Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Elvey (talk | contribs) at 00:56, 12 November 2007 (SineBot is hyper - prev bot used to kick in only after some minutes had passed.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.

Start a new talk topic.

Upfront Rewards

Zanimum deleted this page I created, claiming it was complete slander. The censorship disgusts me and his claim is factually challenged, and appears to be dishonest. The article included several references (I don't have the exact number... Zanimum DELETED THEM) What was libelous, Zanimum? Every statement I put in there was VERIFIABLE. By Zanimum's logic, calling Hitler a Nazi is libelous too. (Hello, Godwin!) -Elvey 07:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC) in response to:

This article was purely beyond libel. If I were of a better mind, I'd ban you for that thoroughly disgusting article. -- Zanimum 16:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: Most Misplaced Pages admins seem to regularly delete pages when there's a strongly worded or legal complaint about them and they're disparaging, for example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/OITC_fraud (I grabbed and kept a copy from google's archive, and it's a well-documented article replete with lots of references, and I checked a couple, and they were legit.) It's a pity. Also, note that this page has been the subject of policy violations; content from it was deleted along with partial history. I'm pissed off and disappointed in Misplaced Pages adminship. I won't be contributing as much as a result.  :(

Thanks for letting me know about this. Actually, I think the deletion decision was correct (the one following the deletion review, anyway); the article did have major problems, as did the original OITC fraud article. The issue isn't the referencing, it's the tone of the article, which was extremely non-neutral: e.g. "scandal-ridden", "this scam", "the bank is an ethics-free zone, and scandalous" etc etc. The article was a very long way from meeting the neutral point of view standard - it's clearly polemical ratherthan neutral. Describing it as libelous is accurate, in my view, as the whole tone is very accusatory.

Having said that, the way to deal with it is the same way I rescued the OITC article. Make it a dispassionate review of what the sources say, use neutral language, ensure that you use reliable sources and reference every potentially contentious point. It's not necessarily a very easy thing to do if you feel strongly about it (since I'd never heard of the OITC before I rewrote that article, I had the advantage of being genuinely neutral about it). Feel free to use the OITC article as a template: start with a description of the subject, explain where, when and how it operates, then document the controversy. -- ChrisO 07:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the UR scheme is really notable enough for its own article. Why not start an article on Universal Savings Bank and add the UR stuff as a subsection? -- ChrisO 07:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I did, it got too. Collecting references for a replacement: http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/30709 - "...70,000 consumers who have been fleeced by deceptive advertising..." --Elvey 07:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

BlueHippo Funding

I NPOV'ified the article, mostly. Where are you getting the $2148 figure though? According to the article linked, the price is more like $1970. It would be great if you could provide a source to back up the $2148 calculation, as well as the contents of the commercials - we need sources to verify several things in the article. Jumbo Snails 00:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Look in the chart now in the article; the 2148 is fully documented. You deleted a section that's there to, as my edit summary says: Alternatives: conform to google metadata. Are you a posse? Don't use 'we' unless you are a royal, or wewill:) Gret the point? It's not the case that the content of the ads is being disputed or is in question at all, AFAICT.

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 15:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Funny

We were probably both reading § at the same time. Personally, I think the symbol is better when referring to legal code, so I'm with you.--Kubigula (talk) 02:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

GIF -> JPEG (Berlioz)_JPEG_(Berlioz)-2007-10-09T15:22:00.000Z">

Sorry, I'm still kind of dumb with some aspects of WP :D Glad it could be sorted out. Lethe 15:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)_JPEG_(Berlioz)"> _JPEG_(Berlioz)">

Speedy deletion of Universal Savings Bank

A tag has been placed on Universal Savings Bank requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. spryde | talk 19:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Too-late response : Universal Savings Bank was speedied improperly by User:spryde; there were links in the speedied article to several pieces of news coverage. These are a prima facie evidence of importance/significance. --Elvey 17:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Elvey, I read through the article and I did not see anything that claimed notability. I therefore tagged it as such. It looked like any other piece of advert that tries to get put onto Misplaced Pages on a daily basis. spryde | talk 16:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The sentence I bolded, above, is obviously untrue. It was, if anything, overly critical. Again, your speedy tag was improper and careless. --Elvey 20:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Image

I'm not going to put it in userspace (that would violate our policy on fairuse). The deletion was fair because it had no source at the time. I'll go ahead and restore it, just be sure to but all of the licensing info and the rational in and make sure the image is used somewhere. -- John Reaves 19:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It's restored now. -- John Reaves 04:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Libelous claim by Coolcaesar

<False accusation that I claimed I defended a position I never claimed to have defended.> --Coolcaesar 05:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps because of a failure to look closely enough at the archive page or what I actually wrote, you made a false accusation. It WAS defended there, not by me. Here, etc. --Elvey 17:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)