Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:47, 12 November 2008

Archives

no archives yet (create)

Page protection

Following some earlier vandalism here, I cleaned the page history and added semi-protection (plus full move protection). Hope this is OK; if you'd like this down-graded and I'm not online, just pop back to WP:RFPP. Bencherlite 14:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Many thanks.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTE

Gavin, I didn't mark Fiction as failed at the NOTE list, just two others where it seems there is no opposition to the failed tags -- the presentation migh have been confusing. Please take another look. I agree that it is premature to announce that we have consensus for failing Fiction, though my opinion is that we should move on to more productive pursuits. PS: I would never be upset with your good faith correction if I make an error. You're a hard working dedicated wikipedian, and though we disagree from time to time, I think we are working toward the same goals. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Synthesis

I know what synethesis is Gavin, I have a Ph.D. If you doubt my good faith efforts then I suggest you go directly to ArbCom with it. Web Warlock (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Don't take it personally, its a question anyone could ask. It might appear that the Dragonlance books and adventures support these statements as "fact", but in the real-world they don't. In the real-world, quotations and excerpts from works of fiction are usally cited to provide a flavour of the work. To avoid any suggestion of synthesis or plagiarism, I recomended you provide verbatim quotations in support of any "attributions". Take this is a good faith suggestion: don't dig yourself a hole; there is no need to provide attributions to statements that could be open to question if they are only indirectly supported by the text.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Well to me it looks like you are fighting every change in your old habit of POV pushing. You put yourself on the line by saying there were no more sources then I came in with a bunch more. And more to the point sources they help establish that these are not copyvios, not synethesis, not original research and they are supported by primary, and in some cases, secondary sources. Don't take it personal, you were just not right in your assumptions. Web Warlock (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• In fairness to me, I have combed through the Annotations looking for real-world content, written from the perspective of the creators of the series and found some interesting content about Kender that relates to the development of these characters in the books and games, but cannot find any more similar information about their attributes that the author has indicated is pertinent to their development. The in universe content which I am not comfortable with is about the fictional world in which the Kender inhabit in the imaginations of the editors who added it. Without real-world content to provide context, analysis or critisism, it is just a random subset of these editors' imagination. Even if this content were a comprehensive cataglogue of Kender attributes, Misplaced Pages is not a platform for primary research about their fictional characteristics, and I am not sure there is an intellectual rationale for including it in the article. However, if you can provide verbatim quotations, then we can quote directly from the primary sources, which can be used to support the real-world content.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:N

Gavin, last year part of the rewrite of N was to very clearly state that multiple sources were preferred but not required. I'm not watering down, N, just taking that issue out of the presumption paragraph. The number of sources required is handled later in that section. Please see more specifics at the N talk page. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretion, as the amendment you have made conflicts with WP:V. Can you take this to WT:N for clarification first please.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion of multiple sources should not be in the paragraph discussing presumption. If you think multiple sources are required, then modify the later paragraph which says "prefered but not required". This was a major compromise without which many of us would not have agreed to reinstating N last year. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think these changes could have been considered in relation to the requirements of WP:V, regardless of any discussion or agreement. Please consider these changes to be contraversial, and I would ask that further changes to WP:N along these lines should be halted for the time being. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Gavin, I think that you are missing the subtle point and presuming me to be radically opposed to your positions. I'm not! I have read a lot of what you have written and what's been written about you (RfC etc.) and generally support your goals. I'm just not sure that we know how to get to where we are going. Consider the following from WP:V: The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." Nowhere in that passage does it call for multiple sources. I became aware of the change made on April 18 when the section came under dispute this morning. I'm only trying to get back to where we were, not make changes weakening WP:N. I'd like to chat as time permits to see where your concerns lie. Sometimes we get so bogged down in the nuacnes that we lose sight of the real purpose. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• It also says "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it". Basically WP:N is a guideline based on this statement, which effectively conflicts with the changes you have been making. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Gavin, I made one change today which was to remove the implication that multiple sources were required to demonstrate notability -- it has nothing to do with WP:V. WP:N deals with secondary and tertiary sources. WP:V deals with all sources including primary sources. In the absense of any sources WP:V would be pertinent, but if there were many primary sources and no secondary or tertiary sources, WP:V would allow inclusion of the information, while the topic would not qualify for WP:N. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Your Posting of Copyrighted Material

