Misplaced Pages

User:Orlady/List: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User:Orlady Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:18, 16 July 2011 editOrlady (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators94,578 edits edited links to clarify where they are supposed to point← Previous edit Revision as of 15:21, 16 July 2011 edit undoDoncram (talk | contribs)203,830 edits replayNext edit →
Line 10: Line 10:


:Several users have treated this list as a "to do" list of problem articles needing to be fixed. Please do not delete the annotations that have been made here after the problems were fixed. --] (]) 03:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC) :Several users have treated this list as a "to do" list of problem articles needing to be fixed. Please do not delete the annotations that have been made here after the problems were fixed. --] (]) 03:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

::I disagree with Orlady's characterization of consensus in those previous discussions.

::I think i added my comments accidentally to a previous version of this page which had the effect of deleting some others' comments. Sorry about that; thanks for adding those other comments back. I'll continue commenting on some others. --]]] 15:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


==Original set (started April 27, 2011)== ==Original set (started April 27, 2011)==

Revision as of 15:21, 16 July 2011

This list in Orlady's userspace is a list of articles edited by me, doncram, which she has identified in order to criticize them. Elkman, Station1, Ntsimp, Polaron, and Orlady have seen fit to revise some of these articles and mark some of them "done" here. I disagree in general with some of the criticism of these articles which has been expressed elsewhere, but I also agree that most of these articles, like most articles in Misplaced Pages, can indeed be improved. Some of the apparent focus has been upon removing statements that I believed to be accurate, but which were deliberately ambiguous, where more precise statements of fact were not possible to write. I definitely agree that replacing an ambiguous statement with a sourced statement of fact is an improvement. IMO, simply removing a sourced ambiguous statement is not necessarily an improvement. IMO, changing an ambiguous statement to a more confident but possibly false statement is not a help. If no one objects strenuously, i will give some specific comments about the articles as created or edited by me, and about subsequent changes to them. Hopefully this will help improve understanding of what my intentions were and will help improve the articles. --doncram 20:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

So nice to see you back at Misplaced Pages, Doncram.
This list was started during a WP:AN discussion in April 2011 and expanded during a later WP:AN discussion. The articles listed here are examples of issues addressed in those discussions. The closing administrator's summary of the conclusions of that second discussion states, in part:
  • There is a consensus that Doncram's creation of the stubs at issue, and similar stubs, is disruptive (#Consensus). These creations have been characterized as error-prone, vague, and generally impart little usable information.
  • There is a consensus that Doncram's excessive use of verbatim quotes, which routinely constitutes a significant portion of the stubs at issue, is unacceptable, especially as it implicates WP:NFC (#Another question regarding consensus on article quality).
  • Although the question is slightly closer, due to the relative fewer number of participants, there is a consensus for Orlady's proposed resolution (#Where do we go from here? (Proposed resolution)), which I will quote below:

Users encountering Doncram-created content that is defined in this discussion as unacceptable may delete that content from the article or move it to the talk page for discussion. If simple excision of the problematic content cannot be done in a fashion that results in a coherent article or stub, then the entire article may be moved to the user's space. Content should not be restored to article space until the issues are resolved. Content removal consistent with this directive will not be considered to be edit warring.

Several users have treated this list as a "to do" list of problem articles needing to be fixed. Please do not delete the annotations that have been made here after the problems were fixed. --Orlady (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with Orlady's characterization of consensus in those previous discussions.
I think i added my comments accidentally to a previous version of this page which had the effect of deleting some others' comments. Sorry about that; thanks for adding those other comments back. I'll continue commenting on some others. --doncram 15:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Original set (started April 27, 2011)

Additional entries

New set (includes some duplicates)

Based on a search for "has other significance," 7 June 2011:

Another new set

These are based on a search for "designed and/or" on June 13, 2011. I tried to avoid duplications and I did not include some articles that appeared otherwise to be in reasonably good shape.

Excessive use of quotations