Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Magically Clever (talk | contribs) at 07:20, 3 June 2008 (spiteful comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

EconomicsGuy is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages some time later.

RFCU

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Poyoyloar, Poyoloar and ArchieHall are two different people, but both puppetmasters. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

DRV comment

You did mean to endorse deletion when you said "keep", right? I changed that one word in your comment, to avoid confusion. I hope you don't mind. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and I know you meant well but I reconsidered this and decided to just fix the rationale and support keeping it. I was wrong on the IfD and I'm man enough to realize that and admit it. That said, the rationale still needed to be fixed. The debate on the article talk page plus the full protection made me realize that there may be a case for keeping this after all. EconomicsGuy (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You're admitting fault? What the hell is wrong with you? Get out of Misplaced Pages :) Thanks, that is an honorable thing to do. One question though, your comment at DRV still says endorse because I changed it from keep. Shall I change it back? Equazcion •✗/C • 22:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate that very much and thanks for the kind words. I'd rather admit fault than stick to something I realize is a flawed argument. Hopefully I can start a new trend and we can all get along (yeah right....) ;) EconomicsGuy (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

WBOSITG's RfA

Hello EconomicsGuy II, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for your participation in my RfA which was passed with a final tally of 114/10/4. I'm both shocked and honoured to gain so much support from users whom I admire and trust, and I hope I can avoid breaking that backing by being the best administrator I possibly can. I will take on board the opposition's comments and I hope to improve over the coming months and years. Once again, thank you! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. Glad to know I’m no longer overdue! I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You've paid your dues, now you're a member

		Ka-Ching Ka-Ching Citation of the Monied and Munificent Order of Wikipedian Patrons of Civilization
		Under the authority invested in me by my wallet, I hereby pass on to you this token of appreciation for not only investing your time in Misplaced Pages, but also your cash for the further advancement of civilization through better-informed deletion discussions. As I was awarded a Citation Barnstar for parting with your own monies to find out more about an alleged source of notability for an article, a $2.95 investment, so I award you for your greater $10.00, with a suitably pimped out version of the honor. As a member of the M&M Order of the WPC, you are now authorized to bestow this same honor on any future Wikipedian who is willing to lay down cash for the same or similar purpose. I trust you will exercise your powers wisely, in the tradition of Lorenzo the Magnificent, who knew he couldn't take it with him. Live long and prosper! I salute you! Noroton (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!! That is so awesome. I'm not sure I can improve it but I'll be happy to pass it on to the next worthy member of our secret truth-exposing organization! I salute you too! EconomicsGuy (talk) 09:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sexual discrimination shows up in the weirdest places

So how come you fellows all get to be gay, and I just get to bum cows? Discrimination in vandalism, who would have thought it?  ;-) Risker (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC) and thanks for cleaning up my page!

He he I don't know. Vandalism and sexual discrimination! Thank God for the flamethrower! Oh and no big deal about the revert - your page is on my watchlist. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

About your support in the Afd for Asset Voting.

