Misplaced Pages

omg common sense

I think it's funny that people are arguing over a dash versus a hyphen. Will this really affect our readers' learning about the subject or comprehension of the article? It's a single character; we're not five-year-olds, here. Can one or both sides just drop this completely silly dispute, stop making nonsensical claims about its wide-reaching significance about which policies/guidelines to follow, and just shut the fuck up? This sort of debate is what makes Misplaced Pages the laughingstock of academics—more time is spent figuring out the damn dashes/hyphens than actually improving the article".

There are quite a few unsourced paragraphs in the article. Someone should start sourcing them. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Something something deck chairs something something Titanic. → ROUX ₪ 02:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

On a more serious note, this whole furfurrah quite neatly epitomizes so many of the problems facing Misplaced Pages: small groups of overly-passionate editors intent on protecting their little fiefdoms; ignoring what readers (you know, those millions of people every day who use Misplaced Pages as a resource) need, and don't need. viz, they don't give a tinker's damn whether it's an endash, an emdash, a hyphen, or a squiggly line as long as the semantic meaning is clear; prizing form over function and style over substance; and finally, raising the barrier to entry for new editors even higher than it already is by forcing them to conform to some bizarrely arcane typography instead of actually, y'know, editing the fucking encyclopedia. → ROUX ₪ 02:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has a copy editors guild, among its many specialized groups. Each editor brings something different, unique, and often helpful to Misplaced Pages. If we were to simply focus on content, without regarding to grammar or punctuation, I assure you Misplaced Pages would be laughed at and dismissed out of hand. It is the kind of dedication that we see among these editors that are willing to endure such a subject and its minutiae that makes Misplaced Pages outstanding. Flippant comments without a firm foundation in the overall situation do not. -- Avanu (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

But actually, comparing this frivolous battle over the length of a horizontal line segment to copyediting is almost insulting to those who copyedit. Nobody really cares if there is a hyphen or endash in the title; it does not affect readability one iota. Spelling and grammar mistakes within the articles themselves do. Please, stop fluffing up your feathers to make yourself and this pathetic edit-war seem more important than you and it actually are. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, since most of you seem intent on lecturing people about this instead of getting a background on the situation, let me clarify. In many ways, I agree with you that the dispute is not terribly important. And I have consistently taken that position in this, one of neutrality and levity and just having fun with Misplaced Pages. The idea that "Nobody really cares" is completely inconsistent with the facts here. There are many editors who have spent days discussing things and debating points, and now we have a group of people who seem to be going right along with an overbearing request by an admin, and yet these people haven't taken more than a few seconds to dwell on why this issue has been important to these people. This isn't *my* edit war. That is one thing that I find terribly inappropriate about Sandstein's request. He didn't bother to really look into this, he just pronounced it "lame" and damn the lot of them. And it seems the community, who I consistently turn to and regard as the backbone of this encyclopedia are acting like a kangaroo court, pronouncing judgement with a bare whiff of the situation and damn to whoever might be caught in the tempest of your fury of apathy. This is so far in opposition to the Pillar of Civility, I simply have to wonder if those who quickly 'vote' to condemn even really believe in it. -- Avanu (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact that a handful of Misplaced Pages editors spent wasted days of their lives time quarrelling about something so flat-out inane as hyphen-vs-endash in an article title does not mean that anybody really cares. The community's time is being wasted by this troupe of third-rate clowns and their petty slapstick; that is why we are all so dismissive of this. This can hardly be pushed under the umbrella of 'encyclopaedic improvement'. Instead of improving the article, editors warred across several pages over the length of a small dash. A goddamn dash! Those are the "facts" of the situation. Sandstein's judgement was impeccable in denouncing this conflict as "lame". In this case, the edit-war was so unproductive and so utterly useless that the motives of the editors are quite immaterial. As for "civility", this would not be a problem if the topic bans were accepted and everybody moved on. No, instead, the participants in this farce had to try and indignantly explain why their risible, reprehensible behaviour was somehow justified. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It unfortunately does affect readability if apparently similar titles on different pages look subtly different--this is especially noticeable in scanning a large number of pages, as it checking each item in a category or a list. In most languages, compromises are made on the strict rules for titles and headlines, which are designed for maximum recognition rather than exactness. It would be perfectly reasonable in my opinion to have a rule that all hyphens and en dashes in titles automatically convert to hyphens, regardless of the rest of the article (It would in my opinion also be logical to have a rule that accent marks are not used in article titles). It's the same sort of thing as the rule (originally technical) that titles begin with a capital letter. Article titles are an organizational feature, not content. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It has no effect on the content of the article. It does not change or muddle meaning. Perhaps it is a minor annoyance to those with sharp eyes. Nothing more. Certainly nothing worth edit warring over. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment As a non-admin who got caught up in the hyphen/endash issue when the latter was improperly and arbitrarily applied to a certain series of articles (Category:Regional districts of British Columbia), only to discover other articles where in normal English hyphens are the norm (the debate focussing on Poland-Lithuania), and faced with the "consensus has been that endash should be used in all XYZ cases", when in fact DASH wasn't even read or applied properly in the first place, it's very clear that there was NEVER a consensus on the blanket across-bthe-board "extermination of the hyphen wherever possible because we're Wikipedians and we know better", and it's clear from the mere existence of this discussion that it's now more clear than ever that the pro-DASH crowd enjoy no conensus other than their own. To this date, while having had to conceded the Poland-Lithuania "can" have a hyphen, they have stonewalled that the adjectival form of same MUST have an endash because of their interpretation (and apparent control/OWN of DASH), even though this is not ordinary English, not used at all in ANY source...."we don't have to obey the sources because they didnt' ahve advanced typographical techology like we do" and "people who don't use the ENDASH are just lazy" etc....the debates to get the simple LEGAL names of the BC regional districts returned to their proper legal form took exhaustive energies on my part and very nearly drove me from Misplaced Pages altogether (as POV/SOAP/SPAM problems with Canadian poltiical/electoral articles are about to again, though for more legitimate and less trivial reasons)....during those debates I was insulted and degraded while at the same time being accused of personal attacks (attackers often do that to their victims, bullying is like that y'know...), and it was even suggested that British Columbians were backwards and not sophisticated etc etc....finally I consulted with the Legislative Counsel of British Columbia (the government's lawyer, and also the maintainer of the official style guide) and it was only with citations of teh actual legislation that the hyphens were - only begrudingly - restored. This was utterly inane, took weeks of energy and time, and left a bad taste in my mouth to the point where MOSTALK definitely has a "keep away, this is our playground not yours" sandbox feel to it; somebody's own little empire, where "consensus" means "us, not you". So how this affects your little discussion here I'm not sure exactly, as I'm only a non-admin interloper, but I'm providing testimony about exactly how inane and extensive this hyphen/dash thing has aggravated at least one busy editor, who really had better things to do, but had to get the legitimate names of articles (and associated categories( restored by complicated and argumentative processes that never should have been changed without discussion/notice in the first place and which didn't actually cite DASH properly to start with!!!. Others monitoring this know how pithy I can get so I'm holding my tongue, and sorry, I'm not capable of that "100 words or less" nonsense, and was confronted in those debates by that same demand, and also insulted by "Too long did not read", which to me is just someone who doesn't want to admit the legitimacy of an argument and wants to ignore its existence. But that this is still stuck in my craw is a sign of how rabid this particular pack of control-freak admins behaved, and if a topic-ban is what's being called for against them, I'm all for that; it might be a good idea to ban them from MOS for a season too and get them working on actual articles - instead of coming up with new and creative ways to drive away those who DO. No doubt some might argue, also, that "topic-ban" should have an endash and not a hyphen....if the silly quasi-grammatical breakdown of common compounds were applied as if cast-iron or carved in stone, which is how DASH was treated (while ignoring HYPHEN, or even what DASH actually said).Skookum1 (talk) 04:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflicts) To the best of my recollection, I have never edited the article about a certain armed conflict between two North American countries, nor do I belong to the Guild of Copy Editors. I have no dog in this specific fight. However, as someone who copyedits frequently and extensively, I do care about the use of standard punctuation in Misplaced Pages articles. Avanu is quite correct: punctuation is important. Despite their similarity in appearance, hyphens and the two kinds of dashes have different functions; they are not interchangeable, and their misuse absolutely does affect readability for many readers.

