Misplaced Pages

Left a note on his talk page - again. He has been warned a number of times about page blanking. I'm afraid next time it happens, a note will have to be left on WP:AN - I would prefer to have dealt with it nicely, but it just happens time and again. :S ViridaeTalk 13:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in. I was leaving a message for him and had an edit conflict with you. I didn't realize he had done it before so I let your message stand alone because you were firmer with him. Maybe you could answer a question for me on a related topic: I noticed a user who continually blanks his Talkpage, which has the effect of hiding the various warnings he's been issued multiple times. Is there either policy or guideline relating to that? --Doc Tropics 13:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes removing warnings from talk pages is considered vandalism. If they keep doing it, I would suggest reporting it to an admin. Viridae 13:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've seen your sig on AfD discussions (where we seem to hold similar views) and at the village pump. Maybe you've noticed comments from Captain Kook (not his real name). He was told several times on his Talkpage by Killer Chihuahua not to blank the warnings, but he blanked KC's comments as well. While his antics are entertaining he seems to be disrupting a segment of the community. <sigh> Can't we all just write a dictionary people? --Doc Tropics 14:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I utterly agree with the "write a dictionary" sentiments. I would suggest reporting Captain Kook on the Administrators noticeboard or to Killer Chihuahua himself. (now I think about it, the latter might be the best option). Viridae 14:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops! I meant encyclopedia of course; sometimes I type faster than I think. BTW - I paged through some of your contribs real quick and I really admire the work you've been doing here. Have a great day :) --Doc Tropics 14:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Viridae 14:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW - No need to bring Captain Kook to anyone's attention anymore. He recently called himself to the attention of our legal counsel Brad Patrick with an...interesting...message titled "Hi Brad". I find myself harboring some sadly non-wiki sentiments probably best not elaborated on here :) --Doc Tropics

What on earth? Seriously, what the hell is that about! Sounds like he has lost it. I now know who you are talking about by the way - I had never seen him user the signature Captain Kook, but I have seen IMHO around. Viridae 08:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he started in the Half-life article and he's been posting to almost every column in The Village Pump recently. I have to admit that tagging him as Captain Kook was my idea of a joke, but probably poor wikiquette. I try to be a good boy but sometimes...it's just hard. I've made a point of never, ever engaging him or responding to his comments because I don't think I could do it without turning into a troll. Sometimes when I need a break from more serious editing I follow his recent contribs just for a chuckle :) --Doc Tropics 08:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Image link

you're welcome. It took me a while to work out that you need to put a colon in front of image/category/foreignlanguage links in order not to "activate" them, but rather make them linkable. Misplaced Pages is a learning experience. Agathoclea 14:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You earned this :)

No one has tagged your quote yet, but we'll give it a little more time. The cookie looks good on your Userpage :) --Doc Tropics 06:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Credibility Crisis

Hi again. There is an essay about WP's credibility issues being written here. I wanted to invite you to review it if you have the time and interest. If you'd care to leave any comments on the Talkpage I'd be very interested in your opinions. --Doc Tropics 17:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping into the discussion. Your point was well made and needs some serious thought; I think it really goes to the heart of the issues we're trying to address. --Doc Tropics 00:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandal

He seems to have stopped.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete templates

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Cfr-speedy ...}} with {{subst:Cfr-speedy ...}}.

Berkeley of the West

An editor has expressed concern that Berkeley of the West may not be neutral. Please do not remove the template without addressing those concerns.Viridae 23:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The editor didn't give any reason why, other than suggesting that NPOV was somehow obvious. It's not obvious to me. Looking at the subjects of his previous edits, the only thing obvious to me is that he is Mormon, and my guess is that he was offended by the inclusion of the term. I suppose he will call it NPOV until if and whenever the article gets deleted. Understood it is a term Mormons may not like to hear, but that doesn't make it NPOV any more than the article on hell isn't NPOV for not talking about heaven. Perhaps you can assist me in understanding how this article is not NPOV. Reswobslc 23:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe sentances like The term's underlying suggestion is that if the folks at BYU who claim academic freedom is not an issue can't even properly reference the location of their own school on a map, that they must be too sheltered to be in a sufficiently well-informed position to make that sort of claim. are overly critical of the students. I also think the use of presumably in this sentence is designed to be derogatory: while students at BYU presumably find the level of freedom acceptable enough to attend the university.. See WP:AWW. Viridae 23:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no WP:CRIT saying being critical is not allowed, otherwise we wouldn't have pages like Microsloth to criticize Microsoft, or a nigger page, or the terms described on this page and this page and this page and this page. All of these reference terms that are undoubtedly critical of the groups they refer to. When someone makes a big public mistake (and publishing a prominent obvious error in a newspaper is a textbook example), they're going to merit legitimate criticism, whether they're a BYU student, a Microsoft employee, a Presidential advisor, or whoever they might be. Just because a page about criticism (or a critical term) contains criticism, doesn't make it NPOV! If you look at BYU's entry, you'll see that academic freedom at BYU is an ongoing sore spot there, all the way up to the level of the AAUP, and not some little jab one guy took at the University writing a biased Misplaced Pages article to laugh at the mistakes of three of its students. Further, I am not sure I agree that the second statement you mention (the while students at BYU presumably find the level of freedom acceptable enough to attend the university.) is intended as an attempt at WP:AWW, rather it is simply a logical one, like presumably your chair is not on fire because you're still sitting in it., but a word means something different to everyone and acknowledge that many will agree with you on that point and not me and that's reason enough to be concerned about it. Reswobslc 00:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

