Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:22, 21 August 2010

I feel disappointed with the limitations of Misplaced Pages. The stated policies are at odds with the reality. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Booky's Crush

An article that you have been involved in editing, Booky's Crush, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Booky's Crush. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. CosmicJake (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Details and big picture

The problem with Misplaced Pages is that so many details are incorrect, and left uncorrected for - well, basically forever unless someone comes along to correct them. We need a system of fact-checking. It can't just be, "Anyone can edit any article anytime." That makes the default "No one says it's wrong." Which is not good enough.

We need to change to a system where no edit is exposed to the public until enough other writers or editors have checked it and have affirmed that it is correct. Contrary to the longstanding objections to this idea, it will actually improve both our editorial freedom and our article quality.

We have lost a ton of writers who have given up because it's so hard to maintain article quality when good edits can be reverted and bad edits inserted more easily than the other way around. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Democratically elected

An article that you have been involved in editing, Democratically elected, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Democratically elected. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Soman (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Free Teens

I have nominated Free Teens, 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/Free Teens. 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. Tjc₆ 14:40, 2+7 June 2010 (UTC)

Since you've participated in this before

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Korean Cuisine. Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Sorry, while I was away someone deleted it. :-( --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Independent review

Welcome. I think though the topic should better be dealt with at Peer review. After all "Independent review" is actually just a synonym for peer review and I don't see how we could maintain a separate article. De728631 (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

At some point the articles could be merged, but we need some way to distinguish between anonymous peer review and other ways the members of the scientific community check each other's work.

There's also the issue of the (claimed) breakdown of the system of pre-publication peer review.

Anyway, I won't oppose a merge vigorously, as long as there's a good redirect. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The Karate Kid

No prob. And I apologize if my edit summary seemed a bit more rude than it should've been. Reviewing it just now, I think I should've phrased it better.

So how is everything? Everything going well with the church? I've haven't been a regular attendee to the Meetups in about two years due to problems getting into the city (though I did attend the meeting back in May), but haven't seen you at any since that first picnic at which we met in August 2007. Anyway, have a great summer. :-) Nightscream (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wolfview (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Mel Gibson DUI incident

I have nominated Mel Gibson DUI incident, 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/Mel Gibson DUI incident (2nd nomination). 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. Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 23:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh? That's a red link. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It's here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mel Gibson DUI incident (3nd nomination). Dreaded Walrus 19:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, looking at that page you clearly found it. Dreaded Walrus 19:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes I don't wait for the answer but just go a-huntin'. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

As an aside for those who are reading this discussion and confused, the reason the 2nd nomination is a red link is it's Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mel Gibson DUI incident/(2nd nomination) i.e. uses a different format/name with the backslash instead of space. In fact the 3rd nomination was accidentally filed as the 2nd at first so I'm guessing the above was correct at the time Nil Einne (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Independent review

Hi, Ed, you've added a link to the Climatic Research Unit email controversy article which goes to Independent review, but that article's not actually relevant to the kind of independent review arranged for the Climatic Research Unit issues. Are you thinking of making major revisions so that independent review becomes relevant and is no longer a fork of peer review? If not, can you undo your linking edit? . . .dave souza, talk 14:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought that up, because I wasn't sure it was the same kind of independent review. Can you explain the difference? (I had thought that the sources I've been reading were talking about independent review as a check against bias, including ideological bias. If I've misread a source or left out an essential reference, please correct me.)

I think, based on the number of references to the concept of independent review I've been able to find in just an hour or so of Googling, that it is relevant to Misplaced Pages. Whether it's relevant to accusations that CRU engaged in misconduct is an editorial judgment. I won't edit war with you, if you choose to remove the link without further discussion.

I don't see how the Independent review article I've started is a "fork" of Peer review, at least not in the sense of violating NPOV guidelines. I believe it is within the rules to start a new page about something, even if it is destined to become a section of a larger article. There is already a consensus of 4 editors (see talk:peer review) that Independent review should be merged into Peer review. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Until your article is on the right lines, the link is irrelevant to the CRU article and you should revert it. The phrase may be UK specific, but doesn't relate to scientific peer review. . . dave souza, talk 15:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I certainly won't object if you choose to revert it with no further explanation. But I've asked in 2 or 3 places for an explanation, only to get a repeated assertion of irrelevance. Or have you already replied elsewhere? Sorry if I missed your answer. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI

You may or may not have noted . But attempting new discussions on Cl Ch right now might be viewed as provocative William M. Connolley (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, is that why Dave met me here, instead of there, when he wanted to discuss reverting my link to Independent review? Well, I'm not afraid of "provoking" my fellow contributors. Those who know me, know that all I want is a well written and impartial article. Who could be bothered by that? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you like me feel a right to assume that wiki will be essentially sane at all times. And look what happened to the both of us :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Robert L. Park copyedits

LOL. Thanks. That's very nice of you. Nightscream (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Cast or case?

Edward C. Banfield published a book in 1968 that made a simple and well-documented cast that the problems played out in ghetto neighborhoods

Do you mean case? Nil Einne (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I forget whether that was a typo, or a "copy and paste" problem. If the latter, do we add sic to the wrongly spelled word, or what? --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well it's your user page so you decide :-P Anyway looking more closely, you linked to the source which does have 'cast' so a sic would probably be in order if you want people to know it wasn't you. Looking even more closely, you can email the writer and if he fixes it you can avoid the whole issue of whether to bother to add a sic :-) BTW if we were unable to check the source, you probably should have either changed it to case or let it be, since adding a 'sic' arguably has BLP issues if the writer is alive (I'm only semi joking). Nil Einne (talk) 00:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually looking more closely, it's not clear if the author wrote that himself or his simply quoting the source. I think it's the later since otherwise most of the essay is just a bunch of quotes, and the source is simply the reference he's using. Nil Einne (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Moonie (Unification Church)

Hi Ed. Cirt and I has just started a discussion on the talk page about removing some of the extra examples and trivia from the page. Please join in if you care to. Thanks. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to, if all parties concerned agree that my participation won't result in a WP:COI complaint. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Censorship at Misplaced Pages and Conservapedia

Dear Ed,

on Aug 16, 2010 you wrote And please don't think (or say!) that we are engaging in censorship here at Conservapedia, as you guys at Misplaced Pages do. Obviously this wasn't written for comical effect, as you went on: Unless you can show at least one diff, where a senior editor censored something ... merely because it disagreed with some conservative shibboleth ... than you ought to stop saying this. I address this not so much to you, as to those who follow you or travel alongside you.

A fellow traveler called you on this bluff, giving you an example of censorship at Conservapedia: a senior editor/sysop/administrator with the ability to oversight edits had left the counterarguments when archiving the talk-page of the article Counterexamples to an Old Earth and oversighted the entries.

Of course, it's not easy to get meaningful diffs of such an action, but when you demanded so eagerly: Now show it to me; I'd like to take a look, evidence was given, in form of an screencap of an oversighted comment.

As you are an senior editor/sysop/administrator at Conservapedia yourself, you should have no problems to get the proof for the blatant censorship in this case for yourself: you could have a look at the deleted/oversighted pages before and after "archiving".

But all the eagerness to see the evidence for yourself suddenly vanished, and you decided not to have look...

This doesn't change anything on the fact that an example of blatant censorship (and convincing evidence) was shown - though maybe not seen by you. Therefore, I'd like to state for the record:

Conservapedia does engage in censorship, in contrast to wikipedia.

In the light of this little episode, I think you will agree with me.

DiEb (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)