Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:53, 14 January 2010

Save the drama for Obama

Vanessa Rousso help

You have been an active editor of Vanessa Rousso's article this year. I am attempting to get it on the main page through the WP:DYK process. According to Template_talk:Did_you_know#Vanessa_Rousso I need to add about 617 more characters of text to the article. Feel free to help me expand the article. I could use some assistance in finding more material.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Vanessa Rousso

On May 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vanessa Rousso, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Vanessa Rousso GA thanks

Thank you for your editorial contributions to Vanessa Rousso, which is now a WP:GA.

This user helped promote Vanessa Rousso to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI notification

See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:DegenFarang_attempted_WP:OUTING_and_WP:HOUND_and_other_abuse. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:OUTING

Final warning. Your edits at User_talk:Balloonman#Poker-Babes.2F2005 (which I've removed) are totally inappropriate. You do not attempt to out people here. And read WP:BLP for why this is also inappropriate. Rumors off blogs are not the sort of information used here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I always thought that final warnings were given after first, second or third warnings - but noted. I wasn't even aware of the rule. Mostly because I have seen 2005 break it so often. DegenFarang (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

See also WP:NPA for why I removed this comment. If you have a problem with a source, go to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. No comments on who you think people are. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Constant Rijkenberg

I have nominated Constant Rijkenberg, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Constant Rijkenberg. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

Hi, a thread has been opened regarding some of your edits at the BLP noticeboard here , thanks. 15:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Friendly Suggestion

Hi Degen, I can see that you are an experienced editor and you have made some very good contributions to Wiki. I have to say though, in a friendly way, that your current project of removing citations without consensus and posting on several noticeboards about it is not healthy for you as an editor. I know that you have issues with some of the other editors. These issues may be justified. You may have been wronged, ganged up on or who knows what. I don't know the story and I don't want to get in the middle or take sides. I'm just saying to you in a friendly, sincere way, as a fellow fan, that it would be good for you to slow down. For you own self preservation. Wiki is collaborative. We don't always get along with our brothers and sisters but we are stuck together as a Wiki family. I understand how you feel.Recently I was involved with an issue on a BLP and I went to the noticeboard etc and I was defeated even though I felt very strongly that I was right according to Wiki guidelines. Still I had to back off because the consensus was against me. A good poker player knows when to fold and wait for another hand. Its not a war, its just a dumb web site. Better to take it easy and live to play another day. Anyway that's my two cents. I hope its of some use for you. All the best, -- — Kbob • Talk • 17:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks. Three administrators have said that poker-babes.com is not a reliable source, that is the reason I've been removing it. I wasn't aware consensus was required. If I've done something against the rules it was done without me knowing I was breaking a rule. I disagree that it is just a dumb website - if I had to choose between Google and Misplaced Pages, I would choose Misplaced Pages. And I don't think I could breathe without Google. I'll try to slow down however I'm really only trying to accomplish one thing - to get rid of all of the poker-babes.com external links and references. The only reason I posted in several places is because, while I love Misplaced Pages, I don't understand how the bureaucracy works around here. I had no idea where to post such a request. Nor do I understand how such a request is approved or denied. I posted it in a couple of places, had a few administrators agree with me, so I assumed that was enough. Sorry if I have gone about this the wrong way. However I imagine this wont be the last time. My interest is not to become a part of the Wiki family and be able to quote WP:THIS and WP:THAT and so and so violated WP:THING and I put it up on the WP:PLACE and we all agree we should hang him at sundown. I simply want to help improve this website for the world to be able to learn from it. I have no interest in WP:POLITICS DegenFarang (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Full Tilt changes

Hi DegenFarang,

Thank you for your comment. I am somewhat new to wikipedia and I apologize for not describing the edits.