In your recent edit of Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Kender/Sources you posted links to pirated, copyrighted material. You may not have any respect for role-playing games or the people that play them, but please respect the copyright laws that protect them and remove those links. If you are going to go to the primary sources then you should go to ones whose accuracy is 100%, not one that was stolen and scanned. Web Warlock (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware of this issue, but I understand you to may be correct in relation to Misplaced Pages:Copyright#Linking_to_copyrighted_works, and so I will revert my edit now. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

sub guidelines

Gavin, it seems that you believe that WP:N should be the paramount determinant of inclusion. Why then do you support the sub guidelines? --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• In answer to you, I think subject specific guidelines are important to the application of WP:N, because there are certain issues that affect certain subject areas more than others. For instance, WP:BIO is very keen to emphasise the intellectual independence, because of the risk of self-promotion. Admittedly this is probably an issue dealt with in other guidelines like WP:COI, but I think it is an important consideration specific to the notability of people which justifies the existence of the guideline. Likewise there are certain considerations which are unique to fiction when examining whether a topic is notable or not. For instance, the need to keep a real-world perspective is eloquently expressed in WP:WAF and as a guideline is very important to understanding articles about fiction.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/WebTrain‎

Hi - at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/WebTrain‎ I have sought furhter clarification regarding your comments. You don't have to reply of course but just in case you wish to ... Regards Matilda 22:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Horse-chestnut leaf miner

I enjoyed reading your comments about this. I've just found damaged trees near me and this makes interesting reading. I removed the list on spread of the miner. Please see Talk:Horse-chestnut leaf miner - hope this is okay. regards SuzanneKn (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with the removal of the list, which is not sourced. Thanks for your comments. --Gavin Collins (talk) 07:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

an example of size for you regarding Notability

over on WT:N and possibly WT:FICT, you mentioned several times that one problem you have with seeing the other side is "buying" the size issue. I'll give you an example. Pokemon is a fictional work that covers an anime, several mangas, trading card game, and nintendo's #2/#3 best selling franchise. Currently there are Template:Pokenum of the little buggers and they are represented in each of these four mediums. added to that, several feature length films have been made about them and even a select few "notable" ones have made cross-universe transitions by being playable and NP characters in the Super Smash Bros. series. any and all information about them, not to mention the human characters, can only be derived from primary sources, except in a few very special cases (e.g. Porygon and Pikachu). A few books exist on Pokemon themselves, but any mention of a specific one would only be in passing. And as far as a published gameguide, well we have lots of editors who feel that because the guide is nondiscriminate in how it handles them and offers no synthesis, that the guides don't ascertain notability. So what should we do? Do you really feel that we should squeeze all of them onto Pokemon? This is a case where size is a major issue. Of course i slightly agree that lists don't make any sense, because if 20 pokemon aren't notable enough to warrant their own individual articles, then how does sticking them all together make it better? 20 times 0 is still 0. -ΖαππερΝαππερ _Alexandria 20:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• I understand the problem which you describe: there is extensive coverage available from primary sources, but little in the way of secondary coverage. I cannot comment on the quality of the large number of Pokemon articles you describe but I have read the article Bulbasaur and commented on at Misplaced Pages:Fiction/Noticeboard#Bulbasaur, as the article quality suffers badly from a lack of reliable secondary sources.
  I have reviewed many articles about fictional characters related to Dungeons & Dragons and they too have problems with a lack of secondary sources, of which there are possibly 400-500 articles (see Category:Dungeons & Dragons articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction for examples). Most of these article suffer badly from lack of good sourcing, and so are largely made up of original research written from an in universe perspective. Some of these articles are being redirected to lists of characters, and this will probably happen to the Pokemon characters over time unless coverage from reliable secondary sources can be found.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice

