Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:17, 24 February 2014

slakr's life is currently frolicking with chaos, so his activity and response times to queries will be highly variable. Leave a message and he will respond whenever he gets a chance— that is, assuming he gets a chance. Cheers =) zOMG!!! I need urgent assistance!!!1!! — banana? — kiwi?

Ideally, please use this link to post new messages at the bottom. If you can't find something you recently posted, I might have moved it down there or it could have been archived if you posted it over 7 days ago. Cheers :)

Click here to start a new talk topic

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Regarding slakr: Why did my page get deleted? Please see Misplaced Pages:Why was my page deleted? first. I have no idea what you're talking about. What's vandalism? If you received a warning from me and you're not logged in, you might have gotten an old warning I sent to someone who shares your IP address. On the other hand, if you've made recent edits and received a recent warning message from me and you genuinely believe that it's not vandalism, don't fret-- simply drop me a message below, because I could have simply made a silly mistake. :) Regarding SineBot: Why does SineBot keep signing stuff I've already signed? All comments should have a signature that includes both a link to your user page (slakr) and a datestamp (05:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)) (per signatures - internal links). This is most easily generated by placing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your contributions, which makes something like "slakr 05:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)". If you have an interwiki-linked user page, consider either creating a user page on enwiki that redirects to your preferred home wiki or simply opting out of automatic signing. If you're still having problems after trying that, post a message below. Be sure to include diffs to make sure I can reference the problem. I don't want my comments signed by SineBot. How do I get it to ignore me or my talk page? Please use one of the opt-out methods listed on its user page. SineBot forgot to sign something it should have signed. Usually this happens because the bot isn't sure if it really should sign something, so it defaults to not signing it (e.g., in cases of complex edits). It does this to avoid being annoying. Other times, a comment might be made when the bot is down for maintenance, so the bot simply never sees it. SineBot signed something that it genuinely should not have signed. Please let me know-- especially if you think it's not a one-time thing. Be sure to include diffs to make sure I can reference the problem. Is SineBot's source code available? Not currently. I'm signing with four tildes (~~~~) but it's still saying I didn't! You likely enabled raw signatures. Open your preferences, click the "User profile" tab, make sure that "Treat the above as wiki markup" is NOT checked, and click Save; it should be fixed. If you have an interwiki-linked user page, consider either creating a user page on enwiki that redirects to your preferred home wiki or simply opting out of automatic signing.

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Phil robertson merge..

I'm kinda new to all this but does this mean that the information in that article must be merged into the Phil Robertson article? If that is the case I must disagree with this assesment... given tprimarily the topic of the article wasn't about phil robertson nor A&E but the controversy over the remarks...and secondly the only call for a merge was striked out when issues of being undue were raised... (to examplify how undue it would be I refer you to the duck dynasty article which many are trying to reduce... including myself... its huge! and some suggesting trimming it down to a paragraph) but anyhoo... If merger of this article is not neccessary then I apologize for wasting your time.. although I do believe it had potential as a stand alone article...I would surely have to consider disputing turning the phil robertson page into a proxy for a controversy that in essence was about the remarks rather than the man.. alll assesments on the issue where in relation to the words/actions and beared little or no opinion of the man,the show, or the company that produced the show.....sure they started the national debate but they were not the focus of the debate... thank you for your time Nickmxp (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It's basically de facto delete. However, as the arguments for delete pointed out, the main issues were the event's independent, lasting notability (rather lack thereof) and the merits of forking to its own article from its parent(s). In almost all cases (including keeps), nobody was arguing the article's entire content was truly lacking in secondary source coverage or otherwise completely delete-worthy (contrast, for example, with a non-notable company, person, etc...). Taken in concert, I took that as consensus to keep the reasonably keepable content, leaving the matter of where it truly belonged to be sorted out elsewhere. Whether or not that's on Phil Robertson (I assumed, mainly given the rationales for POV-forking and him being the originator of the comments and ensuing controversy), Duck Dynasty (as I noted a lot of the article's content is already there), and/or a combination of both is more a discussion for the editors of those respective pages, but the close templates only seem to allow one article to be stuck in the field. :P

In contrast, had it been flat-out deleted it wouldn't have addressed—and would have contradicted the logical intent of—many of the delete votes (i.e., those stating, roughly, "delete because it's a POV-fork") as well as the keep votes (i.e., those stating, roughly, "keep because it's too big and needs its own article"), as outright deleting the content (instead of merging it back to where it was forked from) would have even further solidified an alleged POV fork's intent (i.e., to presumably whitewash a source article) while obliterating the content, citations, edits, and updates that had happened in the meantime. In short: simply deleting would have been the antithesis of both sides' arguments.

