Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:03, 28 January 2012

Archives: 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report

Guild of Copy Editors 2011 Year-End Report We have reached the end of the year, and what a year it has been! The Guild of Copy Editors was full of activity, and we achieved numerous important milestones in 2011. Read all about these in the Guild's 2011 Year-End Report. Highlights Membership grows to 764 editors, an increase of 261 Report on coordinators' elections Around 1,000 articles removed through six Backlog elimination drives Guild Plans for 2012 Requests page report Sign up for the January 2012 Backlog elimination drive! Get your copy of the Guild's 2011 Year-End Report here On behalf of the Guild, we take this opportunity to wish you Season's Greetings and Happy New Year. We look forward to your support in 2012! – Your 2011 Coordinators: Diannaa (lead), The Utahraptor, and Slon02 and SMasters (emeritus).

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Unreferenced means no references, not poorly referenced or in the wrong section

Hi there, in regards to edits like this, the general consensus is that the {{unreferenced}} tag (and in this case it actually should have been {{BLP unreferenced}}) should only be used when there are no refs at all. Where there are some refs that do directly confirm some of the info in the article (such as results databases etc as opposed to generic links to organisations associated with the subject), then a {{No footnotes}} and a {{BLP sources}} or {{refimprove}} tag is much more informative to other editors. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 10:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't add {{unreferenced}} template for a living, but I'm really dubious (when it comes to references) when an article has an "External links" sections but no "References" section. It's one thing to see the presence of "External links" (which tend to be added by any old fan), but quite another to see similar links used properly as citations. I'm trying to encourage proper use. GFHandel ♬ 

And so am I. If an editor is not experienced on[REDACTED] and it's policies (yes, I know that they are linked everywhere, but who really takes the time to read them), they might be aware that you need references/sources/verification/citations, but may think that any old link is good enough (or they've seen it/copied it from another page). Sticking an "unreferenced" tag on it may not make sense to them if they don't pick up on that critical "a proper reference is inline, independent, formated, in < ref> tags, uses the {{cite}} template etc, not just a bare url chucked on the end of an article" point of difference. So by all means template the hell out of them, but point them in the proper direction by using the {{citation style}}, {{primary sources}}, {{no footnotes}} or other more specialised tags that make it absolutely clear what is wrong with the article. Cheers, The-Pope (talk) 12:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Social networking sites

See Misplaced Pages:External links/Perennial websites, which specifies that social networking sites such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Myspace, and Twitter should not be added unless the subject has no other web presence. Also see WP:ELDUP, which states that sites used as references should not be duplicated in the external links section. Yworo (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:George Dvorsky#Removal of Google.2B external link. I'm including this link purely to set context, but please note that I have no interest in the outcome at that page, and have unwatched it. I'll now get on with adding functionality to the encyclopaedia. GFHandel ♬  04:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

if you are indeed adding multiple social networking sites to multiple articles, you are on a misguided campaign and should stop now and seek clarification. I will follow up later and revert all these misguided edits. Yworo (talk) 04:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh please, there's nothing misguided about it. There are already lots of Google+ links in "External links" sections (not to mention thousands and thousands of Twitter and Facebook templates there), so what I've mainly done is convert existing hard-coded URLs into the {{Google+}} template (which I created). I'm really sorry that you find the few extra additions of that template-usage that slip through so horrifying that you need to remove them immediately (based on a very strict reading of the "rules"). Could you please drop the pejorative "misguided" talk and realise that we are all volunteers trying to help. Your discouraging words make it seem like the act of creating templates (to standardise, and facilitate things like "what links here" searches) and then trying to help the readership by bringing out links relevant to the subject (in the "External links" section) is right along side things like WP:OR, etc. Do what you have to do, but please don't post your negativity on my talk page again. Bye. GFHandel ♬  04:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

See those N 's and the words "never". Don't make unnecessary work for other editors who understand the reasons for the prohibitions. Yworo (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

So I see that you are now starting to remove things that I didn't even add (which I think I can guarantee you is going to cause you a huge headache with local editors in a large number of articles). As I write this, there are currently 4,044 instances of the {{Twitter}} template—almost all of which are in the "External links" sections of articles. Are you going to remove all of them? What criteria did you use to remove the Twitter template in the above diff? I guess we can say goodbye to these templates then—and I'm not certain that that's a good outcome for our readership. Could you please stop and get some advice before removing more work that I've done? Honestly, if you step back from the trees, you will realise that no damage has been done, and there's nothing that can't wait a day before acting in this matter. GFHandel ♬  04:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

If there is an official website listed, Twitter should not be listed. This should cause no headaches because they are not allowed. By the way, your attitude sucks and is the main reason that I am doing it now rather than later. There are reasons for the prohibitions. Have your verified that the accounts actually belong to the subject and aren't imposters or misidentified? Are you sure that no libel or copyright violations will ever be posted at the linked sites? Did you even for a moment consider that I might be right? No you didn't consider any of these things. Yworo (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought you understood what I was doing—but it's clear to me now that you don't. I have not been making things up or in some ways guessing at the information in the templates I have been adding. I have only taken existing information (information entered by thousands of other editors) and formatted it into the templates provided by WP. As I said, there are thousands and thousands of Twitter and Facebook template-usage (and a significant number more of plain Twitter and Facebook URLs) in "External links" sections in articles, so please continue on your crusade to rid WP of all that pesky information so that it becomes harder and harder for our readership to find out information via WP. I'd say pretty universally I have not seen a Twitter or Facebook URL used without an "Offical website" listed nearby, so ... let me know when you have deleted them all from WP, and I'll help you turn off the lights on the templates. GFHandel ♬  05:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