One of the reasons I was moved to begin editing here (as an IP, six or seven years ago) was because I kept encountering articles with superb content obscured behind a shroud of careless or ignorant misspellings, errors of simple grammar, tortured syntax, and, yes, misemployed punctuation marks. A hyphen is no more equivalent to an em-dash than a period is to a comma or a colon. Substituting one for the other can distort or eclipse intended meaning some of the time; it will make the content look sloppy and unprofessional all of the time.

Creating an en-dash using Mac OS requires pressing a grand total of two keys—the same number of keys it takes to get a question mark. It's a little harder with Windows but still no big deal. It isn't "arcane typography" at all, just typography—and available to the masses for over a quarter-century now. I don't mind cleaning up other editors' punctuation—actually, I rather enjoy it sometimes—but I don't think I'd care to put much time or effort into the world's first encyclopedia that formally allows nonstandard punctuation. Rivertorch (talk) 04:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain how use or misuse of these characters effects readability for a significant numbers of users? RxS (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I can try, but I'm a little reluctant to add to the clutter here. It's sort of beyond the proper scope of AN, you know? Let me just specify that I was referring to these punctuation marks in general, not just in titles. If you'd still like a reply (here or anywhere), let me know; I don't usually watch this page. Rivertorch (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think if you're backing up a certain point of view here with a claim about usability here, I think an explanation here is appropriate. RxS (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

All right, then. RL intrudes, but I'll try to gather my thoughts and post something here later. Rivertorch (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I can try to explain. I like the way this guide puts it, since it applies fairly generally, doesn't arbitrarily restrict the joined items to be nouns, etc. The hyphen is a joiner, the dash a separator. If you want to indicate a war of Mexico against America, for example, the en dash is appropriate, whereas if you want to speak of a Mexican Amercan as an adjective, you hyphenate it; alternative with neither, as in "Mexican American War" is also acceptable, since punctuation is often omitted from compounded names; if you wrote "Mexican American culture" it's really not clear what that means, whereas "Mexican-American culture" would be culture of Mexican Americans, and "Mexican–American culture" or "Mexican–American trade agreement" would be related to the two separate countries. Doing it wrong conveys the wrong meaning, and for people who are used to reading things with careful typography, it offends the "ear" of the reader in the same sense that misplaced commas do, when they signal a meaning that conflicts with the ultimate interpretation. Dicklyon (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

That is the best point I have heard in a long time: Mexican–American culture (culture of Mexico and America) versus Mexican-American culture (culture of Mexican Americans). That is an actual, realistic distinction. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Recommend topic ban proposal be dropped

Its entirely my fault for even asking Sandstein for advice on this article (Mexican-American War) in the first place. I had hoped my appeal to an admin for assistance would provide a strong, clear voice, willing to shepherd things and help all of the editors in coming to a resolution that had broad community support. The real problem with the debate is that both sides have strong cases for their positions. And we only get to have 1 title. So you're left with a less than perfect solution either way.

This group of editors may not be perfect, but they have been a lot more civil to one another than several of the editors here at the Admin Noticeboard have been to them. My suggestion is that we find an admin who is willing to actually look at this and find a *positive* solution. Not labeling or wanting to ban, but truly interested in taking this to a place where consensus, or at least contentment can be had.

I now regret involving Sandstein in this, and would kindly ask that he let this go and instead let an admin take over who is willing to be neutral not only on the issues, but also on the editors. That has been my general approach to the article, and I see no point in abusing a group of editors who have been working in good faith to collaborate toward a solution. -- Avanu (talk) 05:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC) If you plan on commenting in the section below, I would politely ask that you not simply 'vote', but actually provide a reason and rationale.

Oppose. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose I understand that the issue is important to a select few people; however, it appears to be a very minor issue with most folks. That being said, if the constant back and forth is going to continue as it has, then it falls under the disruption clause of your contract. Eventually we try to put an end to that. — Ched :  ?  16:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Support. A ban seems like a really odd way to settle a style dispute. Banning everyone who's been involved so far assumes no one else will pick up the hyphen or endash banner and resume the fight later, and back here we'll be. Seems like the sensible thing to do would be to start an RfC to settle the matter conclusively if there's any remaining contention about the title. If any editors refuse to honor the result of the RfC, then start handing out bans. 28bytes (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Support—I agree, it's very odd. As conceived, a ban would simply invite the involvement of other similar articles. Please see my request that editors cool off and back down as a practical measure. I believe this boring little issue might be seen for what it is in a cooler light, and that it should be given a chance to settle, if editors can depersonalise and leave off. Dare I say it, this would be more likely to work than a misconceived ban (do you not see the scope problem with it?). Another RfC ... possibly, if people are really not willing to give it a rest ... run by an uninvolved party. Tony (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC) PS I see that Mr Anderson has already reacted positively to the "cool off, slow down, depersonalise" idea. Tony (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Support I have not taken part in that discussion, but am quite familiar with it, having used WT:MOS frequently to ask questions. I must say that I feel strongly that none of the involved parties have done anything to warrant being topic-banned. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Support: Not a productive solution. –CWenger (talk) 02:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I would hope that, were I to ask a group of informed Wikipedians to comment on a dispute I had with another Wikipedian, a large number of them told me that the dispute was trivial, stupid & lame, I would consider the possibility that maybe -- just maybe, mind you -- the dispute was truly trivial, stupid, & lame, instead of whining that I was being misunderstood. And maybe -- just maybe, mind you -- there might be one or two other Wikipedians who would consider that same possibility. -- llywrch (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Support Topic Ban

• Screw it, this isn't really the answer. I gave a long explanation at my user talk page as to my thoughts on the matter, but here's a nice excerpt. "...at this point anything short of a siteban is just going to be a delay, because I can just see this thing exploding again continuously until it winds up a smoldering putrid heap on ArbCom's doorstep...". That being said, I guess the best answer going forward is a binding RfC, which was suggested above somewhere. Either way you all choose, have at it, I'm done with this mess. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

RfC

• I think a binding RfC would be the ideal solution. Among the complaints I've seen from the participants are that the venues in which the issue is being argued (e.g. the talk page of an article) are not broad enough, so a well-advertised RfC would be the best means to ensure a result that everyone can consider legitimate. Any takers? 28bytes (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Support: I like this idea. If it fails we can go to mediation and show them we tried this first. –CWenger (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Support a binding RfC iff it is supervised in such a way that new voices won't be drowned in the shouting by the old disputants with their entrenched positions. Interested parties get to present their position in one paragraph each plus supporting evidence, then a phase of endorsements. No threaded debate beyond that point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that approach 100%. One paragraph per editor would be an excellent way to encourage the interested parties to put their best case forward and let others comment, instead of a back-and-forth that spirals out of control. 28bytes (talk) 05:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

