Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:35, 30 June 2012

Archive 1,2,3,4

IRWolfie- (talk) is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Possible content fork

Archetypal astrology seems to me to be a content fork of Cosmos and Psyche. It was also created by Goethean. What do you think? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep, again the sourcing in this article is very peculiar. For example, it looks like it's making large claims about therapists practicing astrology but sourcing it to "The Encyclopedia of Modern Witchcraft and Neo-Paganism". I notice a complete absense of sources outside of the in-universe sourcing (I wonder if it is even notable?). The article is a complete violation of WP:FRINGE and presents fringe views uncritically and without any regard for the mainstream positions. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

i've put it up for AfD. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Vassula Ryden". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkatakor (talk • contribs)

WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups

Hi IRWolfie

You may not have seen that we now have a sub-page of RSN where massive overuse of poor or dubious sources can be flagged up and dealt with. We have been looking at Answers in Genesis, and are now making some progess. I was thinking that you might like to look at the science articles where it was used; those are now all cleaned up, but there are still quite a lot of articles that relate to the argument over young earth creationism and "intelligent design". If you want to cast your eye over them you may have suggestions on what is needed. You may also want to comment on the processes that we are trying to develop. Best wishes. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm interested and will try and get up to speed with this. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

GreenUniverse clean up

I think you may be going a bit overboard. Where's the copyvio in this?. Dougweller (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say there was, but the text is from a banned sockpuppet with copyright concerns Misplaced Pages:Contributor_copyright_investigations/GreenUniverse. I can't verify the content myself as I don't have access. If you have verified it isn't a copyright violation feel free to restore the text. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Deletionism

You asked that I not use the term "deletionist" as a label. Why not? It has a long history of usage. -Stevertigo (t | c) 17:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The article you link to says it all: "rather the term is often applied as a slur". IRWolfie- (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Right. Its more of a "label" than a "slur." -Stevertigo (t | c) 18:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No, these were yours : it should be discredited or othewise shot down whenever it is expressed. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Youre pulling the quote out of context: The "it" its referring to is: "This philosophy is extremely anti-wiki and it should be discredited or othewise shot down whenever it is expressed..."

Note that Bloodofox routinely refers to the AFD as a "steaming pile." Hence the label. If you were fair, you would correct his terminology as well. -Stevertigo (t | c) 18:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The article is pure SYNTH and OR without any reliable sources on the topic. I don't think referring to an article as a steaming pile is contentious and is not directed at users. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

So, you don't pretend to be impartial, even though you closed the vote section as if you were an impartial admin. -Stevertigo (t | c) 18:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, I was WP:BOLD and closed it because speculating on vote counts (purely on the basis of counting) is clearly pulling the AfD off the issue (and the title discussion). IRWolfie- (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Partisan is a very bizarre choice of words for a revert, it suggests a battlefield mentality. Please justify why you reverted the collapse considering that it has no bearing on the AfD. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Why do people only say something is "pulling the AFD off the issue" when things aren't going their way? The word partisan is meant to describe anyone who is not neutral on an issue, in this case it applies to you as you are clearly a delete voted, and to me as well as I am clearly a merge voter. Your characterization of the vote as " no bearing" is beyond wrong: Despite your claim that votes mean nothing, we take votes all the time, in case you hadn't noticed - and we take votes to get a firm gauge of where people are at on an issue, and to base consensus. -Stevertigo (t | c) 21:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is precisely going along the lines that I voted. Since You posted your tally a further six votes have been made for delete, including Jimbo Wales himself commenting that he would vote strong delete. Still I think vote counting is irrelevant. We base the consensus off the strength of the arguments, not on the strength of the numbers, looking at the numbers and declaring no consensus is meaningless. The clearest example is with copyright violation, 1 AfD delete vote pointing out copyright violation trumps any number of keep arguments. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Biology and politics

I've unwatched the article. I can't work with Academica Orientalis. I hope you'll be able to use some of the sources I've pointed out to introduce some neutrality in to his POV jungle. Academica used to have an editing restriction due to tendentious editing in the area of nature/nurture, race, intelligence and politics, but I guess he doesn't anymore. Same behavior though. He started out as an SPA in the race and intelligence area, but branched into general nature nurture and chinese technology after the arbcom case. He is very good at finding sources that support his biologically deterministic viewpoint, but somehow he is always surprised when you point out that there is a large body of literature that disagrees, and he will challenge you to find it as if he doesn't believe it exists, and he will never include it himself even if you point him towards it. This means that any article he has ever worked on (except perhaps his China/Techonology articles which I haven't cared to check) are entirely one-sided pieces of propaganda. Good luck.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't throw in the towel yet. There appear to be a number of other editors trying to improve the article. I will check out any relevant arb com dealings as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The article is a mess, I've put it up for AfD. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

• Op-ed: A call for editorial input in developing new Creative Commons licensing

• News and notes: "Mystical" Picture of the Year; run-up to Wikimania DC; RfA reform 2012

• In the news: Wales enters extradition battle; Misplaced Pages's political bias

• Recent research: Edit war patterns, deleters vs. the 1%, never used cleanup tags, authorship inequality, higher quality from central users, and mapping the wikimediasphere

• WikiProject report: Summer Sports Series: WikiProject Athletics

• Featured content: A good week for the Williams

• Arbitration report: Three open cases

• Technology report: Second Visual Editor prototype launches

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Better Referencing

You might want to take a look at what I did to the Moberg / Greer Research in the scientific study of religion citation. Note how I added a direct link to Google Books to make it easy to check the citation. Also note how I trimmed down the Google Books URL to just the "id=" and the "pg="; Google adds a lot of unneeded stuff to Google books URLs. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Your AE complaint

It is likely that WP:AE#GDallimore will be closed with no action. The sanctions under WP:ARBPS are still available and they could be used, if evidence shows that some editors need them. The admins who reviewed the two recent AEs have not been persuaded by the copyright arguments. If you see a repeated effort by people to insert links to pseudoscience material in articles where they don't appear germane, that might be the valid subject of an AE. Proper evidence would have to be lined up, so that the case is clear. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought that the copyvio issue was severe enough for enforcement (i.e give an official warning), considering the different opinions at AE it appears I was mistaken about how clear cut it is. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Concern over one of your article edits - the Zarkja ref to Carlson

This is a discussion on the Astrology talk page concerning an edit you made see http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Astrology#Appraising_the_content_of_the_.E2.80.98Modern_scientific_appraisal.E2.80.99_section I've suggested three ways that the concern can be easily resolved. Since you added the disputed content to the page, I wanted to make sure you are aware of the discussion and are able to contribute to the discussion. -- Zac Δ 12:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to that earlier point. With regard to your latest comment on expanding, I want to reassure you personally that I am pleased to hear it. It would benefit the article a great deal to have a good, accurate and impressive account of what the modern scientific appraisal is. If I seem critical of details in the current content it's because I want to help establish content that no one can contest, because its strength is in its accurate reporting of notable points from good quality references. That seems to me the only way to put an end to the edit-warring and controversies that have been going on for years. And until that happens the rest of the article suffers. Other sections, such as the history sections, don't get attention they should. I see a number of problems in the current content of the 'science' section but don't want to throw them all up at once. I'll slow down a little, since if you are working on developing the content you might be fixing some of the problems any way. -- Zac Δ 21:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)