Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Markvs88 (talk | contribs) at 11:01, 12 March 2012 (moved presumed closed topics to talk). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

Archive 1 (24 Aug 2005 - 24 Aug 2010) Archive 2 (24 Aug 2010 - 24 Aug 2011) Archive 3 (24 Aug 2011 - TBD)

WP Connecticut in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Connecticut for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Merge

Hi Markvs88, thanks for supporting Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Merge, the WikiProject has now been started. You can add yourself to the list of participants if you would still like to join. Thanks again, Quasihuman | Talk 20:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks QH, I have done so! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

A structural solution to good-faith deletion battles

Hi Mark, Firstly, thank you for your helpful comments at VPP. Some people just mistook my comments as "admin bashing" and in retrospect I should have been more clear, but that was never my intention. I want to stop our 'quality control' people from stepping on the toes of our 'rough draft' writers.

The point was never for me to just whine-- the point was to find solutions. You proposed one solution-- slowing down the notability-based speedy deletion process. I think that solution has merit, so I've added it to a page on the issue.

I want to make find a real solution, and that's only possible if lots and lots of people are involved. I'm no leader, I've no expert in changing policies. I need help.

Would you look over Misplaced Pages:Deletions and Openness and see what you think?

--HectorMoffet (talk) 09:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, HectorMoffet, and thanks for dropping a line. Looking at the D&O page, here are my thoughts...

1. I would not use bullets for the statement, it needs to have more of a flow, IMO.
2. Details looks fine.
3. As for recommendations:
   1. renaming AfD isn't going to happen. Some articles do need to be deleted, if it gets to that point. It's the speedy deletionists that do the lion's share of killing new articles.
   2. There's also nothing wrong with constructive tagging. I'd reword this point to be more about leaving details about the tag on the talk page of the article, or don't tag it at all. For example, I often will use {{Citation needed|date=February 2012}} as a tool to leave a contribution in without deleting it. Of course, it then gets deleted a month or four later, but that's the breaks.
   3. All of point 2 sounds like sandboxes. Can you expand on how it is different?
   4. I'm also unclear on point 3, sub 1: how would this be done, and why?

Best, Markvs88 (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Great feedback!

• Renaming AFD isn't a high priority for me, but it was suggested by someone and seemed to have merit. It's a "cosmetic" change, but the point is that many AFDs are discussions where delete is only one of several possible outcome. Why accentuate the most negative outcome in the name?

I don't think it would help that much. I'm looking for a 'bigger' solution.

• "Shared userspace" IS important to me, and it is like a Userspace sandbox, but with some critical improvements.
  • Editing another user's sandbox is usually unwelcome, in Shared Userspace, collaborative editing would be the norm.
  • Finding another user's sandbox, to help with it, is very difficult. Userspace is organized by user. Shared Userspace would be organized topically like articlespace.
  • Userspace sandboxes lack categories, again making it hard to collaborate. Shared userspace could have categories.

But the big difference is this quote from from Userspace policy:

Userspace ... should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content.

In a Shared Userspace, content that has been deleted for quality would be welcomed with open arms. (Obviously, content deleted for reasons of legality/morality is still excluded).

Point three is basically me asking the Foundation to do something else to help people 'contribute' in ways that aren't prone to criticism or deletion.

Off the top of my head, imagine an "Oral History" project where students record conversations about historic experiences. There's no such thing as a bad "Oral History"-- some are more entertaining, some are more informative, but they're all good, even when the speakers say bad things. I'm not proposing that we start an oral history project, but that's just a 'for example'. Encyclopedia projects have to make quality judgements all the time. Archives get to be a little more relaxed.

With point 3, I'm just trying to imagine something a 'normal' person could just show up and contribute, without bumping into trouble. Something that has some VERY SIMPLE rules that are software imposed so you CANNOT break the rules. Point 3 needs work by someone way smarter than me.

--HectorMoffet (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, (and this is not meant to sound snarky) it looks like you're looking for a lot of solutions under one umbrella. I suggest that if this plan is implemented that it be done in pieces as it will never pass otherwise.

1. Because it is an accurate description of what will happen if the article gets to that point. What needs to be done is to ensure that the article doesn't get there.
2. Ah! Then I would make the following suggestions: a) Spell out what that is on the D&O page. b) How about some function to alert relevant Wikiprojects that such an article is being worked on? That'd be (IMO) the best way to spur collaboration.

Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Buck's Rock

I am new to Misplaced Pages so uncertain how to answer your comments but since you left me a message about my edits let me reply.