What is a binding RfC? Why not mediation? Dicklyon (talk) 05:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I think mediation would run the danger of personalizing the issue even more between this core group of editors with entrenched positions, would encourage even more back-and-forth between them, and would have the effect of excluding rather than encouraging the input of new outside voices. Frankly, what we need is less of you guys talking, not more. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. And by binding, I mean that the participants agree that, whatever the community decides, that lays the issue to rest, and we don't see a bunch of move requests two weeks later to put it "the other way". 28bytes (talk) 05:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, it must be crystal clear that the results of this RfC apply to everything in Misplaced Pages concerning the Mexican~American War, and possibly also similarly named wars using multiple proper adjectives, e.g. Spanish~American War (we'll have to get an agreement on that before we proceed). –CWenger (talk) 06:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of adjectives, the best style guide that I know of includes en dash connecting adjectives (possessive–genitive dichotomy; not proper ones, though, unless you want to count Marxist–Trotskyite as adjectives); but trying to settle this in the context of the Mexican–American War is probably not a great idea, since as many have pointed out the predominant usage of that one doesn't follow the style guides. Dicklyon (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

(Speaking as an interested part), looks like a good solution, I would gladly accept these conditions. What do the other parties say? --Enric Naval (talk) 09:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

If this RfC is only about articles and categories related to the Mexican–American War, I'll happily stay out of it. But if, as some suggest, it's part of the larger campaign to rewrite the MOS to avoid en dashes, then I don't think I'm ready to turn that over to mob rule. Normal consensus processes at wikipedia that have been ongoing for years have got it into a good stable state; we can talk about it, but let's not precommit to accepting some kind of vote to change it just because most editors don't know much about en dashes. Dicklyon (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

OK guys, the joke's gone on long enough

I have not commented on this whole jesting thread because I have no time for such frivolity right now. But Sandstein, it is probably time to bring it to an end. People seem to be taking it seriously! The very idea: that commenting on your suggestion should itself count as grounds for a ban of any sort! :) That did raise a quick laugh for me, I admit.

Apart from all that, it is unsettling to see the word fuck thrown around quite so freely. By Misplaced Pages policy (WP:NOTCENSORED) they are permitted to post like that. But it is doubtful that they are immune on other grounds. "They're cunts," someone might say – if I can fabricate an example in the tone that they have set here – "those petty tyrannical admins who refuse to spend time understanding the issues and simply choose to swat everyone in the vicinity, including innocent bystanders." That would be out of line, right? Of course, it could not be censored: but there would be behavioural guidelines against it, surely.

So, everyone: how about calling this off, and getting back to serious business? The Project has enough problems at the moment without jokes that are left to get out of hand.

Noetica 03:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

What, you would pass up the opportunity to topic-ban a random set of people for being too interested in a trivial topic? Dicklyon (talk) 04:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Come on, Dicklyon. I know it's all rollicking good fun: but let's just get back to work now. Noetica 05:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Noetica, what do you think of the RfC proposal above? --Enric Naval (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Enric! Still with the jokes, eh? Not bad, not bad ... but a little subtle for most of the audience here. You see, they will miss the deep irony in your putting that question to me, of all "participants" in this dispute ☺. May I suggest you keep the tap-dancing in your routine, because the comedy is not quite working yet. O, and study Sandstein's dead-pan delivery. Sheer mastery! Noetica 01:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Noetica: As someone who is not on particularly good terms with anyone in this dispute, I must say that the only way I can describe your posts here thus far is "dickish troll". It is painfully clear that there is bad blood abound, but right now everyone else is actively looking for a solution and you are actively trying to thwart it. Consider being very quiet for a while, because every time you open your mouth, peoples' opinions of you drop sharply. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Important question

Discussion on whether to use en and em dashes or not aside, how does one type it with a Mac OS keyboard? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

See Dash. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  14:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Appended Notes

Appended note: Having sought advice on the talkpage, I add this according to the customs of this page as I now understand them. The editor who closed this discussion did so immediately after making a comment about me. I do not counter that here, and am happy to see this thread closed. But I reply, as I have a right to, at User talk:Sven Manguard, where the exchange may be read in the history. (It has been redacted by the editor.) Noetica 13:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I had already closed the conversation on my talk page, becuase I do not believe I was dealing with a user acting in good faith, and I do not want the issue in general to be on my page. I consider Noetica's actions here to be those of a troll, as I explained on my talk page, and refuse to allow a troll to use my talk page as a forum. Therefore I removed Noetica's comments as I would removed the comments of any other vandal. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I am new to this page and its unprecedented viciousness, and perils lying in wait for the innocent; so I ask for editors' indulgence if I make a wrong step.

Sven: you called me a "dickish troll", and attempted – by a demagogic appeal – to silence me and belittle my few words here (which were intended to treat the whole thread, most charitably, as a joke that got out of hand). You then unilaterally closed the discussion, imposing your editorial summary at the top. "Troll" is not a word I use, but editors will decide to whom it is best applied in these circumstances.

Now I find that you still want the last word, after you have closed the discussion in such high-handed style. I have discussed this with you at your talkpage, and anyone can look at the history there (since you deleted my last response to you) to see all that was said. Next we find that an admin has warned you at your talkpage, and I have been urged at my talkpage to take firm action to "do us all a favour and shut down once and for all". You can consider yourself fortunate that I have never taken such action, and am not about to start. If this continues, I may have to reconsider that stance. Please: can we leave this? Without repeated accusations? Noetica 05:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Belchman

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

I have moved this to to ANI, which suddenly seems like the more appropriate place. — Ƶ§œš¹ 13:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet unblock review

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

I have moved this discussion to the more trafficked ANI, which will hopefully lead to more input from the community about this unblock. Cunard (talk) 07:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

A-Class Reviewer needed

User:HJ Mitchell, the reviewer for the Frank Buckles article, is having computer problems and is "unlikely to be able to get back to the ACR before the 28-day window is up". If another A-Class reviewer with military experience could give the article a look-see and then re-review the article here, it would be appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Nick-D is going to be the substitute reviewer. If anyone still wishes to give the article a quick once-over and let me know of anything that needs fixed, please feel free. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

And this is on the administrator noticeboard because... --Rschen7754 06:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

...HJ Mitchell is an admin. Mjroots (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

What is the special qualification of admins that makes them more eligible as A-class reviewers of a MILHIST article? Is it that the admin force is our closest equivalent to a military force, or is because admins are often said to have lower content standards? Hans Adler 14:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2011 March 21, Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 19#Category:Television episodes by director, and Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 2#Islamic Golden Age

For categories, would an admin (or admins) close Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 19#Category:Television episodes by director and Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 2#Islamic Golden Age? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Mike Selinker (talk · contribs), for closing Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 2#Islamic Golden Age. The other deletion discussions remain open. Cunard (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Three-week backlog at WP:MFD

There is a three-week backlog at WP:MFD. Would a few admins help clear it? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent archiving. The backlog has not be cleared. Cunard (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Systematic Removal of Links to One Site

• wisegeek.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Is it OK for a Misplaced Pages editor to systematically remove hundreds of links to a particular website? For example, this appears to be a working list.

If you look at the history of the hundreds of links that are in the process of being removed, you can see that they were given neutrally by completely unrelated Misplaced Pages editors over many years.

The site in question has been discussed three times on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and each time the community decided that there was not a reliability issue with the website. Furthermore, it should be noted that the site does not appear on the spam blacklist.

Disclosure: I have a relationship with the site that the Misplaced Pages editor is removing links to and so I want to make it clear that I have not made any edits, nor am I proposing to make any edits to the associated Misplaced Pages articles. I am not posting in the capacity of a Misplaced Pages editor, I am merely bringing this matter to the community's attention so the community can decide if this behavior is appropriate.

