Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:38, 12 November 2019

Userboxes 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 78322 This user has made over 78322 edits. This user has created 344 articles on Misplaced Pages.

Univeristy Page Edits

Hello, I am posting here as requested. The additions I have added are not run of the mill in Canadian Universities, our culture is a lot different here compared to that of American institutions. That being said news shapes the campus life at our University, and the implications of that occurrence have more far-reaching implications. When does something like this become history?? When someone does something so vile and disgusting?? No, the best way to prevent this is to educate and show so that future student can learn from the mistakes that others have done. This is how campus life grows, I await your reply — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChillabitUser123 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@ChillabitUser123: Thank you for writing. Could you please discuss this on the article's talk page at Talk:University of Alberta. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

I think you'll find that since some of the information on the article Meduza (producers) has either been released or announced so doesn't really need any kind of source necessarily. And in terms of the rest of the information, such in the infobox, if it was really not that reliable or needed additional citations, why is it still been like that for the past three months, despite their being a reminder to add citations for verification? Why wouldn't people take the time to delete that info back then? Really I don't see the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.34.79 (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@89.168.34.79: By removing your unsourced content, I forced you to find a source to support your edit. In doing so, you discovered that Meduza are not from Rome, as you had originally added, but from Milan, which you corrected with a source. This is the point. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Please join ongoing talk re: whitewashing on the prime minister's article Talk:Justin Trudeau. user:Wisefroggy —Preceding undated comment added 14:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Why make things worse.

Hello, I recently noticed that you reverted an improvement to my Hometown's Wiki page... for no good reason, aside from making it worse, using the old improper image, which displays the wrong colours.

Why did you choose to do this? When Greater Sudbury means nothing to you, when you have no knowledge of the Heraldry behind the flag. The image I uploaded is the proper image to be using here. Whether it's size is not to your liking, or not.

At some point, you Top Editors of Misplaced Pages must allow the proper image colours to be used here.

I thank you for your overwhelming interest in our City. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.185.195.139 (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Huntington Park

I am contacting you because I noticed that you recently added a significant amount of information to this article on Huntington Park, California and because you are clearly an experienced[REDACTED] editor. I would like to know the right way to deal with having my edit reverted (my edit really should have been a reversion itself). It involved a recent addition to the article of information from some click-bait from "Business Insider," which characterized "Most Miserable Cities in the US" using an arbitrary weighting of arbitrary data from the Census Bureau -- justified by the data being from the Census Bureau. This seemed to me to be both mean-spirited and deceptive to people who don't have much understanding of the uses of data and statistics. But useful as click-bait -- it got me to click in a weak moment! Anyway, I don't think that this is a reasonable source to be used on wikipedia. I don't edit a lot, but I've added things based on experience as a computer science professor and also based on personal interests, and I try to be careful about putting in accurate information and sourcing it appropriately.

Could you advise me how to proceed now that my deletion of the material has been reverted? Revertting the reversion seems pretty silly. Ngriffeth (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Ngriffeth, new talk page messages go at the bottom of the page. I've moved this for you. Also when leaving a talk page message concerning a specific article, it's good form to leave a WIKILINK to it. There are multiple articles on places named Huntington Park. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ngriffeth and John from Idegon: Thank you for writing. It was User:Zeneky that reverted your edit, so you may want to leave them a note on their talk page. Likely, this editor was just reverting what appeared to be sourced content. The bigger issue is whether city rankings should even be added to US city articles. There was a rough consensus not long ago at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Canadian communities#Are city rankings published by magazines, newspapers, etc. appropriate/encyclopedic? to not included these rankings. I personally would support this on US city articles as well, but it would require a lot of community input and maybe an RfC to achieve a solid consensus. I may follow up on your discussion with Zeneky and get that long-overdue discussion started. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: Thanks for your quick respoonse, and I really appreciate the advice and information about this. I think[REDACTED] is a marvelous resourse. As a computer science professor, I told my students to use it as reference, and my daughter (an MD) actually uses it to get information quickly (which of course she double-checks). I required my students to add two paragraphs of information that they learned in the course but that was not already in wikipedia, and I went back to correct their work if necessary at the end of the term. It was then that my trust in[REDACTED] was confirmed - most necessary corrections had already been made. Astonishing! Anyway, I was worrying a bit about myself getting obsessive about this, but my husband pointed out that it's not really Huntington Park, but wikipedia, that I'm protecting, and I do have reason to do that.

