentionally targeted my posts with the direct purpose of vandalising the website by removing, editing, or undoing proper and legitimate posts and articles. I have been advised to give you a formal written warning prior launching the formal complaint.

Please do not persist in removing legitimate content for your own personal motivation.

This is a system which was created to be a full and complete living research tool for the public, by the public. Please cease and desist in your actions immediately.

Thank you AKnight2B (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC).

Please review WP:VANDALISM, which defines vandalism as "addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages." I assure you that none of my edits have been a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of Misplaced Pages. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Romeo

I noticed you deleted this while I was in the middle of creating it. Does the listing of it on the List of notable songs not make it notable? Gnu andrew (talk) 04:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Notability is established by significant coverage third party sources, not by Misplaced Pages lists. Per WP:NSONG: "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." If there are reliable sources written about this song that show that it meets the guideline, please feel free to undo my redirect and add them. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 04:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I read that and agree that it may not be worth adding if it's not going to be expanded beyond on a stub. It just seems confusing to have such articles in a list called 'notable songs'. Gnu andrew (talk) 04:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I suppose ubiquitous consistency and agreement is not a trademark characteristic of a massively collaborative project. But I agree, having a page where anyone can list a song as notable is pretty confusing. Misplaced Pages:Requested articles seems like a more logical place to organize a list of most wanted song articles. VQuakr (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletion: Utility Player

I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on Utility Player, as it fails one of the primary criteria for A10, specifically that the title is a plausible redirect to the page it duplicates. I have redirected the page to Utility player accordingly. Cheers! —KuyaBriBri 20:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Duly noted. I frequently see redirects due to this kind of capitalization deleted per criterion R3 so thought it was not a useful redirect; now I know. Kind regards! VQuakr (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

PlanningForce considered for deletion

I'm working on the page to make it fit Misplaced Pages's guidelines. I will make by my best for references and notability. Regarding "close connection", what should I do? I'm not here to make advertising, just want to objectively complete the information provided by adding PlanningForce to the list - any advice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millinet (talk • contribs)

Please carefully read WP:COI. It is very difficult to write neutrally about a topic with which you have a close connection. Please also understand that you cannot make a non-notable subject notable; either reliable secondary sources exist, or they do not. I suggest avoid adding your company or product to any lists until the issue with the notability of the main article has been resolved. While that discussion is ongoing, have you considered editing Misplaced Pages in areas with which you do not have a COI? VQuakr (talk) 08:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I contribute in french ^^ http://fr.wikipedia.org/Sp%C3%A9cial:Contributions/Millinet - PlanningForce has been accepted ;). Regarding non-notable subject, Pmworldtoday talked about us - it-administrator.de, the Wisconsin university (.edu) also talks about us, I can add these links rather that the others, maybe it's more relevant/objective.

Not so much "accepted" as "not yet deleted," but of course the different language encyclopedias have different criteria for inclusion, as well. If there are better sources out there feel free to add them to the article and I will have a look, though. VQuakr (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just added some more sources - more relevant I guess? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millinet (talk • contribs) 08:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No, in my opinion none of the links at the bottom of the page contain significant coverage in reliable sources, as defined in the notability guideline. Forums and summaries that appear to have been submitted by the software company are not reliable sources. VQuakr (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

SockPuppetry Case

Hello, My name is Albert, I am new to this whole Misplaced Pages thing. I notice a message connecting me to some sort of SockPuppetry? I do not know what this is referring to. I create my account and look to further my interest in history and I go find notice. Anyway what is it you want to know for me to prove my credibility? Please, explain. Thank you, Albert Arbertie55 (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, Albert! I included you in the sockpuppetry investigation primarily because of your editing history - your account, along with two other accounts, edited at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lucifer Valentine. Per WP:SOCK, editors are not allowed to use multiple accounts to attempt to influence the results of a deletion discussion. All three accounts were created within hours of each other, and all three edited at the AfD within their first few edits. It is very unusual for new editors to contribute in this way unless they are somehow related; I started the sockpuppetry investigation to draw attention and request further investigation. If you are not the same person as holder of the other two accounts or have any insight as to why all three accounts might have chosen this particular article to edit first and within such a short time frame, please say so here or at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Rmartino873. Feel free to contact me again if you have any questions. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Piggyback