Basically, the thought is that if the content was spun off from its parent article(s) for whatever reason, but people later decided it didn't need (or shouldn't have, etc...) its own article, then it logically follows that it should return from whence it came (instead of disappearing down a black hole). That's part of the idea behind ignoring a flat "!vote" count in favor of fulfilling the perceived/applied/practical intent of what's actually being said (e.g., "I'm saying <delete/keep/comment>, but I really mean <whatever> because of the rationale I'm giving and the situation at hand"). Hence, a "merge" in this instance seems to fulfill both consensus and practicality by making it a lot easier for non-admins to copy the content back to its ideal location(s), as a true "delete" would have otherwise immediately killed all of it and required either userfication, a temporary undelete, or direct admin editing action to get at the deleted revisions.

--slakr 10:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• I must disagree with your close on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Phil Robertson ''GQ'' interview controversy. The article was created to spinoff from the Duck Dynasty article to avoid the content being undue there. There are still reports coming in on this - like an entire cycle citing the ratings drop and speculating how the controversy tied into it, and the attendance at a White House dinner, etc. - and every point for deleting the article was countered with reasoned policy, and most were not refuted, if addressed at all. I think a no consensus was called for, and I ask you to reconsider the matter. The controversy itself is notable; much of the content is simply inappropriate at the biography article, where a NPOV summary, rather than what is there now, would be best, and some of the content is misplaced at the Duck Dynasty article where we should be focussing on the impact of the show, rather than rewriting everything to cater to that POV, it's best just to treat the notable event on its own, and let the Duck Dynasty content also be trimmed down to a summary, rather than recount all the notable parts of the controversy. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Your very comment, "The event has already been white-washed in the biography article, Phil comes off as a preaching hero, and efforts have been underway by the nominator and SPAs to do the same on the show article.," actually makes more of a case for why it's likely a POV fork. That, among the various other comments, is why I felt merge, rather than other bolded suggestions, was appropriate given the arguments made. --slakr 05:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The biography has been whitewashed, if you take away all the direct quotes, which is just repeating, needlessly, the offensive comments on this controversy, there is essentially only a sentence or two. If you notice the action right about, it goes into great details on the alleged dispute with A&E over bleeping content, but that is supported by one or two sources. This controversy has hundreds, and more coming. And that's not the article where this was spun out from. The nominator has been since banned, and the article has been remarkably peaceful since then. The idea that it was a POV fork was properly refuted. It's a spinout article making the same statements as the main article, and the main editors, are both here suggesting that the article can remain and have declared an effort to work out any content disputes. Sportfan5000 (talk) 06:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

For clarity... I really haven't made any additions to Misplaced Pages concerning the gq controversy.. I did make two edits.. one on the duck dynasty article, in a failed effort to condense it and one in the deleted article to help concerns of a pov fork.. but it is very true that non of the information from this article came from the Phil Robertson page.. I think everyone is in agreement that the information is to large and irrelevant for inclusion on the two pages in question.... which is why I raised concerns over merging... I think the decision should be either a keep or delete based on input obtained from the discussion... I don't believe a merge would be of any interest to the editors of either page as there is just too much information not directly related to either subject... Nickmxp (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

My point remains that the controversy itself is notable, and hundreds of sources attest to that, as well many in the discussion agreed the controversy article should exist. By having the controversy article we can easily summarize the controversy in the Duck Dynasty article, and add anything that shows how it affected the series. Anything else could be deferred to the controversy article. This arctics would've NPOV on at least those articles. Like others, I have given up the biography being NPOV. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Toolserver

Could you give an answer for User_talk:Slakr/Archive_19#Your_toolserver_tools? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Please reply --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I really have neither time nor desire to deal with migrating things around just because someone decided to make a screen scraping script with a dependency on my screen scraper script. --slakr 14:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Conor Brian Quinn

Hi,
regarding Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Conor Brian Quinn, can I ask whether you considered the userfication request?
Cheers, Amalthea 08:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

No, but if you feel it appropriate, take the reins on it. :P --slakr 12:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Pogrom definitions AFD

Hi Slakr, thanks for closing the AfD at Definitions of Pogrom a few days ago.