What you appear to be saying is that without "notability" or "secondary sources" there can be no Misplaced Pages article about Buck's Rock. This seems a bit unreasonable. You cannot apply traditional standards of historicity to a summer camp; yet that doesn't mean that the camp, Buck's Rock, does not have a rich and noteworthy history. In fact the camp celebrates its 70th anniversary this summer, it's been written up in The New York Times, the Danbury News Times, and the Litchfield News, been featured on radio and television, and it boasts many famous alumni who can confirm much of what had been written. Further, the comments about the edits are a bit inconsistent in that you have no documentation for the "Early History" and other material and yet you've allowed this to remain.

A summer camp's history is largely anecdotal and is documented only by the camp's literature or by the organizations to which the camp has belonged; i.e., the American Camping Association, the Association of Independent Camps, and the Connecticut Camp Directors Association. (Unfortunately, only the first of these is still in existence.)

I am trying to make these edits to reflect my family's involvement in Buck's Rock for over 30 years and would be more than happy to support this with any information that you deem reasonable. Thanks.

Ethicsisman (talk) 11:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Ethicsisman!

If you click on the blue links I left on your talk page, you can read the actual policies in question. However, I am not here to be an impediment to you, and am happy to work with you (within the Misplaced Pages framework). Note that anything that's uncited can be deleted from Misplaced Pages at any time, and that anything with an invalid source is considered uncited.

Yes, I fully understand the challenge of finding sources for a summer camp. I frequently run up against the same problem myself when dealing with other topics such as public housing, churches, parks, etc. "That's the breaks".

Yes!! And please do cite the NYT, Danbury News, etc. *But* otoh there are sources (those self-published ones I mentioned before) that aren't valid for use on Wikipeida. If you want to cite non-web content, please include page numbers, publishers, etc. An example of this is the "Decision Points" citation on John Morton Blum. The other thing I would point out is that when adding material is to remember that this is an online encyclopedia. Details such as "Laura is the Bergers’ daughter." aren't of any concern to anybody, and staff/alumni need to be notable for inclusion. I know this is a difficult concept, and suggest reading one event for more details on it. Also, you're not the first person to discuss this with me, so you might be interested in reading this to see their concerns.

Thanks for writing, and I am happy to assist in any way possible. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Question about a reversion

I recently noticed this reversion and I wondered what was wrong with it. The individual seems to meet the notability criteria. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand that with that edit you were removing Mansoor Alam and adding nobody? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I think your confusing my question with another. You removed it as not notable, not me. I was wondering why you removed it because it seems notable to me. Sorry if thats confusing. I created an account the other day. I just don't always login to make edits. ShmuckatellieJoe (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Could you click on Cheshire High School, then click on history. 69.0.14.130 removed Alam, I reverted that edit. I don't see your IP nor username as having ever edited that page. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't edited that page. I was looking at the Alam article, saw it was connected and that you removed it as not notable. I believe it is notable and should be there and wondered what the reasoning for you removing it was. I am new to Misplaced Pages so I don't know all the rules and assume there was a reason that you removed Alam from the notable list. It is starting to appear to me however that you did it simply because it was done by an IP and assumed it was vandalism without checking the edit. Although I could easily be wrong. ShmuckatellieJoe (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Did you look at the history? I didn't remove it... 69.0.14.130 did. I reverted the removal (read: I added it back in). Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok now I'm even more confused about your edits to the article. In this edit you removed Barnum and Formica as being non notable, but both clearly are notable. But I do see where I made the mistake about your removal of Alam so I apoligize for that one. ShmuckatellieJoe (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem re: Alam. Depending on the interface you're using, it can be easy to misinterpret things given how Wiki displays changes.

I removed Barnum and Formica because neither have[REDACTED] articles, nor citations... (so how do we know they exist)? This is a standing practice of mine, and is actually more liberal than most editors (whom require wikipages, which means at least two citations to pass Notability). Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks good to know. So if there is no article yet they shouldn't be under notability sections (presumably dab pages too I'm guessing). That makes sense. Harvey C. Barnum, Jr. exists though. They just misspelled the name. Again no fault of yours. Thanks for cleaing that up though. ShmuckatellieJoe (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW I'll see about creating one for Formica later this weekend if I can find a little extra time. Never created an article before so it might take me some time. ShmuckatellieJoe (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Good find re: Harvey C. Barnum, Jr.! Feel free to add it to the high school article if you want, if not I'll get to it evenutally. I suggest writing the article locally on your word processor or (if you want to try out all the wikiformatting) in your sandbox. The reason I suggest it is if you haven't encountered it yet, there is a speedy deletion team that monitors new articles and often zaps un-cited ones in 10 minutes or less. (Yes, way.) Best, Markvs88 (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks I was sorta thinking that too actually. Theres hundreds of juicy refs out there on him so it might take me a little while. I found several pics too so I guess I need to figure out that process too. ShmuckatellieJoe (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Pictures can be tricky as they either have to be public domain or you have to have permission to upload them. If you need a hand with that when you get there, just ask. Have fun! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking for advice

I'm interested in improving the presentation of the membership timelines for the various DI conferences.