(I'm new here, so if there's a more appropriate place to raise this question, please let me know and I'll repost there.)Vrsti (talk) 06:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. The website may be borderline reliable, but there's no requirement to link to it.   Will Beback  talk  07:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I do see a problem, as User:The Anome appears to be systematically removing these links. If he replaces them with better sources I have no problem with it, but something like or is not improving the encyclopedia. Is there some discussion where consensus was reached that this is not a reliable source, which could overrule those wp:RSN links given by Vrsti? Yoenit (talk) 07:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

How can 300-plus neutral Misplaced Pages editors over many years be so wrong and one editor over the course of a few days be so right?Vrsti (talk) 07:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Have you asked The Anome why he is systematically removing links to your site? MER-C 07:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No. Requesting advice from a neutral body seemed like a more appropriate approach. This didn't seem like a purely editorial issue because it doesn't pertain to a Misplaced Pages article or even to a handful of related Misplaced Pages articles. This seems to be more of a unilateral meta-decision that impacts hundreds of Misplaced Pages pages and the work of hundreds of different Misplaced Pages editors.Vrsti (talk) 08:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I notified Anome of this discussion, also I tried to find a conversation which started this mass deletion but it seems to have been unilateral from the very start. Buttercrumbs (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• The fact that RSN decisions have been such that wisegeek IS a reliable source and Anome is removing them on the edit summary basis that it is not a reliable source just concludes with the fact that he is wrong. If he is wrong, then his changes should be reverted. If he wants to remove wisegeek as being considered a reliable source, then he needs to form a consensus that states this and not unilaterally make such decisions on his own that are at odds with numerous past consensuses. It's as simple as that. Silverseren 08:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The RSN discussions seem to say that it's a barely reliable tertiary source. Every addition that I've looked (only a few) has been made by an IP editor. In the past we've had problems with websites that pay their authors per view, which gives those authors strong incentives to add links to Misplaced Pages. It looks like Wisegeek authors are paid a small flat fee. Does anyone know for sure?   Will Beback  talk  08:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Wisegeek is not one of the sites that you are describing. This site does not pay authors per pageview. It does not give any (let alone "strong") incentives to get links from Misplaced Pages (or any other source). It's an independent entity with a single editorial/administrative team that maintains strict oversight and control.Vrsti (talk) 08:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Freelance Writing Jobs!

We pay writers per article. Current rates range from $10 to $14 depending on the article topic. Writers know exactly how much they will receive for writing an article before locking it.

Apply Now!

— 

• Yes, a flat fee per article. MER-C 08:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Looks like link/cite spam to me. There are over 500 of those links right now (not all in mainspace). I'd suggest bringing to WT:WPSPAM. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 08:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Based on what? Looking at the two examples I linked one was added by a good faith IP, while the second was added by an SPA account who was trying to promote another site. Yoenit (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

If the Misplaced Pages community researched when and how the citations were added, and contacted the editors who added them, you will discover that none of them are associated with Wisegeek in any way. Additionally, the hundreds of citations to Wisegeek are indicative of the size of Wisegeek's library. According to the homepage, there are currently over 135,000 articles. Many large and reputable websites have orders of magnitude more attributions from Misplaced Pages.Vrsti (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of who is adding the links, the site appears to be content-spam (easy to create content used to sell ads). As such, removing links to the site seems like a good idea. --Conti|✉ 08:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

If someone has no interest in the promotion of a site in which they have an interest then I would expect them to have no interest in whether the links are removed or not. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Now that is ridiculous. I care if references are removed from the article for no good reason and I never even heard of the site until I read this discussion. Yoenit (talk) 09:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a logical statement. Since you do not have an interest in the site you are not within scope of the statement. Vrsti has a declared interest in the site and has raised the issue. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have been clear about any COIs from the very beginning. I am presenting this to the community to make a decision about the unilateral removal of attributions to a particular site. The issue is an issue regardless of any COIs from the person who raised it.Vrsti (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Both the removals linked above by Yoenit seem reasonable (though the edit summary is weak). Wisegeek appears to be a bog-standard content farm; using such sites as references is, in general, problematic. They have minimal editorial oversight on the material, and accuracy rests almost always with the anonymous content writer. They never cite sources. As an example, it was being used to support the statement The best quality flamenco shoes are made in Spain; is that an objective statement? Who said it, or who has judged it? (are we really planning to say "According to Wisegeek", and if so what makes them a reliable judge of where the best quality shoes come from). This example highlights the specific problem with sites like Wisegeek. On the other hand more care is needed in removing the links, with proper rationale for each one. --Errant 09:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Each and every article on the site is reviewed by a dedicated editor. Articles are subsequently revised, often, many times over. Readers report errors and suggestions and the content improves with time, just like Misplaced Pages articles, except all changes go through a dedicated team of editors. Vrsti (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's cut to the chase here: What interest do you have in having that site linked to all over Misplaced Pages? --Conti|✉ 09:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

{{ec}Meh, it looks a little better than most. And as a tertiary source might be useful in some cases; but the lack of depth and failure to cite sources (as a tertiary source) makes it highly problematic. In my experience even the best of such sites has only the lightest of (proper) editorial control, much of which is focused on the writing rather than catching inaccurate materiak. In addition, these sites tend to present opinion (or at least, what WP would treat as opinion) in their own voice (as in my example above). We can find much better sources, for certain. In the meantime, any of the cites that are supporting dubious or problematic material should be considered carefully (as my example above). --Errant 09:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about the links per se. Citations allow readers to click through for more information but they also are intended to provide attribution for the source documents that were used in researching the Misplaced Pages article. In other words, this is about giving credit where it is due. I am sure that most Wikipedians work tirelessly for the greater good, but they still appreciate the recognition for their contributions. I think there would be an outcry (rightfully so), if usernames were entirely removed from Misplaced Pages, and everything was replaced with "anon." When an article on our site was used as an original source for the Misplaced Pages article, and this was given attribution by the original author and it remained for years only to be removed (in hundreds of instances) by a single editor - that is disconcerting - and I thought the community should be made aware of it.Vrsti (talk) 09:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Umm, I'm not really sure of the point you're making here. WiseGeek is a summary source; ideally we would be using whatever secondary sources their writers use, because that is much much better and easier to verify. There is another issue as well, quite often these sites use Misplaced Pages as a source. Without proper source citation (as is essential for any good tertiary source) we have no idea if this is the case, so it risks material becoming circular. --Errant 09:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the community is aware of it now (and don't get me wrong, bringing this to the community's attention isn't the point I'm criticizing here). But both per WP:RS and WP:EL, the site should rarely (or probably never) be used here on Misplaced Pages. And it should most definitely never, ever be the sole basis for an article on Misplaced Pages. --Conti|✉ 09:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

How is removing a source, but leaving the problematic statement in the article an improvement? I see you have now removed the entire statement from Flamenco shoes and if User:TheAnome had done this directly I would not have used it as an example. Yoenit (talk) 09:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. There are two issues here. On one hand the use of this source should be reviewed. On the other hand any removal should be done properly & not unilaterally with a bad edit summary. --Errant 09:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know this discussion is going on. I note that original poster says they have a relationship with the site itself; I applaud them for their honesty. I'd also note that I'm not the only person removing Wisegeek links from articles.