But back to the subject, I have left a message on User:Zeneky's talk page. He added the information originally, so I think he may be rather reluctant to revert it. Because he did it only to Huntington Park, I suspect some animus. Ngriffeth (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Ngriffeth, you may want to rethink letting your students use Misplaced Pages as a source. First, if they go on to post secondary education, they most likely won't be allowed to use Misplaced Pages. Not so much because of accuracy, but more due to the dynamic nature of the encyclopedia. What they cited on the 9th might be the same thing as is there when you review their work on th 23rd. For hard sciences and medicine, we've actually been rated more accurate than Britannica (mainly due to us being able to be more current). But for softer subjects like pop culture, our accuracy is not what it should be. I was a college instructor in the last century and thinking from that perspective, i think today I would tell them to use Misplaced Pages to find sources for their research rather than to directly use Misplaced Pages itself. That being said, when the doc prescribes me a new med, Misplaced Pages is my first stop. John from Idegon (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

John from Idegon I was a college professor myself until 2016 (Lehman College and the Graduate Center of CUNY). Because I taught computer science, and knew that[REDACTED] was an excellent source of information for computer science, I wanted to un-teach some of the distrust of[REDACTED] that they had gotten from their high school teachers and teachers in the humanities. I also wanted them to develop some understanding of the "wisdom of crowds." This seemed like a good way to do it, while adding a few chunks of needed information to wikipedia.Ngriffeth (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Please elaborate on "unnecesary" link

Hi --

I'm questioning the specific reverting of this change: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Thomson-Houston_Electric_Company&diff=prev&oldid=922082329]

What makes a link to another Misplaced Pages page (which is not linked nor referenced elsewhere on that page) "unnecesary"? It seems like a judgement call to me, and I added that link in good faith.

Stefan01902 (talk) 21:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

You are correct. I fixed the edit and used the spelling used on one of the two sources cited, which corresponds to the title of the linked article. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Over-zealous removal of long-standing content

Hi --

With all due respect, you are deleting an entire paragraph that was NOT part of my revision today. If you would like to discuss the First Electrified Streetcar in Massachusetts status, let's do so in that Talk page.

If you examine the change I made: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Lynn%2C_Massachusetts&type=revision&diff=922062957&oldid=922062522 I did nothing more today than add a link.

Thank you.

Stefan01902 (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Stefan01902: At Lynn, Massachusetts, I have twice removed this paragraph because it is not supported by the sources cited. You have twice added it back. Is there something I'm missing? Magnolia677 (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I cleared it up. Thanks. Stefan01902 (talk) 05:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 US Banknote Contest

[REDACTED]	US Banknote Contest
	November-December 2019
There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons. In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate. If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

This is an outrageous statement

Thank you for reaching out to me. I left a message with User talk:Ymblanter, who locked the article. I was disappointed to see User:Littleolive oil sneak their edit back in after I trimmed it of puffery, corrected the data, and removed the primary source. Disappointing indeed. Cheers

I did not sneak anything. I left a comment on the talk page about my concerns as you had asked for. I relooked at the source; it is not a primary source and even if it was, as a back up source for the secondary sources is not only acceptable but perhaps necessary. The book says much much more than your "prune" left in place; those comments were somewhat complimentary to both the Trudeau government and the Harper government. It is inappropriate to cherry pick content from a source this reliable which leaves so much out. The book made several important assessments and you chose only one; I have to question why. In the end I could not leave in your edits because they were not accurate per the total source. Please do not accuse me or anyone of sneaking when edit summaries and talk page point otherwise. I seldom get angry but your comment is really outrageous. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Littleolive oil: Thank you for reaching out to me regarding outrageous editing. I started a discussion at Talk:Justin Trudeau. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Why did you remove my content? Brevard, NC and Transylvania County, NC