was very helpful. Thanks. The project functions best when editors who disagree cooperate on what is right. Indeed, my position is that NPOV is a result of the full and balanced expression of all POVs (naturally, filtered for notability, but notability is really subjective in the end, and we use consensus of editors to determine it, not strict adherence to rules. Ahem. Back to our regularly scheduled programming.) --Abd (talk) 12:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. We'll see how long it takes before I'm reverted... I have no problem with NPOV being superior to notability but in this case the subject would be much better covered in a fork of the Lewis Carroll article. You are very much welcome to write such an article and draw parallels with present day theories/voting systems. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, it only takes a couple of editors cooperating, two is often enough, to whack edit warring upside the head; it becomes very easy for an uninvolved administrator, then, to see who is edit warring and who is protecting the project. I agree that, in fact, the best solution here is an article on Carroll's work, as a fork, since the main article is pretty long, with mention in it of modern proposals that are similar to it (there are others, by the way, but not called "asset voting."). The question of "similarity" can be a knotty one, but it's really only problematic when there are editors with a political agenda. All rephrasing of sources is technically synthesis, but some synthesis is plainly correct, there is no unbiased disagreement over it, and other synthesis is pushing, deliberately or otherwise, some POV. We don't fight over the sum of 1748 and 3275. Anyone can verify the result we might report. When it gets complicated is when we need RS for it. I'd love to write the article, but it will take quite a bit of time. Meanwhile my opinion is that what is in the article right now is adequate, it's really a stub, it does not argue for the method, it doesn't report detail from the Smith paper but only notes -- verifiably -- that he coined the term. My own suspicion is that he had read Carroll (in fact, I'm certain of it), and I don't recall if he had credited Carroll, he may not have remembered how he got the idea. His idea extended the proposal to allow fractional votes, which is really a detail, not central. In any case, if I write on a mailing list in the field, "Asset voting," everyone in the field knows what I mean. So, my opinion, we should have a stub or a redirect. It is, in fact, in the field, notable enough for that. We need RS for content, but not necessarily for notabilty decisions, and this is actual practice on the project when the wikilawyers don't get involved.--Abd (talk) 13:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow! I wasn't expecting that you would change your !vote! My discussion habits are disconcerting to some, because I really am *discussing* rather than trying to select arguments that will convince. And though I have a POV, you know what I'm *really* pushing? NPOV! I believe that I'm wrong sometimes, and that consensus -- if it is real consensus, an important caveat -- is wiser than me. Part of the formation of that consensus is open and honest discussion. Anyway, many of us make a decision, perhaps without full consideration of the evidence or in ignorance of it, and then defend the decision. Instead of saying "I thought A was true, it looked that way at the time," we say "A is true!" and will then be quite inventive at finding rationalizations for it. I've seen more than one sysop lose their bit over that.... Anyway, thanks. For being willing to reconsider, not so much for the vote itself, because, to me, how the community functions is far more important than this one article. --Abd (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

He he no problem! I would rather change my !vote than stick to something I no longer believe. I agree that it is a discussion rather than a vote no matter how we define that term and if an expanded/rewritten article can contribute to NPOV and the sum of all knowledge then I have no problem with that at all. I actually change my opinion quite often on these debates as new information is presented and things are debated. Much of this whole inclusionist vs deletionist thing is caused by people not talking to each other. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)The AfD process is actually backwards. As I've mentioned, I've been reading Carroll, The Annotated Alice, annotated by Martin Gardner. "Verdict first! Trial afterwards!" That's an exaggeration, because we don't really have a trial, as such. We have the jury, being all of us, voting, simultaneously with the presentation of arguments, so that half of those who voted didn't see the arguments before they voted. What we should do, I'd suggest, would be classic deliberative procedure, and this would apply to many decision-making processes. A nomination is made. Nothing happens yet, the article isn't tagged, until somebody seconds the nomination. Then the tag is placed. Notices are sent out, "canvassing" in the sense of notifying someone one expects to argue a certain way wouldn't be prohibited, it might even be encouraged. ("Spamming" of notices would continue to be prohibited, it's offensive.) But no voting is allowed. A vote at this point prejudices the outcome, it shouldn't be allowed, it's POV. The process should create a document which is NPOV! However, of course, "original research" is allowed (there is no conflict between OR and WP:V; properly, if the text is framed. The document consists of (1) evidence, with sources for each piece of evidence, (2) arguments. Redundant arguments would not be allowed, but arguments should be complete, and there could be some subargument in this section. (I.e., "this is notable because of source A." Source A is not reliable source, it's a blog." That's how it would appear at one point. But it might become, "Editor so-and-so, joined with B and C, have argued that this is notable because of source A. Editors D and E countered that this source is a blog. The source is an on-line newspaper with an editorial staff." Etc.

I should insert here that when I commented that OR would be allowed, I mean that OR restrictions apply to article space. OR that is verifiable should be allowed in Misplaced Pages space (it already is), and OR that is not verifiable may still have some validity if attributed. Just saw in an AfD, "I found plenty of source for this." OR. Not verifiable. But quite allowed in an AfD. And many may discount it....--Abd (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