There is no right for a site to be linked to from Misplaced Pages. Wisegeek is several rungs up from things like eHow, but certainly appears to me to be a content farm, if that term means an ad-stuffing pay-to-write site (see, for example, http://www.wisegeek.com/why-do-dogs-eat-grass.htm for a typical page layout), and a great many of the links are either tacked-on to articles, or have common formatting suggests that many of them may have been added by a relatively small pool of contributors; some of them apparently at article creation time.

Where a Wisegeek article is the sole reference for an article, I suggest that a better cite should be sought. -- The Anome (talk) 10:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating. If you visit that page directly, after first clearing all cookies (as I just did to double-check the link), you get a spartan page devoid of advertising, which would appear to make my claim nonsense. View it through the path that I arrived at it by, and you get a page with an entirely different layout, stuffed with vast numbers of AdSense ads. -- The Anome (talk) 10:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As a gesture to the Misplaced Pages project, Wisegeek displays a different template for any user that has wikipedia as a referrer and has done so for the last several years. If you click on the link that The_Anome posted above (or any link to Wisegeek from wikipedia), you will not see any advertisements. Regarding your claim that wisegeek incentivized contributors to plant links, please read my post above at 08:54, 18 April 2011Vrsti (talk) 10:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Aha. That's certainly the most positive spin that could be put on that behavior. May I ask what your connection with the site is? -- The Anome (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Wisegeek operates differently than Misplaced Pages. Advertising revenue, as opposed to donations, is used to run the site. Regarding my affiliation with the site: I have worked with the site for several years though I don't represent it in an official capacity -- but I don't think that is relevant here. The issue I initially raised and wanted to focus on is whether the systematic deletion of links to a single site that were organically added by a host of people over a number of years is in the best interest of Misplaced Pages. Based on the comments above, several other commenters in this discussion have agreed -- please focus on the ideas raised instead of calling my affiliation into question. I'm not interested in editing content or making changes (precisely because I don't want any COI to enter the mix). I wanted to raise the issue of systematic deletions for the community to address. According to some of the supporting comments above, it doesn't seem like it was an unreasonable issue to raise. About not raising this issue directly with the remover, I have addressed this in an earlier post.Vrsti (talk) 11:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This isn't WP:RS/N (where this probably belongs), but I really don't see how this website could possibly qualify as a RS, so removing links to it seems perfectly reasonable. I note that the COI account Vrsti (talk · contribs) was created yesterday and their only contributions have been to complain about the removal of these links without first bothering to raise it with the editor in question, so I think that this was a bad faith report. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly interesting to consider the thought processes that drove the creation of that account. Special:Contributions/Vrsti makes interesting reading, following on from that chain of thought. It's also very interesting that the SPA in question knows so much about the history of discussions of Wisegeek on Misplaced Pages. -- The Anome (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

About the recent creation of my Misplaced Pages account -- I am a frequent and longtime reader and supporter of Misplaced Pages, but I have never made any edits. I created this account precisely to raise this issue. The thought process of the account creation went something like this: Hundreds of Misplaced Pages editors cited our content over the years, and now all of a sudden, someone is undoing all of those editorial decisions. I think that the Misplaced Pages community might like to be notified about this.Vrsti (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Holy crap. Has anyone looked at the site without the Misplaced Pages referral (delete your cookies and do a google search for them)? There's literally more ads than content to be found. In this case I'd strongly suggest blacklisting the site entirely. --Conti|✉ 11:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Since when are COI editors and SPA accounts completely forbidden from raising concerns? The OP has done nothing but request wider review of this matter with civil and argumented posts. Is this considered a "Bad faith nomation" nowadays? Yoenit (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree. There's nothing wrong with bringing this to our attention. --Conti|✉ 11:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll chime in here to agree as well. There is nothing at all wrong with Vrsti's raising the issue here, particularly since he/she was careful to disclose the COI at the outset. LadyofShalott 13:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this as well. This just smacks of shooting the messenger. Titoxd 21:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Now discussion seems to have died down a bit I would propose the following:

• An RFC is opened to determine the reliability and desirability of wisegeek as an external link or reference.
• User:The Anome and any other users involved in systematically removing wisegeek links promise to stop doing so until consensus has been established that this is desired.
• If no such consensus is found all instances where the link was systematically removed should be evaluated and the link reinserted if this improves the article.

Does this sound reasonable? Yoenit (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think such a formal resolution is needed. Just take it to RS/N to check. I've gone back over a big portion of the links removed so far and almost in their entirety they should not be re-added. Anyone want to open an RS/N thread (my view is that it is not likely needed because it is clearly not a very reliable source). Even if RS/N decides it is unreliable, The Anome a) needs to use better individual rationales in their removals b) also remove problematic text associated with the source (because otherwise it begins to defeat the object) and c) make sure they are checking each carefully and not removing indiscriminately (there may be a small number of cases where this is a useful link) or at least replacing it with a better source. Removing links like this is a slog :) --Errant 15:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's embarrassing to me to find out that there are so many links to a site whose pages are so full of ads. That in enough should be enought to blacklist it. WP:ELNO seems to rule it out as an external link entirely. I agree with Conti, there's more advertising than content on the pages I looked at. Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ditto; I've just done a dip-sample of five random pages and each one has more advertising than content (and some are laughably bad). Agree that in no way can this be considered a reliable source for anything other than articles about itself, and concur that this should be added to the blacklist. – iridescent 16:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The amount of advertising shouldn't be an issue: otherwise, we'd end up dropping links to practically all news media websites. But having looked at a few of the links on The Anome's list, it is clear that the vast majority don't add value in any way I can see -- for example, why should List of oldest CEOs need a link to ? However, there are at least a few which might benefit from the link to Wisegeek -- for example Monte Cristo sandwich to -- but I believe those cases are best handled on a case-by-case basis with discussions on the related talk pages. Maybe The Anome should have announced he felt these links weren't helpful & that he would be removing them -- but that's an issue of Wikiquette, at most. And where would one make this statement? -- llywrch (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The amount of advertising certainly becomes an issue when there's more of it than actual content. --Conti|✉ 17:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. On that "Monte Cristo sandwich" one you link to, for instance, I count 13 adverts in the body text. Legitimate media outlets may carry advertising, but they don't intersperse lines of advertising with lines of text to make it appear that the advert is an integral part of the article, nor do they carry more advertising than actual content. Even MyWikiBiz—the gold standard of user-generated wiki-based puffery—carefully separates the adverts from the body text and makes it clear which parts are promotional and which are intended to be neutral. – iridescent 17:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow, I didn't see any ads as I use Firefox, but when I used IE the website looks quite different. I agree that the website should not be used as a link in the EL section due to the mass ads, and that it can not be used to back up any controversial statements, but there are still some cases where it is an alright source such as at Testamentary trust. If better sources are found to back up text, they can replace the wisegeeks ones, but until then, it would hurt wikipedia to remove them. Buttercrumbs (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

A suggested way forward

Thanks for this. I think that -- except for the special versions specially served up from links within Misplaced Pages -- these links are clearly covered by WP:ELNO, point 5. Given their extreme ad content in their "real" non-Misplaced Pages-tailored versions, I can't really see how these links ended up being injected into articles in the first place, given that presumably editors first encountered these articles in their not-linked-from Misplaced Pages versions. I'm still trying to get to the bottom of the SEO stuff here, with this odd combination of made-for-wikipedia and made-for-adsense content but something about these links to morphing-content pages definitely feels not right to me, over and above the usual WP:RS issues.