My view on that second sentance was that it was a fairly disparraging way of putting it. I am considering editing it to say something along the lines of "However the university has many students enrolled, indicating that the freedom given is acceptable for those that attend.". I believe that imparts more neutrality than the current sentence. Viridae 01:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The changes you made have removed my misgivings over the neutrality of the article. The NPOV template has been removed. Thanks for being a worthwhile editor to work with. Viridae 01:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks likewise Reswobslc 01:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi

It was probably a sock of one of the Persian or Turkish editors who always appear to be conflicting with him. In some of the Persian pages there is always talk of a Zionist conspiracy to turn WP into a Zionist propaganda machine. Khoikhoi's alerted me to the existence of off-site Persian forums where there seem to be quite a few people who are angry with him.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Caught me too fast

You removed the {{citation needed}} template from the article saying refer to the talk page but I cannot see where you mean. Can you point me in the right direction. Viridae 06:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You caught me too fast on the Male Pregnancy page - I was still typing my Discussion response. Check it out now. Queerwiki 06:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that.Viridae 06:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thnaks for the welcome !

Thanks for the welcome Viridae ! I've been adding things to the sea star article and was registered under my IP address. Perhaps I will try to create new articles relating to the Echinoderms, as it is noticeably lacking if compared with other invertebrate-related articles, especially insects.

Best Regards, Pentapod 06:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Sonny Perdue

The primary issue with the Sonny Perdue page is the amount of editorializing that has been found.

The first piece that tipped things off was the mention of local control involving schools, in paragraph 4 (I believe). Specifically of note was the statement that Perdue was not getting in the way of the legislature involving extra paperwork for homosexual clubs. I wouldn't have thought it serious, but the language that was used seemed to be very editorial in nature.

The second issue that I was going to bring up was the issue of cleanup involving the article. It seems to look more messy. Being as I have had issues trying to clean up such pages, I would have figured to put up a "clean up banner" would have helped.

Anyhow, since everything has been resolved, I have no need to worry about it. Thank you for taking the time to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.194.94 (talk • contribs)

Verifiable

Your comments in AfD are incorrect. How you personally interpret policy is your choice. I prefer to read the words and follow the policy as written. You wrote: "And it is your job as someone listing an article for deletion, to actually do a bit of background research to make sure that it warrants deletion under one of the wikipedia policies. ViridaeTalk 11:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)" It is not my job. That is the job of the author. And if an author does not provide any sources of information then it makes that quite impossible and by definition original research. I haven't any personal prejuidice against any topic or content whatsoever. All articles must be compliant, however. You perhaps are a contributor. I on the other hand mainly do cleanup of the WP:BACKLOG. I see no reason for you to be upset at me at all. If an article can stand on its own, then what does it matter to you? Thanks. Ste4k 16:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. AfD does not need to be filled with articles that do not have a hope in hell of being deleted. You do not list it for deletion just because it does not cite sources - just because it currently doesn't cite sources (very common with an article that size) doesn't mean it can't. Unfortunately the vast majority of articles on wikipedia do not cite any or sufficient sources - that doesn't mean that need need to be deleted they just need work. I understand that WP:V says "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." but a cursory glance at AfD will show you that for a deletion to pass, the article must be unverifiable not unverified - this is why I stated that the onus was on you, the person nominating for deletion, to do a quick search to see if you could turn up any significant results, saving everyone elses time. If you do, I was not stating that you should fill in the gaps and provide the references for the material, but that you should tag the article as needing sources and leave it for another editor to fill in the gaps. Contributing to the massive amount of AfDs a day by nominating superfluous deletions will not endear you to any of the editors who reguarly vote on AfDs.