Hi Gavin, I'm been following some of the discussion on notability and fiction and the like that you've been involved in. I just want to say I've been really impressed with your contributions. Hobit (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Bunnies & Burrows

Hello, Gavin. It has been awhile. I was hoping I could ask you to take a look at the cleanup section on the Bunnies & Burrows article. (This goes for anyone else reading this as well.) I need to double check the inline citations when I get home, but I think I have them matched up. Please let me know (here or on my talk, or on the B&B talk), what you think. Thank you for your time. Turlo Lomon (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't get so defensive

If I erased your comment(s) it was an accident during the addition of a new section; that should be rather apparent in the context of the edit. The world is not out to get you Gavin, though sometimes you do invite resitance with your prickly approach. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for restoring my comments which you accidently deleted . --Gavin Collins (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks

Hey. I just wanted to thank you again for the barnstar. But I also want to thank you for helping to diffuse some of the tension at the notability RFC going on right now. It's a contentious issue, and it will be hard to achieve a consensus. But I see this RFC as taking us a few steps closer, if we can avoid falling backwards completely. I'm glad we have a few smart editors trying to keep us from rehashing every argument on every issue ever raised at WT:N. Thanks again for the sanity check. Randomran (talk) 06:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think you have been reasonable and accomodating to many viewpoints, and have shown skill in marshalling the creative energies of many editors by doing so. What is interesting will be to draw some conclusions from the RFC process, which will be difficult unless all the participants build on the contributions to date.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability RfC

Despite opposition and caveats, B.6 seems like it could be a viable approach. As such, I've made a series of notes for a revised proposal (User:Vassyana/RFC notes). I am trying to address the main points raised by caveat and opposition, while stick to the essential point of the proposal. I believe the alterations outlined in the notes may address your concerns. Your feedback on the notes talk page would be vastly appreciated to see if I am moving towards an appropriate compromise and if I am appropriately addressing your concerns. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• I added my comments, as I am deeply sceptical of this approach, given that the a reasonable presumption of notability runs into the Problem of induction when compared with the more Scientific method which underpins WP:V that requires evidence. Like you, I once considered that a guideline based on a reasonable presumption of notability would provide an opportunity to broaden Misplaced Pages inclusion criteria, but my opinion has changed, and I now view this approach as not only being intellectually flawed, but it would actually be damaging to Misplaced Pages, as it can conflict with existing guidelines (e.g. Ashley Fernee, but also make us dependent on so called "expert" opinion when it comes to mergers or deletions of topics which do not cite reliable secondary sources. --Gavin Collins (talk) 04:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comments misrepresent the existing proposal and ignore the notes that I specifically invited you to comment upon. (For example, the need for sources to verify the SNG criteria.) I truly expected a response that took the proposal, comments made on it and the notes for improvement in context. My good faith invitation was abused and I am deeply disappointed. Vassyana (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• No attempt has been made to misrepresent anything you have said. However, I have taken an opposing view to your own, namely that notabality cannot be inhertited/presumed/acknowledged in the absence of reliable secondary sources. I am sorry that you feel your good faith invitation was abused, but every proposal, no matter how well intentioned, has both weaknesses as well as strengths, and both are likely to be commented on.--Gavin Collins (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I accept that there was no intent to misrepresent or ignore the context and points at hand. However, that does not negate my extreme unhappiness with your response. (Your incorrect use of philosophical concepts for your point does not help my reaction, as I am a philosophy buff and the misuse of philosophical ideas is a pet peeve.) If you simply disagreed with the approach and addressed it in context, I would not be disappointed with your comments. The problem is that you did not address the proposal and notes at hand, instead providing response that is disconnected from what is being discussed.

Providing some examples for the sake of being crystal clear: The "premise" you provide is contrary to the notes that were the subject of the invitation (specifically contrary to the first and third bullet point notes). Your comments about the "application to Misplaced Pages" are similarly out of touch with the notes (specifically the first and sixth bullet point notes).

