Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:44, 18 May 2012

Jangaljalebe

I'm not for one moment disputing the matter, but, purely out of curiosity, why did you redirect this to Pithecellobium dulce? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. According to article Pithecellobium dulce (par. 2), jungle jalebi is the Hindi name for the plant that produces the fruit that u:Chinchan2000 appeared to be referring to with the "jangaljalebe" name (note the absence of that exact term in a Google search, and his mention of "fruit"). Naturally, then, it would probably fall under the usual purposes of redirects as a likely misspelling. NTox · talk 07:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted!.. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello

It is trivia facts, so the only "documentation" is the commercials (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxgiTeXKOOc). Maybe it should be stated more clearly that the facts are "information given about the most interesting man in the world in the campaign"? WeXio (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Yes, it may be possible to make a case for its inclusion if it is made clear that it comes from the advertising campaign. I would, however, be inclined to leave it out unless any particular nugget has attracted the attention of other sources. This seems like one of those cases where the stuff is interesting, but trifling. I'll let you respond how you wish; however, if you choose to include it, I'd recommend providing substantive sources and making a case for its longevity on the article's talk page. NTox · talk 23:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

New Page Patrolling

Thank you for your excellent work on vandal fighting and patrolling new pages - two essential tasks. Please note however that the most important advice and tutorial pages and/or essays have been written by experienced editors; unless you are correcting vandalism there is no need to modify the text unnecessarily as you did with your recent edit(s) to WP:NPP. Keep up the good work, and if anything is not clear, don't hesitate to ask. -Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your comments. Had to go back in time for that one; it was awhile ago. I suppose I quite respectfully disagree with you, although not vociferously so. In my mind, the avoidance of 'weasal words' (a term I use outside of Misplaced Pages) is generally good writing practice. My intention was not to specifically invoke the guidance of WP:MOS, but to signify the equivocation of the statement. The comment, "Research has shown that writers unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages guidelines should have 10 to 15 minutes ..." (my emphasis) struck me as odd; I am not sure how 'research' can reveal how something 'should' be; rather, is it trying to say that the retention of new editors increases when we give them 10-15 minutes time with new articles? I am not sure. My impression is that it hinges on sketchy reasoning; i.e., that the statement is attempting to make more forceful a directive to wait with SD tagging by (injudiciously) citing 'research' to substantiate a subjective claim. I suppose, in the spirit of critical reading, I would be more comfortable if there was information provided about this research, mainspace or not. Plus, it would probably offer great insights for new page patrollers. NTox · talk 04:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, far from sketchy, it is indeed based on research - a lot of it - much of which I led myself until the 2-year work of our Misplaced Pages NPP research team was taken over at great cost (and some time wasting) by the Wikimedia Foundation themselves under false offers of help. At least it inspired their equally slow and probably 'show' process of development of the New Page Triage system. Once one understands that around 80% of all newly created pages each day are nonsense and get correctly deleted, those that have the possible makings of an article should be given a few extra minutes to see what the creator is really up to. There is probably far more to NPP that you might still be aware. You can help, and there will be a lot of reading to do, but I warn you, untill NPP becomes the domain of experienced editors, getting people to patrol pages properly is like herding cats. It's like RfA - every newbie here wants to be a 'moderator' and start their Wiki career by managing the project. You may find this short essay I wrote interesting. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. While I do not doubt your credentials, and I cannot proclaim to be a cognoscente of modern thinking about WP:NPP, I have merely noticed what appears to be a borderline-indefensible assertion. Don't get me wrong; I absolutely agree that new page patrollers should be waiting a minimum of 10-15 minutes before posting speedy deletion tags (save the egregious cases), but I think it is dubious to suggest that 'research' (a term that usually signifies systematic investigation of facts) can directly support a normative statement like this one. Even if we unpack the statement more loosely—to say that research 'informs' the directive—I am not finding a lot of evidence to support this. I have now reviewed the relevant research pages; I was unable to find information about the 10-15 minute particular on the old New Page WikiProject; moreover, the talk page discussions at Meta-Wiki reveal only one comment —an opinion—which does not appear to be any new insight rooted in the conclusions of the Foundation's research. I understand that there have been discussions about trigger-happy patrolling, and that a 10-15 minute respite is supported by a consensus, but it is the effort to justify it with 'research' that gives me pause. While there may be no policy that strictly requires us to provide any more information than that, I believe it to be a thoughtful service to editors. Best, NTox · talk 08:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I retired from academia 6 years ago, so I'll put this in plain language: we were so disgusted with the way the Foundation handled things at the time, and continues to do so ,under the guise of a new project they claim to be their own, that I and the original team have not only lost interest in that project, but much of our enthusiasm for Misplaced Pages as a whole. You're welcome to pick up the threads, but please try to be objective and less critical of those volunteers who did structured, detailed, in-depth analytical research of NPP only to have it stolen from them by salaried rank amateurs at the WMF. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Understood. I can only sympathize. You have an admirable sensibility here; sincerely, I have no doubts that your work was, and continues to be, appreciated. Thank you for taking this time to talk. NTox · talk 09:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't make a joke

You made a mistake. You said I will be blocked if I make another improperly placed joke, but I didn't make any jokes.--71.72.151.150 (talk) 09:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)