I started a draft writeup at User:Sphilbrick/sandbox for latest project

I'd love to hear your feedback on whether this idea has merit, but I'm especially interested in thoughts on where I should present this. I was originally thinking the Wikiproject basketball page, but it has broader impact than just basketball. I tentatively plan to pick one location, then either write up a an RfC, or add notices to various obvious places. However, I am not sure how best to reach out to everyone who might care, so I'm looking for your advice.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I may regret being impatient, but I went ahead and posted at Talk page of Project College football--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sphilbrick! Thanks for the invitation, but I really don't have any opinions on this topic. Good luck with it! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I hope your happy

Well I hope your happy Mark, Kumioko left the project. WikiProject United States and a whole bunch of other projects will probably slide back into an inactive status, no more Newsletter, no more collaboration of the month, no more bot to automate tasks. These all amount to a massive loss to Misplaced Pages. All because you want to be rude and incivil and show article ownership, not allowing other projects to tag articles. All because of you and a select few other editors who are more concerned about protecting your little spheres of influence rather than the larger good of building an encyclopedia. But now thats not an issue anymore, now he's gone and you can freely guard all your articles against other editors trying to help improve them. 71.163.243.232 (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

This again? Um, given that you *are* Kumioko, I'm hard pressed to understand your message unless I assume you're bi-polar and feel the need to talk about yourself in the third person. There are over 500 co-tagged articles between WPCT & WPUS, so it's a spurious accusation anyway. As I've said ad-nauseum, I *only* remove tags that are clearly out of scope. For ANY project. That you refuse to discuss what was clearly an overreaching scope for WPUS isn't my fault.

As for the rest of your message, I am quite civil, and it has been you that... refused to discuss the matter a month ago, ran from discussing it a year a year ago, and ran from disucssing it before that with the "hey, let's all have the same project tags!" discussion when it became clear that it wasn't going to happen. Now, you've gone on a month-long "woe is me crusade" going one-by-one to everyone you feel has "wronged" you.

So please, Kumioko, retire already. If your leaving WPUS "kills" the project, I'd conclude that there really was no project at all. Given all of your sniping at me all over the 'pedia and my willingness to discuss the matter for years, I feel (and the two dozen or so other editors you've annoyed with all this) that the only loss to the 'pedia right now is drama. Oh, and inaccurate project tagging. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The bottom line Mark is that its not for you to decide if an article is out of a projects scope. A project has the right to tag the articles they think are in their scope without some overzealous external editor reverting the changes. The only reason you allow the articles to "share" the Connecticut and US tags are because those articles belong to another US supported project. If it were left to you, those would be removed as well for being out of scope. The articles you untagged are just as much in the projects scope as they are for Connecticut. You are right about one thing, I am a much less productive editor these days but that's because of you and a few others who didn't like my edits or WikiProject US. Had I been allowed to fix the problem with the bot (which was a really minor one and easily fixed) and allowed to participate in the discussions rather than being blocked for your actions, me and my bot would have had thousands more edits by now, there would have been a monthly newsletter (possibly 2) and a lot of good work would have been done. But instead, all I do now is participate in discussions and all because of you and your actions. 71.163.243.232 (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Who was deciding? You refused discussion 3 times! Why should I talk to you now? You're supposed to be retired, remember? You chose your current status, I had nothing to do with it. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Mark you are as usual misrepresenting the facts to support your own conclusions. I never refused to discuss anything with you but you didn't want to "discuss" anything, you wanted me to concede to what you wanted. I am certainly not innocent in the events but you are the one who broke the 3 revert rule and I am the one who got blocked for it. At the least we should have both been blocked. I could have lived with that, but no, they sided with you and your policy violations and article ownership so I was reduced to a mere vandal. Years of time and effort trying to make the pedia better and they side with the editor that rarely does anything but revert others work or cry about scope. 71.163.243.232 (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

..."as usual"? Thanks for illustrating why we cannot discuss things rationally. Keep up the insults, they really help your case. Bye. Best. Markvs88 (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)