None of the information I posted was copyrighted, but is publicly free information regarding the history of my hometown. Owenalat (talk) 14:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)Owenalat

@Owenalat: Thank you for writing. I left a message on your talk page a few days ago regarding this. Please take a moment to read the links there. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@Magnolia677, perhaps you may be open to identifying as a WikiWizard? Your citation actions (revert) speak for you. Owenalat (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Owenalat

Owenalat has given you a pack of Toblerone bars! Chocolate promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Toblerone bars are wonderfully delicious! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a pack of Toblerone bars, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

For reverting/correcting/reverting/correcting/reverting/correcting until finally correct!

Spread the goodness of Toblerone bars by adding {{subst:Toblerone for you}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Owenalat (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Owenalat

History of TAMU - your reverts

You deleted my updates to the "History of Texas A&M University" page (https://en.wikipedia.org/History_of_Texas_A%26M_University#Program_expansion) partially because I pointed out that the claim a unilateral act of the legislature could not nullify a provision of the state constitution.

Exactly how much detail do you want me to do into to substantiate a unilateral act of the Texas legislature is not how the the state Constitution is amended? I have a wealth of information I can provide, but I would think such a basic element of democratic government shouldn't be so controversial.

As for the number of recipients of the Medal of Honor TAMU claims, I can easily prove the earlier claims to be false, but is Misplaced Pages now about individuals having to prove claims to be false, or individuals making claims need to prove their to be true.

Texas A&M claims seven "alumni" as recipients of the Medal of Honor. As I stated, Univ of Washington has proven eight recipients (https://depts.washington.edu/vetlife/medal-of-honor/) and Harvard claims eighteen ( I stand corrected, my origination assertion was seventeen. https://memorialchurch.harvard.edu/medal-honor

So, how would you like to proceed to have the page edited? Do I truly need to cite that the Texas state constitution was not amended by a unilateral act of the state legislature?

I will proceed to show both U Waqsh and Harvard to have more Medal of Honor alumni recipients than Texas A&M.

@Randolph Duke: Thank you for writing. Please note that the edit summary I left when reverting your edits read "unsourced". Original research is not permitted on Misplaced Pages. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to offer original research. I am attempting to offer original source documents. Readers can accept the validity of the information. I am not seeking to offer any embellishment of the original source documents. Rather, I am allowing readers to consider unfiltered historical documents and to choose whether to accept or reject the validity of the words of the original authors. In the case of Texas A&M University, I am allowing the original words of the state legislature to speak for themselves. Additionally, I am allowing the original words of Texas A&M administrators to speak for themselves. This is not "original research." This is "allowing historical documents to speak for themselves." I do not understand your objections to original source documents to speak for themselves.

Please, clarify for me. If original source documents are not allowed by Misplaced Pages, how is any claim cited reliably on Misplaced Pages? Second hand research taken from original research? Are you actually claiming second, third, or fourth hand research completely removed from original source documents are what you believe to be more reputable than original source documents and better than allowing readers to consider original source documents?

The previous statement I removed stated "previous acts of the legislature...." This was offered with no citations whatsoever. The contributor was asserting the acts of the legislature unilaterally amended the state constitution. You are allowing the statement to stand, demanding I somehow show in a system of constitutional government, the constitution (a grant of power by the people to the government) is not simply negated by a unilateral act of the legislature. And you are asking I do this even though the previous contributor offered no citations whatsoever as to how the legislature unilaterally amended the constitution without a vote of the people,

At some point, we all just give up on Misplaced Pages as an organization with any commitment to the advancement of knowledge.