As I mentioned, any article that lists only itself as a primary reference and hasn't any secondary references is useless. Per the idea that I would know what would or would not pass AfD, I find that pretty hypocritical. After all, if it were possible to be known in advance what will or will not be deleted, then we would have a pretty good set of policies and criteria to follow, wouldn't we? Basically you are suggesting that the current set of policies is insufficient. A cursory glance is not what I apply when I read the documentation which states that there are differences between primary and secondary sources and it should be obvious why those rules are included WP:RS.

On the subject of WP:OR. To quote the policy in a nutshell Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.. At no point was any of that article original research. Original reasearch is not unverified but verifiable claims. Lastly I am not upset at you, I was just pointing out that you were listing articles for deletion without doing some quick research to determine wether they warranted deletion or not. Viridae 23:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I do quite a bit of research, probably more than you might think. And you should also keep in mind that we should be looking at the encyclopedia articles from the OUTSIDE rather than the inside. My son, for example, will use citations from this very site for his homework. Is the encyclopedia just a facade?

P.S. I call your attention to the {{unreferenced}} template. It is for articles like that that we have that templaate and others like it. In future, if you find something lacking sources could please tag it with that or similar rather than taking it to AfD. Viridae 23:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have only been here, going on three weeks now, and my experience in such matters is first the template is assigned, and later the person that "owns" the article gets upset because of aesthetic reasons, or simply doesn't understand the purpose, that follows with an edit war, or simply realizing it was a waste of time to even heed the call to look at the article in the first place. I don't believe that you have been uncivil in any way, but I have made quite a study of the documentation for various reasons. I am also not saying "I am right", but on the matters of policy, you are incorrect to say that one person's interpretation of those is any better or worse than anothers. I can tell you this, for certain, I do trust the policies, and stick to them like glue, and I have seen a very large diversity in opinions about them and how they are used. Nothing wrong with that. Ste4k 23:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I was unaware you were a new editor. For the most part sticking to the policies is the right way to go (Unless you consistently stick to the break all rules policy (which i currently can't find a shortcut to) - which will annoy most people). However as you get more experience with AfD you will notice that and article that is verifiable but not verified (and not about a ridiculous subject) will pass the AfD. Thus taking articles that fit those parameters just chokes up AfD and leaves you with editors that are irritated that it was listed for deletion in the first place. I hope you enjoy editing, any questions don't hesitate to ask. Viridae 23:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No harm done, all forgiven, and no matter anyhow. :) The policies you were hoping to refer to are WP:BB and WP:IAR. :) I appreciate you noting on my talk page that you replied. But again, I think I need to refer you to something, and maybe that will allow you to understand where I am coming from better. Please see my very first AfD nomination. It just closed a couple days ago. Link. At that time, I was under the impression that the nominator needed to convince each person in the debate that had a contrary notion. Think about that for a little bit, okay? Thanks! Ste4k 00:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at with that link? Maybe that its not up to the nominator to convince everyone - they will generally convince themselves either way? The way it ussually happens is that the nominator provides suitible reasons for deletion and everyone else determines the articles merits on the information given and any information they can glean from some quick research. Thats why I said it is pointless nominating verifiable articles - wether or not they are verified. I may have got you wrong though...? Viridae 00:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

By performing that research that you suggest, rather than reading the article stand alone as if it were the first article you've read, we are performing original research if we make assumptions on the data collected which it never actually says. Consider that if the page itself were to say "she is extremely popular, and she gets 200000 hits on Google." Then we could use Google as a basis for criteria. You see? Google does not say anything about popularity, nor notability, etc. I recently had a "bout" with a "owner" of a group of pages. By actually reading the citations on the page, I could see that the person or persons who owned the page were basically lying. This was even to the extent that they had a trademarked brand name that they insist on using as an acronym. It also included reversing the actual logical meaning of various facts, i.e. Instead of Jack gave Jill a flower, they had written Jill gave Jack a flower. Assuming good faith I asked questions, was ignored, harrassed, and even during the AfD's votes were even changed by these people, my words were changed in my nomination as well. It's still around and being cleaned up. In the interim of all of that, I have been accused of being in one or another faction, having bad faith, etc., and everyone would rather turn their heads (except a few) and not want to see matters like this resolved (yes they are tedious and boring, too). I believe the term is "smoke and mirrors", and this was what was keeping Next Door Nikki around. But no matter how you slice it, if the article doesn't even mention Google, Google cannot be used as a reputible secondary source on the behalf of the article for it's author. Does that make sense to you? Ste4k 00:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)