You are a very intelligent and perceptive editor. I do understand that this is a topic about which you are passionate and have clear views. However, it is quite obvious that you are responding based on a kneejerk response, rather than a mindful reading of the proposal and notes. Reflexive responses that ignore crucial points and misrepresent what is being discussed make it very difficult to assume good faith and take your comments into earnest consideration. I'd be honestly very happy to hear your substantive comments on the proposal and its notes for improvement. Please take a step back and take the time to carefully review what is being put forward. Vassyana (talk) 00:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• I will wriggle out of the accusation that I have incorrectly used philosophical concepts to further my opinion by saying that comparision of Inductive reasoning with Scientific method is still a useful analogy to use when comparing inclusion criteria based on presumption and those based on evidence. In my view, B.6 is just the thin end of the wedge which has B.3 as its base, since both start from the position that reliable secondary sources are presumed to exist. Can you explain why you have proposed B.6, yet oppose B.3?--Gavin Collins (talk) 05:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(I'll address the philosophical point below to avoid co-mingling the discussion threads too much.) B.3 presented SNGs as an exception to the GNG, as well as conflated notability and verifiability. The latter is a strongly inclusionist position, destroying any compromise inherent to the proposal. The former is similarly towards the inclusionist position, but my real distaste for it lies in my general distaste for the general tendency among some to see contradictions between the principles of Misplaced Pages. I believe the most rational (and philosophically desirable) interpretation of a system is one that reconciles the various rules of a system with maximum coherency (or harmony) using the simplest possible set of foundational principles (by breaking it down to the "smallest parts").

B.6 provides the coherent and reductionist basis that I strongly desire. It casts both the GNG and SNGs as being rational indicators of notability (presumptions). Despite the hype, the GNG's (X = >1) X sources with substantive coverage is far from a perfect indicator of notability. B.6 indicates that notability is sufficient sources existing to satisfy the content policies of Misplaced Pages. That means sources sufficient to avoid what Misplaced Pages is not, to be able to ascertain proper article balance, to avoid original research while providing comprehensive coverage, and so on. The principle unites the GNG and SNGs under a common principle that is stricter, harmonized with other extant principles and more focused on the mission of Misplaced Pages than just falling back to (essentially) "a handful of decent sources". It also places a heavy focus on good sourcing in general.

I also have a personal preference for the exclusion side of things (for examples, see here and here). However, we must accept that some compromise is needed to create a lasting consensus. While the above moves notability into a stronger formulation overall, it also takes the pragmatic view that there is strong support in the community for the ideas that "there is no deadline", "Misplaced Pages is not paper" and that the SNGs serve a necessary function. The question was how to find a middle road. I took the approach that emphasizing merging, while allowing time for improvement, was a reasonable middle road. This approach essentially prohibits permastubs, while encouraging content retention (serving both exclusionist and inclusionist purposes). I also noted the institutional memory aspect of SNG creation to provide counterweight against SNGs being made from whole cloth.

In the notes, I try to address the points raised in caveats and opposition. Think of them as a rough outline of what "needs to be fixed" with the current B.6 proposal. It needs to be more explicit that sources still need to be found, that a reliable third-party source is needed to verify the SNG criteria, and encourage appropriate discussion about sources. It further needs to state that SNGs need to be vetted and endorsed by a broad swath of the community and that while SNGs indicate what Misplaced Pages should cover, not all SNG-qualifying topics are appropriate for stand alone articles. The proposal should also indicate that only articles (or daughter lists of such articles) are valid merge targets; articles lacking sources and a merge target are subject to deletion or a move to userspace.