The nom at the AfD has begun abusive tagging at the article Definitions of pogrom, adding numerous tags to highlight his apparent dislike of the fact the article still exists.

Please could you keep an eye on the article for a few days to make sure this doesn't spiral downhill too fast? Oncenawhile (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Protea Glen Mall

• That should really be a no-consensus close, IMHO. the point of my comment was that the article needed improvement, not deletion. I would have switched my vote to keep if I thought there was any chance of a delete close based on the current anemic discussion. Sure I could rewrite a better article but hadn't gotten around to working on it yet. Cheers.--Milowent • 15:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The effective deadline for fixing an article at AfD is realistically when someone like me comes by to close it. If you decline to add the sources you find (e.g., and just say you found some), it makes it extremely difficult to actually validate their compliance with things like WP:RS and makes it difficult to validate that the coverage in those sources is substantiative and non-trivial. As such, Bad Things May Happen™ to the article. In its latest form, it also failed to assert notability as a business and was basically just a directory listing in addition to the actual concerns of whether it's even notable (hence why it's also not just "no consensus"). If you think you can address those concerns, I'd be more than happy to WP:USERFY it for you to work on. --slakr 16:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

If you'd userfy it to me, I am sure I can get it up to snuff. Thanks.--Milowent • 16:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Milowent/Protea Glen Mall --slakr 17:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Haha- I forgot how weak it was in its current state.--Milowent • 18:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for closing the AfD

You closed this earler with a reccomendation to merge. I have done the merge (or atleast what I think should be done) , but I am not sure how to delete the old article now that the merge is done, can you point me at the page that tells me how to accomplish that?CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Usually after a merge happens, a redirect is left behind, but the page (and its history) isn't automatically deleted out of concerns of licensing and attribution. --slakr 16:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, does what I did look right then? CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Please check ref. for Martineau family page - ref. number 12 should be beside ref. number 16. I cannot get it right! Thanks Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.36.6 (talk) 04:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hendrix AfD

{{ As "no consensus" and "keep" produce the same result, there's little point to challenging your close. Still, in determining "no consensus" you ignored a literal supermajority of "keep" voters. In these kinds of closes, it's customary for the closer to provide a detailed explanation, explaining how much weight they assigned to each opinion. You simply wrote "no consensus". I saw an overwhelming consensus to keep (yes, I voted "keep", but I'm quick to acknowledge when consensus is against me). Would you mind explaining how you arrived at your conclusion? Joefromrandb (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Conflating the words "consensus" and "majority" in a deletion discussion is problematic. Furthermore, in non-delete outcomes, I, personally, try to shy away from making commentary that someone might want to use as a trump card, implied participation, or fuel when it comes to future requests for comment, deletion discussions, or edits to the article(s) at hand (e.g., "well, the closing admin said/thought/means that..."), as it fundamentally doesn't really matter (i.e., WP:G4 isn't in play, and if someone still wants it deleted, they just re-nominate it). --slakr 20:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

From WP:Consensus: "Consensus can most easily be defined as 'agreement'".

From WP:Closing discussions: "If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the decider is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not select himself which is the better policy.

The view that WP:UNDUE favors moving the information to a separate article certainly had the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it. In determining the result as "no consensus", you ignored this fact. I'm not accusing you of impropriety; I'm not even saying that you were necessarily wrong. I do, however, find it reasonable to expect an explanation of how you arrived at the result you did under these circumstances. Otherwise it looks like supervoting. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It would seem you are still unhappy. Please consider deletion review. Perhaps it will be easier for someone else to detect the obvious agreement in the discussion, as I believe I clearly pointed out that I had trouble doing so. --slakr 11:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Take a break and laugh for a moment

See Talk:Harry Baals, someone complained at Sinebot because it didn't understand Dutch :-) Nyttend (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Like :D --slakr 22:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)