Given that these removals seem to be supported by existing policy, I propose that I continue to do these removals, subject to community review in the normal way, with the following changes:

1. when I remove a Wisegeek cite, I will also remove the statement it cites, if clearly identifiable, unless that is supported by another cite
2. I will provide a more informative edit summary: I propose "link to wisegeek.com removed: please see WP:ELNO, point 5"

It's just possible that in some cases, these links might be merited, but I have yet to find a case that justified linking to such a heavily ad-dense page that could not in principle be supplied from another source. In this case, these links will remain in the article history, and my edits, like any others, can be reverted -- nothing of value will be lost.

Is this generally acceptable to those here, and can you suggest any improvements I should make to this? -- The Anome (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. --Conti|✉ 19:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It is good to see the discussion around this issue. Regarding "linking to such a heavily ad-dense page," I would like to remind you about a comment made earlier: for years, Wisegeek has supressed all ads for visitors who have Misplaced Pages as a referrer. In other words, users click on citations on Misplaced Pages will not see any ads on the site.Vrsti (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That's nice, but ultimately irrelevant. The site is a content farm, and we generally don't like to them or use them as sources. --Conti|✉ 19:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Err you realise that in saying "It's just possible that in some cases, these links might be merited, but I have yet to find a case that justified linking to such a heavily ad-dense page that could not in principle be supplied from another source." you are admitting that some of your edits are bad for wikipedia (blanking of valid content)? The suggestion that same material could be "in principle be supplied from another source" is only relivant if you are going out and tracking down such souces and adding those.©Geni 06:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of any negative comments in the last hour, other than the not-unexpected comment from the original SPA above, I'll now continue with the link removals, on the terms proposed above. Please let me know via a message on my talk page if you want me to stop again, and I'll do so before going back here to review this. -- The Anome (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

What? Did you read any of the above conversation? and what the hell is this about - "In this case, these links will remain in the article history, and my edits, like any others, can be reverted -- nothing of value will be lost." That is not a valid excuse for making bad edits unless you are a complete noob. Do not remove the source when it is being used to source non controversial text unless you also replace it with a superior source. Buttercrumbs (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't want to be a considered a "noob", whatever that is. You certainly know a lot about how Misplaced Pages works after just 19 edits over 9 days. Can you tell me how User:Vrsti, a SPA created in a very similar timescale, and you got chatting about this in the first place? I find this edit particularly interesting: you seem awfully familiar with previous discussions of Wisegeek on Misplaced Pages. -- The Anome (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no relationship with Buttercrumbs whatsoever. I am not familiar with the functioning of Misplaced Pages and posted in a few places to find out the appropriate place to post what seems to be a legitmate issue. (I think the debate that has occurred in this discussion is indicative of the issue's legitimacy.) As you can see, Buttercrumbs along with other Wikipedians replied to my initial post(s) in other places on Misplaced Pages. I must say that the repeated interrogation and implications that I am acting in bad faith is a testament to the shady characters that you all must run into here - not your fault of course but I would have hoped that raising issues in the community's interest would be welcomed (as some have expressed). I would urge you to avoid the temptation to speculate about hidden motivations and ulterior motives - I can assure you there aren't any on my part. I have to admit, that this hasn't been a very welcoming experince for this particular noobie - I came here trying to present what I viewed to be a potentially important issue and mostly I have been bitten.Vrsti (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure your edits here were in good faith and meant well, and I was impressed by your being up-front about your affiliations with the site. As you say, it is sometimes difficult to assume good faith; we all try, but it can be difficult, given the circumstances. Please continue editing here! -- The Anome (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

However, it's a very good reason to make good edits, and removing citations to unreliable sources is a very good kind of edit. Nyttend (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the dedication and veracity of the Misplaced Pages community and the effort that you have placed into this issue. I am not sure if any of this will be helpful, but the site's founder (who I work for) has recently posted on some significant changes to the site that are currently underway.Vrsti (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the implication that there is an attempt here to create a false consensus through the use of sock- or meatpuppetry (either coordinated or accidental), and suggest that the actual consensus of actual Misplaced Pages community members is that these links should be removed. I support the removal of these links and urge that their deletion continue.

If Wisegeek changes their website in an significant way, this subject can be reopened in the future, but there's no reason to change our actions now on the basis of what they may or may not do in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh this just keeps getting better and better. First we have bad faith nominations, now we have sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry trying to establish "false consensus". I assume the new editors are supposed sockpuppets, but who is their master and how are they establishing false consensus? The only false consensus I see is some editors pushing a total ban of the site in this discussion. If somebody wants to start a proper discussion at one of the noticeboards or an RFC I would support restricting its use, but I refuse to be part of this lynch mob. Yoenit (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I respect whatever the community decides on this issue, but these accusations against me have no merit. I have no relationship whatsoever with anyone who posted in this thread. I have never posted on Misplaced Pages ever before with this or any other username. I do not have any associates that are addressing this issue under any other Misplaced Pages usernames. Quite frankly, I do not know a single editor that has anything to do with this at all. I have worn my COIs on my sleeve from the outset. I honestly wanted to raise a philosophical issue. There must be a way to determine whether these accusations are true, and if not, I urge people not to make such serious false accusations without more than a cynical hunch. Since I don't know about the intricacies of Misplaced Pages as you all seem to, one could argue that collusion is more likely plausable among long term contributors; since I have no proof of that, I have refrained from making any such claims.Vrsti (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sorry for not being more releaving, if you had read my talk page you would have seen me say that this account was for an experiment to see how new editors are treated, which I found to be very poor - editors talking to me in code, getting templated, messages left on others talk pages being deleted without response. Then I saw Vrsti's problem from a talk page and commented unknowningly logged into this good-intentioned second account, but I didn't switch back to my real account in fear of getting that account in trouble...still I stick with what I said above, while many links should be removed, some are not fine and the website should not be de facto blacklisted. And you can block this account, I'm done with it now, Buttercrumbs (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

If you were truly interested in how new editors are treated, you wouldn't be here at all. Truly new editors generally don't find their way to the noticeboards for weeks or months -- some never do at all. In fact, a new editor showing up here almost immediately is generally a good sign that something is going on -- so I stand by my analysis. The deletions should continue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I had a long response to this, but lost it due to an edit conflict. Instead I will just show you this link and leave it at that. Yoenit (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If you just go back a page in your broswer you get back what you meant to add and can copy and paste it to add it when you have an edit conflict, and if there is a indenting or chronologic problem you should add {{ec}} to make other aware of what happened. More friendly advice from me, just like the diff you posted above, . Buttercrumbs (talk) 08:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we stop making various accusations and get back to the issue at hand. Fact is that this site is a content farm that - if not visited from Misplaced Pages - has more ads than content. It pays its authors to create the content which gets them the page views which in turn brings in the money, so they have a very, very clear interest to be linked from highly visible sites like Misplaced Pages (even if they don't show any ads for Wikipedians). Regardless of good/bad faith, sockpuppetry and various other accusations, I don't see at all why we should ever use this site, and I have not yet seen any arguments from those supporting the site trying to convince me of the opposite. --Conti|✉ 07:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and the only reason I mentioned the other is because I believe people (aggressive commercial websites, sockpuppeteers, vandals, etc.), sometimes see our policy of WP:AGF as equivalent to being naive or weak, and thus easy prey for them, but AGF doesn't prevent us from being clear and frank when the evidence is staring at us in the face. We assume good faith to begin with, but only until the facts allow us to drop our initial assumption and act on the basis of the underlying reality that the facts reveal. 07:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I also support the removal of these links. Anome should continue with the policy consistent removal of unreliable and unsuitable links. There is no policy based reason for these links to be present or for Anome to stop. People are free to advocate the use of unsuitable sources that very obviously do not meet the requirements of WP:RS or WP:EL and question their removal at any noticeboard or article talk page they like for any reason they like but the work to build an encyclopedia based on the policies and guidelines of the project should just carry on. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I will not argue for using the site, just using caution in its removal. It seems User:The Anome is now at least removing the sourced information along with the link, so that is an improvement. His editsummary is still weak though, as wp:ELNO 5 does not apply to references. Yoenit (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Conti's suggestion above. This isn't a RS and there's no reason to include references or links to it. Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

We should have handled this better

We really should have handled this better, IMO.