Fair enough, I'll restore Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm aware that I tend towards the deletionist end of the spectrum, so I try to be positive in terms of feedback (or restoration if I've been too trigger happy). Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Very much likewise. Balancing being open to newcomers with vetting new pages is possibly the biggest challenge of NPP. VQuakr (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Youtab (electronics)

Since you put a PROD on Youtab (electronics), you may be interested to know that it is now at AfD: see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Youtab (electronics). JamesBWatson (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! VQuakr (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Improvisation

i disagree with your deletion of the section I added re "improvisation in the Classroom." if you want to delete the reference to the Canadian Improv Games because of my affiliation with it, so be the case. But I am not affiliated with any of the other referenced programs. More importantly, improvisation is practiced in the classroom more than all of it's other uses combined. I am an expert in this field; you are not. Your deletion of my entry leaves a gaping whole in the subject matter of this article. My contribution adds to the thoroughness of the article; your deletion detracts from the article. Your use of Misplaced Pages politics does not change these facts. Once again, I would ask that you restore my section with a deletion of the reference to the Canadian Improv Games. I can have a neutral person restore that reference, which will nit to difficult given that the Canadian Imorov Games are the biggest improvisational program in the world measured by involvement and the number public performances it produces every year.

Jwyllie (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page. I would prefer to keep the conversation there if you do not mind; otherwise feel free to contact me with any concerns. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how to use all of the features of Misplaced Pages. More importantly, I don't understand why you would remove the page as I amended it to meet your concern that it referenced a program with which I am involved. The entry I made would not be controversial to anyone who knows anything about improvisational theatre. I included sample references, and could have included dozens or hundreds more. If one is to assert "vandalism" on Misplaced Pages, I would think that should refer to someone who us not an expert in the subject matter editing the good faith insertions made by someone who is an expert in the field. I get the distinct impression that expertise is not something that you respect or encourage, notwithstanding your own impressive credentials. The upshot of this will be that the page suffers, an expert decides it is not worth his time to try to lend his expertise to the project. I feel vandalized by this whole process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwyllie (talk • contribs) 02:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages can be a confusing place, and I hope that that will not discourage you from editing here. I have tried to be specific as to what I saw as issues with your contribution to that page, and I certainly to not consider any of your contributions thus far to be vandalism. I do respect academic credentials, though it is important to note that WP:OWN is a pretty important tenet to this project and your edits do not carry more weight than mine within your field of expertise (just as mine carry no extra weight in an engineering-related article). VQuakr (talk) 02:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to say this baffles me. I would never go onto an article about science or engineering and edit content placed there by scientists or engineers. My uneducated opinion should not be equal to the opinion of an expert. That leads to content that meets the lowest common denominator. Every other significant encyclopedia in the world is written and vetted by experts. It's sad to know that an uninformed person carries the same weight as an expert. Unless and that changes, everyone is going to keep on saying, "you can't trust what you read in Misplaced Pages". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwyllie (talk • contribs) 03:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I addressed this in a little more detail in my reply on your talk page. In practice, the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" compares reasonably well with a traditional encyclopedia, albeit with several high-profile failures. VQuakr (talk) 04:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Your concern

" I actually never included you in the remarks about rude editors. "I'm sorry" if I did not make that clear and you felt that i did. You were actually the only one that was civil and wanted to discuss topics and actually seemed to want to include me in the decision making. Your reverting me tonight over my revert of Luisarfs bringing out some of the archive , is rather surprising... This guy is not an editor and doesn't deserve the title. He has only been obsessed with the Web Sheriff article for many months but not contributing just deleting and making accusations on the talk page. He has not had any other contributions since March 2011. You know and I know he would be considered a vandal elsewhere but you guys have indeed treated me as the vandal instead. And I do include you in this, as you are the one who reverted my backing up the archiving that you said you set up when I reverted his edit. I didn't even read it - just noticed it was from the archive. I think that you should reverse your decision there under the circumstances. Agadant (talk) 05:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)