If you are going to disallow original source documents as reliable citations of the words of the original sources, and allowing specious claims to stand with no citations whatsoever, how do we document verifiable facts? Or, do we just give up and let Misplaced Pages become completely disconnected from any basis of verifiable fact? When original source documents are no longer allowed to cite the historical record on Misplaced Pages, what value does Misplaced Pages have? Randolph Duke (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Randolph Duke, WP doesn't rely on original sources, but on third-party sources: Misplaced Pages:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. Your additions constitute original research. Buffs (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

When the issue is discussing the status of Texas A&M University as a branch college of The University of Texas and the efforts through time to terminate that status, would a publication of Texas A&M during the time of the efforts to terminate the branch college status that has been cited without challenge be original research of a third-party source? https://newspaper.library.tamu.edu/lccn/sn86088544/1915-05-19/ed-1/seq-1/

Regardless of how hard some parties try to distort the historical information presented on Misplaced Pages, at some point, either the factual record needs to be allowed to speak for itself, or we need to openly admit the information presented on Misplaced Pages is of no actual value.Randolph Duke (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I have referred the disagreement whether original source documents are appropriate for historical discussions to Misplaced Pages arbitration(arbcom-en@wikimedia.org). Please cease any revisions to my original source citations or edits on this page until the matter has been addressed by Misplaced Pages arbitration.Randolph Duke (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

LearnedLeague reversions

Hello, please leave my edits on LearnedLeague alone. I am aware of the Misplaced Pages policy on citations, as many of my edits clearly demonstrate. As I stated in my undo of your reversion, there is no way to cite publicly-accessible portions of the site that confirm members. This is for the privacy of the members. Therefore, if you want to be a fact czar about a website that you have no insight into, follow the rules and delete half of the page. Or, leave my edits alone. I am a member of the site and wanted to share info on it here. If you don't want any additional information about LearnedLeague, so be it. The page will fall out of date then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minimac93 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Minimac93: Thank you for contacting me about this. I left a message on your talk page regarding Misplaced Pages's policy on citing sources and original research. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Minimac93: Now you're edit warring over your original research. Please stop your disruptive editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: https://imgur.com/a/V1eJZ3r Happy now? Minimac93 (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Minimac93: A screenshot of an online game is not a reliable source. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: Alright, if the actual website of the actual content of the article is not sufficient to demonstrate to you what is and is not real, I will remedy all the potential inaccuracies on the page. I'm sure that will improve the utility of this repository of information. Minimac93 (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Minimac93: One of the best way you could remedy that section of the article would be to find sources to support it. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: You really are dense aren't you. How many times have I explained to you that the site is private? I'm guessing you won't let me cite a website that you cannot access, given you won't even let me demonstrate to you that information I've added is legitimate. It seems clear to me at this point that you care more about the rules than about the information within the pages. Your priorities are beyond stupid. Minimac93 (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: I have acted in an inappropriate and inflammatory manner, and I do apologize. I am not and have never tried to vandalize the site by adding inaccurate information, but I went about arguing for my edits in the wrong way. I will work on my interactions with other editors. Minimac93 (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Why remove William Reginald Morse?

Why did you remove Wm. Reginald Morse? West China Union University is a well-known missionary university in Chengdu. Morse was one of the founders. He was a McGill alumnus. His reputation has borne the test of time, unlike many others on this list. Read the Misplaced Pages entry for Morse yourself and you'll see. Please explain your decision. 2600:1702:2100:7CF0:B146:2093:C9B0:BF (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@2600:1702:2100:7CF0:CDB:7221:B256:8A96: My edit summary when I reverted the addition said "Please find a source to support this". Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I listed a source when I made the entry; it was Misplaced Pages's own entry on Wm. Reg. Morse. However, a simple Google search reveals that his papers are in the Yale Archives. Further, the on-line book "Anthropology at Harvard," p.434, provides a bio and confirms what I wrote in my entry. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:2100:7CF0:98EB:4AA2:B98C:6923 (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)