@Vrsti, thank you for bringing this to our attention and thank you for disclosing your possible conflict of interest. Typically, it is best to speak directly with the user in question and then go to the community if things don't work out. Because you have recently registered, people may think you are a single purpose account and I'm sorry about that. It's more a case of once bitten twice shy and nothing against you. Unfortunately, this will probably mean that links to wisegeek will be removed from Misplaced Pages.

@The Anome, you have been a great Wikipedian, and excellent admin and an awesome bot programmer. I have a lot of respect for you and agree that the wisegeek links should probably be removed —but— from the discussion here, we should probably get community input before doing so. Would you please mind pausing while we get more input?

@everybody else, I would like to move this discussion to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Wisegeek as a reliable source. Everybody is encouraged to speak about the issue there. The more input the better. If everybody agrees, would somebody mind closing this discussion? Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 08:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Tangential point

Sources is actually a vague term. Vristi raised the good point of acknowledgement above. So while the validity of some Wisegeek articles to support certain claims might be in question, there is also the issue of acknowledgement. Marginal or non-RS can be used as sources to write an article, provided the material can also be sourced to an RS. We do this with direct copies of CC-by-SA or PD material such as Citizendium, Planet Math, Eastons, etc... Rich Farmbrough, 12:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC).

School Project

Just some advice about a school project - User:Pmedward has a large group of what are presumably students who up to now have been been making peer review comments on each others pages, they now appear to be making comment on articles in mainspace, mainly on the talk pages (Talk:Darts) but sometimes on the actual articles like Comp Air Jet. Not all the comments make it clear it is a school project and look like vandalism by adding peer reviews that dont allways appear to relate to the article. Should these comments be made on a project page rather than in the actual articles or talk pages, and secondly will they tidy up after themselves or should we just remove what appear to be be random comments, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, the best traction in solving these problems occurs when you contact the teacher directly on their talk page, and/or via the "email this user" function. Simply include diffs and account names of the good-faith but problematic edits, and ask the teacher to work with his/her individual students to work within the Misplaced Pages framework. Teachers can help correct these problems easier by providing individualized instruction to students who are having trouble working within Misplaced Pages. You can (and should) also refer the teacher to Misplaced Pages:Ambassadors/For instructors and Misplaced Pages:School and university projects for additional help in incorporating Misplaced Pages into their instruction. --Jayron32 16:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander closed

An arbitration case regarding Noleander (talk · contribs) has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Noleander (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from making any edit relating to Judaism, the Jewish people, Jewish history or culture, or individual Jewish persons identified as such, broadly but reasonably construed, in any namespace.

   Any disputes concerning the scope of the topic-ban may be raised on the Arbitration Enforcement page for prompt resolution. Unnecessary "wikilawyering" about the precise scope of the topic-ban is unwelcome and may be cause for further sanctions.

   This topic-ban shall be effective indefinitely, but Noleander may request that it be terminated or modified after at least one year has elapsed. In considering any such request, the Committee will give significant weight to whether Noleander has established an ability to edit collaboratively and in accordance with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines in other topic-areas of the project. Any perceptibly biased or prejudiced editing concerning any other group would weigh against lifting of the topic-ban and could also result in further sanctions.

2. The attention of editors and administrators is drawn to the "Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended)" clause of Race and intelligence that was recently adopted, as its terms are applicable to other disputes similar to those arising in this current case. For ease of reference, the amended remedy states:

   Both experienced and new editors contributing to articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed) are reminded that this is a highly contentious subject and are cautioned that to avoid disruption they must adhere strictly to fundamental Misplaced Pages policies, including but not limited to: maintaining a neutral point of view; avoiding undue weight; carefully citing disputed statements to reliable sources; and avoiding edit-warring and incivility.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio 16:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Zombie433 discussion closed without formal archival

See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive687#Zombie433 - a community ban and a rangeblock were being discussed there. --Dylan620 19:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

So it shall be written so it shall be done. Ciao. --Jayron32 19:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Primary and Secondary Sources

If a 21st century historian writes about an event taken place in 19th century, is his book considered a primary source or a secondary? Thank you.Kazemita1 (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The WP definition of "primary" is not all that logical. Basically, if a person is writing about an event happening now, which he is directly involved in, it is primary. Once there is some degree of separation, then it becomes "secondary". And sources which meld together secondary sources are "tertiary". I think that covers it -- so the new writer's account of old stuff is a "secodary source" on Misplaced Pages. Collect (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:PSTS for the official version. Note that some sources do not fall neatly into one category or the other. In Kazemita1's example, the book could be secondary or tertiary.   Will Beback  talk  22:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Further questions or discussion on this topic would best be held at WP:Reliable sources noticeboard.   Will Beback  talk  22:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's how to think of it. Lets say that I am writing a book about John Q. Public. I go to the birth records where he was born and find his birth certificate to fix his birthdate. The birth certificate is a primary source for his birthdate. My book, which reports his birthdate, is now a secondary source. If someone uses my book to find his birthdate, and not the birth certificate itself, and then publishes another account of John's life based on reporting in my book, that makes HER book a tertiary source. Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source and strives to base its research on reliable secondary sources for most things. --Jayron32 00:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Aziz efendi-muhammad alayhi s-salam.jpg

File:Aziz efendi-muhammad alayhi s-salam.jpg got deleted on Commons. Is there an available version to bring back to en? It's being used in the infobox at Muhammad. Corvus cornix_talk 00:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I've placed a note at Commons:COM:AN asking for help from anyone who's an admin there and here. If you're reading this because you're that admin, could you also please check File:Mahabharata-big.jpg? I'd like to know if it's a duplicate of File:Lord Ram.jpg. When you've checked, would you please leave me a talkback? Nyttend (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the file so this can be easily worked on, but the copyright is wrong (life+100 years for someone who died in 1934? No). See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aziz efendi-muhammad alayhi s-salam.jpg for discussion of the file. If someone can sort out a legitimate license, please edit accordingly. If not, please delete this file and find a more appropriate one for the infobox. - Jmabel | Talk 01:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Nyttend: on your unrelated question: the two are entirely different images. - Jmabel | Talk 01:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! I've notified Corvus cornix of your response. Nyttend (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, everybody. Corvus cornix_talk 02:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Multidimensional family therapy