The overall goal of my edits was to:

a) provide citations for verification b) organize the content on the page so that it is not promotional (for example, earlier versions advertised the games offered by Full Tilt in the introduction to the company; I think that information belongs in a separate section called "games offered" or something to that effect)

Thanks,

BKD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkdanilo (talk • contribs) 00:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I agree that should not be in the introduction. One more tip, when you leave a note like this on a talk page (either of an editor or on an article) please sign your name after it by making four of these ~ in a row. I'm about to do it right now ;) DegenFarang (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:COI

Hi Degen, I've been looking over a few of your talk posts and I'm wondering have you any connections with on-line poker? You said you in this diff your wikipedia 'speciality' is "Full Tilt Poker and domains" . At this point I need to point you towards WP:COI. If you are close to a subject you " not edit Misplaced Pages to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers, unless you are certain that a neutral editor would agree that your edits are in the best interest of Misplaced Pages." This holds true for competitors of organizations too.
Also I will point this out wikipedia records reliable sources we don't set-out to prove or disprove, agree or disagree, or in any other way dialogue with them because that would be original research and is beyond wikipedia's ambit--Cailil 20:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I know a lot about Full Tilt and I know a lot about domains. I do not work for Full Tilt, but I do own some domain names. Does that mean I can never edit anything having to do with domain names? I'm pretty sure that is the first edit I ever made having to do with Full Tilt on Misplaced Pages so if I have COI I sure waited a long time to act on it - then reversed my own edit without consensus when I proved myself wrong. I disagree with your comments about original research (...removed, you were right, see below) DegenFarang (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Verifiability - "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability (defined as being in a reliable source) not truth." That has got to be the most retarded policy in the history of policies. But whatever. I imagine if I bring the issue up somewhere I'll get 1,600 wiki nerds all piling on me quoting a bunch of WP:STUFF and WP:OTHERSTUFF and pointing out everything I've ever done since I was born and ad hominem attacking me and pulling all kinds of other WP:POLITICSBS to win the argument - so I'll skip it. But I can't believe how insanely stupid that policy is. People trust what they read on Misplaced Pages. 99.9% of people who read this website are not aware of that policy when reading. They think we think this stuff is true (even though they know some of it isn't). They don't think the only reason this stuff is here is because somebody reliable printed it. Lets face it, a large % of the RS's on Misplaced Pages are dubious at best. And a lot of the articles are ignored by all but a couple of editors. So maybe in theory this works, but in practice its bollocks because most of the RS's are blogs and other garbage websites. This is not a "reliable source" aggregation service, it is a collaborative encyclopedia. Big difference. The goal should be accuracy. DegenFarang (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's surprising that you've been editing for since November 2008 and only come across two of our core policies today (WP:NOR and WP:V). Whatever your opinions of them you must abide by them when editing here. Also I didn't ask if you were involved with Full Tilt Poker I asked if you've got any connections with on-line poker?--Cailil 03:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Been editing here a lot longer than that, just didn't bother making account. And I probably got 5 times as many edits since November 2008 than whatever my counter says cuz I usually don't login. I could care less for all of your policies and procedures, I just want to edit articles and primarily, read them. Depends what you mean by connection - I play online poker. I know a lot of online poker players. Most of what I know I learned from talking with them and reading online poker forums DegenFarang (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well first of all, if you're interested in editing on wikipedia I suggest you learn why WP:V and WP:NOR are the way they are. Second we don't do original research on wikipedia period. We record a summary of the reliably sourced info that is out there already - we don't correct it or refute or build on it, that's just not what Misplaced Pages is for. Third as regards the COI concern be careful about editing anything relating to people you know (either in person or through cyberspace) this is explained in WP:COI--Cailil 03:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I see every rule you just mentioned broken pretty much everyday. Every other article I read has one or two sources and then block after block of text. See http://en.wikipedia.org/Sebastopol,_California That whole article reads like one person just listing a bunch of stuff from memory. The only thing cited are specific one line facts. The rest is just inserted in there. If that isn't original research, I don't know what is. 75%+ of articles read that way. I'm not going to spend time learning a bunch of rules that only exist in theory and are rarely put into practice or enforced.DegenFarang (talk) 03:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)