I apologize for the ridiculous length, but I wanted to provide you with a full and fair answer. Do you now better understand where I am coming from? Is there some way my proposed changes (notes) fail to address your concerns? Is there something that could be done to better address your concerns while still traversing the middle road? Vassyana (talk) 06:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking time to explain, and I understand how you are attempting to differentiate between B.3 and B.6, but idealogically I remain opposed to both approaches. In the real-world, I feel we can justify making reasonable presumptions based on observation, but in Misplaced Pages, WP:V says we can't make presumptions about content, and that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, which must be supported by in line citations. What I think is missing from WP:N is a statement that says the burden of evidence rests with the editor who creates or restores an article, which must cite reliable secondary sources to demonstrate that its subject matter is notable. The presumption that evidence will be found in a future period effectively shifts this burden from the contributing editor to everyone else. --Gavin Collins (talk) 05:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to read my responses and reply. I do appreciate it. While I am very sympathetic to your point, I do not believe it is a practical option. A viable consensus cannot be formed around the inclusionist or exclusionist positions. My sense of pragmatism requires me to continue seeking some compromise in the middle ground. Thanks again for reading through my long response. Vassyana (talk) 06:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• The problem with the idea that a compromise can be found based on notability being inherited/presumed/acknoweledged is that it has been tried before and failed - see Misplaced Pages talk:Inherent notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Philosophical point

A shorter reply than above! :-) The scientific method is not immune to the problem of induction. We know that, in all probability, the sun will rise tomorrow (taking the classic example). The classic point is that the inductive reasoning of "the sun will rise tomorrow" is that it always rises. The Popperian response is that we have a deductive and falsifiable theory in place of such inductive reasoning. The reply is that while we may base such a theory on repeatable experiments (such as the speed of light, distance to the sun, motion of the sun, motion of the earth, etc) that the theory is still inherently relying on the inductive explanation that the sun will rise because it always rises (because x, y and z observations have always be so, or rather been repeatedly, repeatably and consistently observed). A inductive argument can be based on deductive arguments and their underlying data. Mainstream scientific thought (and the dominant philosophy of science) accepts the presence of inductive logic in the scientific method. It even depends on it in practice (such as through the use of statistics and probabilities to predict phenomena, rates of occurance, etc). I hope that helps explain my objection. Vassyana (talk) 06:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Your argument about induction is reasonable, and I accept your arguement that Scientific theory does indeed accept the presence of inductive logic, e.g. probability theory (which is inductive) underpins statistics (used often as evidence). However, induction suggests that not finding reliable secondary sources for a particular topic is a distinct possibility, and this is what underpins my opposition to this approach. In my experience, virtually 99% of all Misplaced Pages articles on fictional characters do not provide any evidence of notability. Whether evidence can be found, I could not possibly know. However, it is clear to me that in practical terms, the presumption that sources will be found for these articles is becoming more remote as more and more of them are being created. This is not a trend limited to fiction by any means, but extrapolate this trend into the future, and you can see that at some point the number of articles without evidence of notability will exceed all other articles by a large proportion. My conclusion is that, not only will sources not be found for some topics, but that majority of topics in Wikpedia will not provide evidence of notability if we continue to presume that sources might be found in the future. Any assertion that sources must be found to avoid deletion or merger be can countered by the irrefutable presumption that sources might be found in the future, which is why I feel presumptions of notability are a disruptive force in AFD debates. --Gavin Collins (talk) 05:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Inflation

Thank you for your message. I may return to the matter of the notability guideline but, per WP:BURO, this is not what we are here for. But I thought of you when considering current activity at the Inflation article. Another editor was having trouble adding some content relating to accounting for inflation. It seems that the article is owned by some academic economists who don't wish to hear about the mundane world of business and accountancy. Your user page indicates that you have an interest in this field. Please take a look. Note that WP:OWN is policy and recommends taking breaks from topics. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria for stand-alone lists

Since I was feeling a bit insomniac tonight, and the general consensus at N/RFC appears to be that lists need a new inclusion guideline, I've written User:Erachima/Inclusion (stand-alone lists). It's a first draft, obviously, so feel free to mess with the wording or comment on the talk page if anything seems to be unclear or missing. --erachima talk 10:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have responded at User talk:Erachima/Inclusion (stand-alone lists)#Criticism, where I have voiced my concern about the proposal. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Your criticism appears to be based on rather mistaken assumptions about the goal of the proposal, I invite you to reconsider it. --erachima talk 21:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• I am sure the goal of the proposal is well intentioned, but from a practical point of view, allowing unlimited inclusion of stand alone lists does not work, as it is a licence to create content forks. I have responded to you on the talk page. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• And I've replied as well. No need to write back, and my apologies for bothering you about the draft in the first place. I am rather distressed at the turn this has taken, as I would have liked to include you in the brain trust here, but there are equally strong deletionists who have a stronger grasp of the policy-creation process, so I'll turn to them instead. Have a good day. --erachima talk 09:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's Expert Peer Review process (or lack of such) for Science related articles