At the conclusion of the first two steps, there is a single coherent document that lays out all the evidence that anyone found that was reasonably relevant. Simultaneously the equivalent of ArbComm remedies are created. These are suggested summaries and decisions. Findings. When the community is ready to vote (this process can't take a fixed amount of time, but it's possible that a time limit could be set like, "If no new arguments are presented that are allowed to remain as relevant for a period of three days" or whatever, *then* and only then there is voting. The voting is simply to advise the closing admin as to community consensus regarding the motions. Voting would be Approval voting, as a minimum, so for each Finding, those who wished to vote could vote Yes or No or explicit Abstain on that specific finding. The finding with the broadest Yes vote would be the default "winner," but this is only advisory to the "judge," the closing administrator, not binding, it is up to the judge to rule, for himself or herself, whether or not the vote is distorted or otherwise faulty. Review of such a decision would be pretty easy, if needed, as long as all the arguments really were laid out. Voting would be on a separate page, probably, it really is irrelevant to the arguments, but the result of the voting (total votes for each finding) would be posted once voting was closed. That would be the first closing step, closing voting. Then we wait for a decision. It might seem complex, but, in fact, it's pretty standard practice, with only a few twists, and it could go quite rapidly. The goal for all sides, in the evidence document, would be to have the evidence clearly laid out and sourced; in the argument section, it would be to have all relevant arguments presented clearly. This part, of course, can be "biased." It states conclusions of individuals, which is why it would be attributed. It wouldn't be in the first person, it would be in the third person, with reference to diffs or other on-wiki sources. It would be pretty offensive for a Delete editor, for example, not to allow the Keep position to be expressed, and the Keep-leaning (or already decided, mayb even biased) editors would want that position to be clear, concise, and as effectively stated as possible, and ad-hominem arguments, for example, would not be considered desirable by most Keep editors, since they may indeed be seen as a sign of a weak position. Edit warring in this process would really be stupid.... and we already know how to deal with edit warring. (AfDs are much more visible than ordinary articles, where edit warring can go on for a long time without being noticed.)

The point is to convert an adversarial process into a consensus discovery process that is deliberative, that first collects evidence and satisfies itself that the evidence is complete, i.e., every reasonable effort has been made to include any evidence considered by any editor as relevant, being an "article" on the Article nominated. We know how to do that and we know how to resolve disputes that arise during the process. We then collect arguments similarly. What is the range of opinion among Misplaced Pages editors on this issue? Because the votes are separated from the deliberative process, canvassing is really moot, no amount of votes will convert a bad argument into a good and convincing one, for any administrator paying attention. And canvassing may bring in needed facts and otherwise overlooked arguments. Frosting on the cake: the possibly negative effect of canvassing, distortion of the estimation of consensus from the voting part, could be balanced out with the use of something like WP:PRX or a somewhat similar (and more ambitious) proposal on Wikimedia, . Or, ironically, by reference to a deliberative Assembly elected with Asset voting, which can create a *standing* assembly without elections as such (i.e., currently we allow open voting, and we want to know who is voting, and I expect this to continue, so there isn't a need for the secret ballot stage, there is merely the aggregation process from what would probably be proxy files place in the space of each user who wants to participate. And that's enough wiki-advocacy for the day, I hope this wasn't too much for you.

But one brief addition: the inclusionist-deletionist wars are based on a misunderstanding of the encyclopedic project; the basic task of an encyclopedist, faced with masses of knowledge, is to *categorize* it. Categorization isn't keep/delete, and, as we know, nothing is actually deleted, what happens instead is that some is hidden except to a few. Beyond copyvio and BLP violations, there is no reason to hide hoaxes, POV-pushing articles, etc., fancruft, but every reason to categorize them appropriately. Misplaced Pages:Flagged revisions, then, makes it possible to create an information hierarchy, where to find material of low notability requires a deeper search. This, then, turns keep/delete/merge debates into ordinary editorial decisions. We wouldn't need AfD at all (but the process described would still function for RfC. At the lowest level, there would be a lot of garbage, for sure. It's there now, and part of it is truly useless (most, from reasonable estimates) and part of it is material that might later be of use. Misplaced Pages is not paper. Asset voting, if deleted, wouldn't go to that garbage layer, it would go to a partly-sourced, verifiable, layer of low notability.--Abd (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films May 2008 Newsletter

The May 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong!

This edit war is not foolish or unwarranted. The editing occouring on Jimbo's page is the result of the wording placed there by the user in the first place. Its his own fault if he cant get the facts displayed on his own page right, and i believe he was asking for someone to change it. This matter hardly concerns you, as it it between those who believe that the user page should be changed and the user who is in charge of the page! You are wrong in stating that the comment made by yourself was food for thought. The comment contained no new information and was therefore simply a repeat of other comments previously placed in the edit war section. Pure arrogance has been shown on your part, and others would appreciate it if you wouldnt waste their time with comments that have no point. Magically Clever (talk) 07:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)