If the subject has an official website, we don't also link their Twitter, Facebook, Myspace, etc. That's pretty easy to understand. Misplaced Pages is not a directory. There are some people who don't have an official website. Then we can list their social networking sites. Most people list their social networking sites on their official site, if they don't, maybe they don't want to announce them to the world but intend to use them only with actual friends! Yworo (talk) 05:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

So your argument now is "...maybe they don't want to announce them to the world but intend to use them only with actual friends"? Really? No seriously, really? I can't begin to tell you how out-of-touch you (and the "rules") are with the real WP out there (and thanks for ignoring the other points I raised).

If it's such a terrible idea, why have thousands and thousands of Twitter and Facebook template/URL entries been made within a point or two of Official website information in the "External links" sections of countless WP articles? Well, I think I can pretty much guarantee that you will have your hands full for the rest of your editing future at WP because if the templates are provided, I can assure you that editors will continue to add them—as thousands and thousands have done (and are doing). To help you out on your crusade, why don't you start here (and I'm certain that a very large number of those links have "Official website" information because I clicked a few at random and every single one had "Official website" details)? I know you'll never admit it (well, at least not to me) but you are severely out of touch regarding how countless editors wish to format and present information to WP's readership. Did you come to grips with the point that I didn't add anything that wasn't already in the articles?

GFHandel ♬  05:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a heads-up that there is a particularly shocking case for you to address at Britney Spears#External links. You've probably done enough for today, but when you get a chance could you please go there and remove all the "social networking sites such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Myspace, and Twitter" (etc.) because the subject certainly does have another "web presence" (her official website is also listed in the "External links" section). It would be comforting for all who read this to have some confidence that you are not just picking the soft targets for your social networking usage clean-up. Good luck! GFHandel ♬  06:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Nah, just for you, I'll dust off my programming skills and write a bot. That {{official website}} template gives me just the right handle I need to find all the articles needing attention. Yworo (talk) 07:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

But the Spears article was one of the ones I applied templates to today (and you reverted just about all of my other work). So you are just going after the soft targets then. Well, well, well—what a (disappointing) shock. GFHandel ♬  07:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Yworo's "last comment" comment removed as it is pointless to the debate and again fails to address points raised. Please check history if interested).

To Yworo: based on your stalking-type antagonistic edit following today's events, I'm now worried about your ability to edit and act fairly, and therefore I want to exercise my rights to have nothing more to do with you. In that light, please stay off my talk page. Thank you. GFHandel ♬  09:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

An update...

Yworo's unilateral mass deletion of information has started to be undone. User Memphisto has pointed out to Yworo that the link (Misplaced Pages:External_links/Perennial_websites) he has been using to justify the removal of information "is merely a project page (not a guideline)" and that as a sub-page it is not conferred with guideline status.

GFHandel ♬  18:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Admin assistance please regarding unwanted edits to my talk page

{{admin help}} I've requested many times that user:Yworo not edit my talk page, however he continues to make changes here. Could someone please assist me in this matter? Thank you in advance. GFHandel ♬  09:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I've missed it, but other than within the edit summaries I don't see where you've notified him of your request. Per WP:NOBAN you can make the request but it is not necessarily binding. If he has valid points to raise to you he should be able to, but if you feel it rises to the level of stalking or harassment you should make sure he is aware before next steps such as filing a civility case. I will send him a friendly note to clearly state the request.  7  00:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Google+

Template:Google+ has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Moxy (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that the result of the above process was that there was no consensus to delete the template. GFHandel ♬  00:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

MOS discussion that may be of interest

Because of your previous input on various iterations of the debate about the lower-casing vs. capitalization of the common names of animals (domestic cat, blue whale vs. Domestic Cat, Blue Whale), you may be interested in this thread proposing key points that should be addressed by the guidelines: WT:Manual of Style#Species capitalization points. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 05:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

EL

I don't exactly share your concerns but I started a discussion on WP:EL talk page that you may have some interest in: Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Question_.28official_site.29. It's relevant to what you said about what links editors actually consider to be useful, as opposed to what the policy says is useful. — Jeraphine Gryphon  07:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I do want to comment there, and I started to write something; but I will sleep on it and think about it some more tomorrow (before posting). Cheers. GFHandel ♬  09:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Yooperkawi

I thought you would be interested in Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Srobak. memphisto 07:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Un-be-eff-ing-lievable. GFHandel ♬  08:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Request

Hey there, do you allow c/e request on your talk page? Best, Jonayo! 00:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess so, but note that the time I'm willing to spend at an article tends to be proportional to my interest in the subject. :-) GFHandel ♬  00:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

So music-related articles? (your siggy lolz) Jonayo! 00:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

7 - seven

I was under the impression Misplaced Pages was an Encyclopedia! (Or at least pretending to be one!)

--UnQuébécois (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

This is in relation to this. GFHandel ♬  20:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Fæ

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)