Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:36, 26 February 2007

Archives
Archive 0

Spring cleaning

A tad bit before Groundhog's Day, but I figured it was time to wipe the slate clean and start the archives going. -- Levine2112 23:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You know of course that I knew your discuss button does work, I was just kidding, of course.. what, you don't believe me>:/

BTW, When is groundhogs day in... japan? -- Dēmatt (chat) 23:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess they don't celebrate that here. But there are a lot of Japanese fans of the Bill Murray movie. -- Levine2112 00:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Link farms

Since you seem to have an interest in link farms, here's a big one to work on:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Health_freedom

It violates many policies here. -- Fyslee's (First law) 10:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow! What do you do in cases like these?! -- Levine2112 17:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you have to follow the rules. WP:EL -- Dēmatt (chat) 18:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I know those rules pretty well by now. I just need to muster up the stamina to jump in there. The issue for me is that I don't know most of those sites and for me to determine what is reliable, what is commercial, what is misleading is going to be tough. A lot of them seem like Health Freedom related organization... on first glance at least. I am going to take some time to think about this, but in the meantime, if Dematt and Fyslee want to chip away at it, go for it. -- Levine2112 20:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I can understand your consternation. I feel the same way, being the inclusionist that I am. I often delete commercial sites outright without blinking an eye, but sites that are clearly representative of a particular POV I am very hesitant to delete, since they are necessary to fulfill NPOV policy. The sites have been added hodgepodge, without much opposition. Some are likely vanity sites, others commercial, etc.. It's a hornet's nest. Several (if not most - it's the driving force behind the health freedom movement) are filled with conspiracy theories with no real proof.

Issues related to RS and V are involved. V is easily obtainable for practically any site. My main blog is very popular and is rated higher than Bolen's, and they are definitely V, but they are not RS at all, in the Misplaced Pages sense:

Here are statistics for those two V, but not RS, sites:

• http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=quackfiles.blogspot.com
• http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=bolenreport.net (Bolen has Google ads and sells things.)

We're nowhere in the range of Quackwatch:

• http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=quackwatch.org

which is a V and often (but not always) RS.

So determining suitability for Misplaced Pages depends on the article (even shoddy vanity links (as long as they aren't libelous attack sites) are allowed on articles directly about the person or organization), the use as internal references, external links, or sources of opinion (with NPOV language). Not always an easy task, but this article needs attention. Right now it's a sales pitch.

I would rather you guys do it, so I don't get into (noncommercial) POV/COI dilemmas. I hope y'all understand what I mean. My biases could lead me to be too harsh on opposing POV, and that wouldn't be very Wikipedian, but very human....;-) -- Fyslee's (First law) 22:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

478,505! Not bad, Fyslee. Your ring must be working. -- Levine2112 22:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Webrings don't actually do much themselves, especially for large sites, but they do help to place one in proximity to like-minded sites, which gives exposure. That has the effect of one's site getting noticed, and if someone wants to link to your site, that always helps. When I started in 1999, I searched the internet for such sites and let them know I existed. Some actually linked to me! Wow! Now I don't even maintain my sites. They just sit there, with very little activity on my part. Misplaced Pages is more intersting. That's why my email archive for the Health Fraud list now has 4,365 unread messages. It was over 3,000 when I quit as assistant listmaster. I didn't read it or follow along with what was happening. Now I only post occasionally. I did it today. Between 1999 and 2004 I did it several times a day. -- Fyslee's (First law) 23:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't help notice this discussion. I'm conflicted about the link farm that is Occupational_hygiene, so am interested in others' approaches to similar problems (I started a discussion, since there was none yet). I was bold with Health freedom, but will probably revert it for more discussion. --Ronz 02:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I detect a link farm at Occupational hygiene. -- Levine2112 02:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I did say "conflicted". By the number of external links and their use, Occupational_hygiene#Professional_Societies could be considered a link farm. Hopefully, some good ideas on how to handle it will be posted in talk. --Ronz 02:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

On the surface, having links to notable professional societies that are directly about the subject (no tangents) seems fine. See how we handled it on Chiropractic. -- Levine2112 02:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That's helpful, thanks! --Ronz 03:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Email

Levine, if you would like to chat, please enable your email. Mine is set up on the system. Shot info 12:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It should be. People email me once in awhile. I'll check just to make sure though. -- Levine2112 17:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, let me be a little clearer, if you wish to continue to chat about IEEE, PCs et.al, rather than doing it via our talk pages, feel free to email me :-) Shot info 00:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Your Barrett v. Rosenthal/Evidence

Your accusations against me that you posted in Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal/Evidence are not factual. I'm pointing this out here as a gesture of good faith that it may be an honest mistake on your part, perhaps from writing it without taking the time to check what actually happened. I hope you'll be editing it further and will consider more closely what actually happened. Thanks. --Ronz 00:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. My bad. Please accept my apologies. -- Levine2112 00:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Ronz 00:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Deletions

I noticed that you tagged my wikipedia entry for deletion. Thank you for bringing to my attention that the page is not up to Misplaced Pages's standards. I will try to raise the scholarly level of the page. As a writer and software engineer, I definitely appreciate people who scurry through large amounts of text and offer improvements. I do the same in my day job.