Multidimensional family therapy got split off from Cannabis dependence, CorenBot is listing it as a copyright violation from another website. The copyvio tag is being removed. Any ideas? Corvus cornix_talk 05:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If the text at Multidimensional family therapy is seen as a copyright violation then the original text at Cannabis dependence should have been so tagged already. It was not and so I conclude that it is not my problem. It is not my task to verify every bit of text on WP that I come across. -- Hpvpp (talk) 05:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"Not my problem" - pretty selfish attitude, there, Hpvpp. You are responsible for every edit you make, and if it turns out that you moved copyvio text from one article to another, while you may not be culpable for the origination of the copyright violation, it's certainly your moral obligation to help clean up the mess you helped to make. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted the article as a clear copyright violation (from scholarly publications from 2003, so not an error based on a wiki-mirror or some such). I'll try to check the other articles this text is included in. And I totally agree with the comments by Beyond My Ken. Fram (talk) 07:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the text (as well as the text in a few other paragraphs in Cannabis dependence) came from (checked through Google Scholar, clear copyvio). User:Arcadian seems to have split it from yet another article, where it was first introduced by User:Bessmorris in March 2010. Fram (talk) 07:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The article Smoking cessation (cannabis), created by Bessmorris, appears to be a straight lift from this scholarly paper. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Bessmorris hasn't edited in almost a year, but I've nevertheless notified them that their editing is being discussed here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. So we can best check the articles Cannabis in Australia, Legality of cannabis, Effects of cannabis, Cannabis (drug), Long-term effects of cannabis, Smoking cessation (cannabis) and Cannabis dependence for any further or remaining copyright violations as well... Fram (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I very much disagree with your actions and I have raised a complaint at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Multidimensional_family_therapy. -- Hpvpp (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You are right to say it's "not your problem" in one sense. You did nothing procedurally wrong by creating the article. However removing the copyvio tag is procedurally wrong, it obstructs those who have made copyvios their problem. Moreover it contributes knowingly to perpetuating a copyvio. Rich Farmbrough, 12:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC).

I agree. Creating the article is one thing, but removing the copyvio tag is wrong as that should be left to those who work on copyvio issues. The complaint is also based on a lack of understanding (or disagreement) of our policy on copyvio and is going to fail if it isn't withdrawn earlier. Hpvpp, please don't do this again. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed community ban: Jacurek

Jacurek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a long history of disruption and sanctions involving nationalist edit-warring and sockpuppeting related to Eastern European conflicts. He's racked up eight long-term blocks, totalling more than 14 months of block time in the course of a three-year editing career. He was additionally topic-banned for 6 months in the WP:EEML case, placed on a no-interactions ban with another user for several months last year through a WP:DIGWUREN enforcement measure, and most recently got another Arbitration-enforcement topic ban this March, this time an indefinite one. He was now again caught ban-evading through an IP (24.85.232.175 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) to continue the same nationally-driven revert wars; see current Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Jacurek. The socking was met with another one-month block by User:Sandstein.

I propose it's time for a full, indefinite community ban. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Note that to these and the recently admitted socks add this and related socks, probably, a CU will reveal even more. Support ban per my comments on the recent SPI. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose ban, support unblocking. I am not surprised that Future Perfect is trying to get Jacurek banned. A year ago he blocked him for three months for... a single personal attack. I'd really suggest to FP, again, that he should take a break from monitoring Jacurek's activities, as his judgment here seems to be clouded. That said, Jacurek has a history of socking, but his explanation about a cousin should be considered per AGF. I find it plausible then if one was to explain some wiki battleground to a family member, that member may take disruptive actions. At that point I support blocks on the IP, but I see no reason for any block of Jacurek at this point, unless his recent IP underlying Jacurek identity matches the IPs (which checkuser so far as NOT confirmed) or Jacurek himself breaks the topic ban (which has not occurred). Also, I find it surprising that Jacurek was blocked for what somebody else (his cousin) did. Are we in the business of family's group punishment? What I see here is a user admiting in good faith that IPs sharing the same city (but nothing closer, as far as I read the SPI) might have been incidentally influenced by him in real life. Such admission should be commended, not punished. Unless checkuser can show that it was Jacurek himself who did those edits (in which case some sanctions would be justified), what we should be discussing is not a community ban, but why Sandstein was trigger happy and instituted family group punishment instead :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh, he says it's his cousin! We must immediately unblock on the basis of Jacureks enormous credibility and flawless track record!--Atlan (talk) 08:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• For a similar situation awhile back see and . In that case also a family member made similar edits to another Misplaced Pages user. After it was explained, the brother was told not to do stuff like that or register a separate account and the matter was left at that. It was the right decision there and this case is similar.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The only similarity is that they both claim a family member did it. Herkusmonte did not have a prior history of abusive sock puppetry.--Atlan (talk) 08:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support the one month block, previous history of socking, feeble explanation. The user appears to be on a one step out of line and an indefinite site ban will follow. It would appear that as he is indefinitely topic banned on east European issues that he will stop editing here anyways...so there is a lengthy history of arbitration sanctions and previous sockpuppetry, I support an indefinite community ban.Off2riorob (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • If the indef topic ban is effectively the same as an indef ban, then I see no reason to issue another fiat. If on the other hand, said user might want to edit a Pokemon article I see no benefit to stopping them. Hence oppose based on Rob's arguments. Rich Farmbrough, 13:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC).
    
• Support community ban. Repeated socking is unacceptable, and combined with POV pushing it's highly disruptive.   Will Beback  talk  10:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support community ban. This looks like a fine example of Misplaced Pages:My little brother did it. Very unfortunate that Jacurek's cousin shows exactly the same interests as Jacurek, and came to en.wikipedia and acted similarly. The last thing we need is more nationalist strife... bobrayner (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Not only on the basis of opposing draconian punishments in general, but do to the clear personal conflicts involved which included somewhat poor accusations on SPI. If and only if a CU is done, and results in problems, then and only then should a block be done on that basis. This is a poor place to insist on a ban on what any editor thinks a CU will show. Collect (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, but what do you expect a CU could show that we don't already know? Jacurek already admitted it was his IP, otherwise there would have been no reason to come up with the little-brother-did-it story. The only thing a CU might yet be useful for is detection of any more sleeper socks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Per comment above "probably, a CU will reveal even more" and comments on the SPI pages similar thereto. I now have over two decades of experience in dealing with disruptive "multiple persona" users. In my experience, the "permanent ban" system is one of the least effective systems yet devised. Collect (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support community ban Eight long-term blocks after a history of edit-warring and socking is already sufficient reason to get him out of here for good. Agree with Bobrayner's stand on mybrotherdidit. --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support community ban - Long history of blocks for disruption, including abusive sockpuppets and violating sanctions. A net negative to Misplaced Pages. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually the real reason why Burpelson AFB is voting to ban somebody (indef!) is because I had the nerve to question his/her premature templating of Jacurek. So he's voting to ban one person, because another person disagreed with them and you know, that puts him/her in a real foul mood. Ok. That is NOT the stupidest, most petty, and pathetic reason for voting to indefinitely block somebody on Misplaced Pages, but it sure is up there. What's next? "My teacher gave me a D, so I'm going to vote to block you"? Seriously folks, what kind of community is this?Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Regarding FP playing the EEML card, I would remind FP that in my case my "conviction" and year-long (!) ban was for circumstantial evidence that I responded to canvassing (when I had categorically NOT READ the emails in question) and that a personal comment acknowledging many editors watch the same article was taken as bad faith canvassing on my part. Invoking EEML here confirms this just another witch hunt by someone with a long history of self-involvement carrying a personal grudge against the editor in question, and editors I have never seen before jumping in with opinions to perma-ban who have no base of experience with the editor in question. I can't respect a request like this when it comes from someone who is not objective in this matter. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Al-Masudi

Al-Masudi (born c. 896, died September 956), wrote a history book named The Meadows of Gold. In his book, he talks about the events from centuries before he was born until his own time. My question: Is The Meadows of Gold considered a primary source for the events that took place before Al-Masudi's birth?Kazemita1 (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I would think the Reliable Sources Noticeboard might be a better place to raise this as I'm not clear if the book features et stories told to him in childhood, or if he is a history professor, or what. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Closing a move request

Could someone please take a look at Talk:Kraft Dinner#Requested move 2011 and close it if deemed appropriate to do so? It's been open for more than a week. --RSLxii 14:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)