Hi - I posted the section with the same name on my talk page. Could you take part in discussion ? Thanks ARP Apovolot (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Re Misplaced Pages's Expert Peer Review process (or lack of such) for Science related articles

Dear Gavin.collins - thank you kindly for the expressed opinion (which is appreciated) - but why do you want to have the review process be left to chances and statistical probability (no matter how high this probability could be) ? Why do you suggest that the experts are indistinguishable from the rest of us ? In my view the experts should be willing (at least temporarily during the review) verifiably reveal their true identity and credentials, which should be at least at the PhD level in the corresponding area of science (or higher). Cheers, Apovolot (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• I don't believe it is possible to verify your Misplaced Pages identity with your real-world identity, which is a problem with all forms of electronic comunication. For instance, it is impossible for you to tell if it is me who is writing this reply: my identity could have been forged or stollen, and you may actually be corresponding with someone else (unlikely but possible). Misplaced Pages is not geared up to verify the identity or qualifications of its editors, and the identification of experts from non-experts is not feasible. The other issue is the value of so called "expert opinion". As you know, one of Misplaced Pages policies is Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, which states that The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. Basically this policy invalidates the idea that an expert's opinion is more important than any other editor's opinion and that all articles have to "stand on their own feet" in terms of sourcing. Any disputes over articles and their content should be resolved by a review of their sources, not who has written them. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User: Shotwell suggested (on my talk page) "I would endorse a WP:EXPERTADVICE page that outlined the wikipedia policies and goals for researchers in a way that enticed them to edit here in an appropriate fashion. Perhaps a well-maintained list of expert editors with institutional affiliation would facilitate this sort of highly informal review process. I don't think anyone would object to a well-maintained list of highly-qualified researchers with institutional affiliation (but then again, everyone seems to object to something)."

We could start with that if you would agree ... - could you help to push his idea through Misplaced Pages bureaucracy ? Cheers, Apovolot (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• As I said before, I don't support this proposal because I don't believe it is possible to verify the identity and qualifications of a particular editor. The only way Misplaced Pages can work is if the content added experts can be verified, and verification of expert contributions can only be achieved by citing reliable secondary sources. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI AN/I thread

FYI, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Pixelface_and_WP:NOT. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I made my view known that I don't think this is a matter for the administrators to deal with. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Kender draft

I've moved the Kender draft from Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Kender/Trim to Talk:Kender/Draft, so it may be used and worked on outside of the mediation case. The mediation is being closed as partially resolved/stale. If I can be of any assistance in the topic area, please let me know. I am willing to assist on a case-by-case basis as an informal mediator. Vassyana (talk) 13:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Dan Willis, again

What in the world do you mean by "Attempts to stifle discussion by placing contraversial subjects in archive is not acceptable"? There has been no discussion regarding that topic for nearly 7 months. There's nothing to stifle as it's been a dead conversation for over half a year. Please stop attempting to resurrect a discussion just because you disagree with everyone else who has looked at it. ···日本穣 00:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have never seen an instance where a talk page containing so very little discussion has been archived. Your attempt to introduce archiving to the talk page is very suspicious. What is your connection with Dan Willis? Please clarify your interest in this individual. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I've read one of his books and I've taken his picture once. Pretty hot and heavy, eh? ···日本穣 19:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I must compliment you on the photograph - it is excellent, and clearly the work of professional. To have met with the author and taken a professional quality photograph still leads me to believe you are connected with him in some way. Please disclose the nature of your connection with him. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
      • I didn't take the photo currently being used, nor have I ever said that I did. I took this one which was being used before the current picture. Please don't put words in my mouth. You can find out who did take the picture by clicking on it. ···日本穣 04:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Please disclose the nature of your connection with Dan Willis.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)