That being said, I did notice some unusual things.

1. You also flagged my wife's page for deletion. That in itself is not terribly unusual, but you also spent time to determine that user "djbwiki" is her husband.
2. On your Talk page, you have a discussion about my father, Stephen Barrett, linking to a long discussions of litigations, cabals, and conspiracies.

This is creeping me out. Please explain your unusually high level of interest in my extended family. Djbwiki 19:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Basically, you can't create anb article about yourself (or your wife). Wait until someone else comes along and says that you are notable enough to create an article about you. This is a general rule of thumb at Misplaced Pages (or else everybody would create articles about themselves). Make sense?

I noticed that you stopped editing since last August. What (or who) brought you back here all of a sudden to notice that your articles had been tagged? -- Levine2112 20:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't be surprised, since lots of people are watching your edits and your interest in Barrett and his family, so any one of a number of people could have alerted him before he reacted to it popping to the top of his watchlist. It is likely on many people's watchlists. If I were Daniel, I'd be freaked out too. It's not everyday that one gets such unwarranted attention just for contributing to an encyclopedia. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 20:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Since he started his own article about himself (and one about his wife), do you agree that it should be deleted? -- Levine2112 20:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand the guideline. Your motivation is another matter, but that's another issue....;-) Sleuthing around Misplaced Pages can be fun. You're dealing with inexperienced editors. I remember when I started here there were many policies and guidelines I didn't understand, and I've made my newbie mistakes. I suspect we all have, so go gently and judge accordingly. You wouldn't want to be judged by your early IP days now would you? -- Fyslee (collaborate) 20:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

So do you agree that the two articles should be deleted?

BTW, what is my motivation? I've nominated many articles for deletion in my time at Misplaced Pages (and many times because they violated the self-promotion policy). Are you now violating WP:AGF with me yet again? -- Levine2112 20:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I understand the guideline, and I'm not questioning your interpretation at all. I am only referring to your current involvement in the COI speculations about Daniel's possible use of the Shot info user name. Your investigation of that matter is what most likely led you here. (I wasn't even aware of these articles or his user name.) I am still not questioning that -- no matter what led you here -- your interpretation of the guideline is accurate. I'm just not going to be the one to swing the axe. You found this situation and I'll let you deal with it. There is no assuming bad faith, just commenting on the current situation. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 21:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112, you didn't answer my question (why 3 members of my family are on your radar). But being a polite person, I will answer yours. I didn't know about the "don't author your own page" rule. And I found out about your deletion proposal simply because a wikipedia reader noticed it and emailed me. Now your turn. (1) Who are you in real life (I am not anonymous, no reason why you should be), and (2) why are 3 members of my family on your radar? Oh, and (3) which Rush album is your favorite? Mine is "Farewell to Kings." Djbwiki 22:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

(1) In real life, my name is Levine. No joke! I am not notable enough to warrant my own article... yet? My complete bio will have to wait until then. Anything you want to know about me, feel free to ask or email me directly using the "Email this user" link on this page. (2) The chain of sequences leading to your page was: I first started editing chiropractic then I learned about Quackwatch and your father Stephen Barrett and then I was led to your and your wife's page. I don't mean any ill-will (despite Fyslee's bad faith accusation above). I am only following the guidelines of Misplaced Pages and when I found your articles, I saw that they were in violation of a basic Misplaced Pages policy. (3) 2112. I should think that was obvious! Farewell to Kings rocks too! -- Levine2112 23:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"bad faith accusation" ??? I thought we were agreed on your motivation. It looks like you just confirmed it, and it was nothing more than that. Perfectly natural situation in light of your interest in Barrett and his family. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 07:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

So we are clear, my motivation is following Misplaced Pages policy to make the best encyclopedia possible. -- Levine2112 07:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't try to put words in my mouth. Your motivation (that led you here) was your intense dislike of all things Barrett (and by extension using simple logic, your affection for that which he opposes, ie quackery). That of course led to some sleuthing, which, as I wrote, can be fun. Another very distinct motivation regarding how to deal with vanity articles, is another matter entirely. It just happens to be very convenient that you can legitimately use Misplaced Pages policy to justify your other motives, which are anti-Barrett and anti anti-quackery (see: double negative -- anti anti-q. = pro-q.). Danes have an expression for such simple logic: "Logik for høns" = "Logic for hens." (You can see by the similarity of words that Danish isn't all that hard to read, but the pronunciation is a doozy!) In this case it would be "logic for ducks." Enough on this matter. Deal with the articles as you please. You certainly won't get any opposition from me. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 08:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)