Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:08, 24 October 2014

If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page - it will be on my watchlist for at least a few days, so I will see your response If you leave me a message: I will answer on this talk page - please watchlist it so you'll know that I've answered. This will ensure that conversations remain together! Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Teutonic Takeover of Danzig

I just saw you closed the WP:DRN case because nobody replied to my request. Contrary to your claim, the dispute is not resolved, I just waited for some neutral input instead of editwarring with someone who refuses to discuss. Unfortunately the whole procedure seems to be a complete waste of time. HerkusMonte (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:DISCFAIL

Hi, I took the liberty of adding a shortcut to your essay WP:DISCFAIL.

Have you considered moving the essay into the "Misplaced Pages:" space? It is an incredible useful guide and i think more people should see it. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile, sorry about the slow reply; I've been traveling and am just now back in the saddle. Thanks for the shortcut. As for moving it into the WP–space, I have no objection per se but I've always been too worried that it's too opinionated, too niche, and too jokey. It would require some reworking to keep it from being expressed as my personal opinion, as it is now. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi TM, hope your travels went well.

I'd be happy to help with the copyediting as needed, and we could perhaps open an RfC to get more input if you think helpful. I am interested in getting this out to a wider audience because (1) I think it fills a very important hole in the guidance available for editors working in difficult editing environments, and (2) it serves as a helpful structure for admins who have disparate views on what is acceptable outside of WP:DR.

Oncenawhile (talk) 07:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me have a few days to get caught up and address a few other issues and then I'll take a crack at it. If I get stuck, I'll holler for help or let you know when it's done, in any event. Thanks for the friendly shove. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 12:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Notification of Mediation Rejection (Income Inequality)

I have been notified that my request for mediation has been denied. Is it your opinion that I should continue to make edits to the article on a piecemeal basis ... or is another message being implied (i.e. I shouldn't bother)? Is it your opinion that the article is not biased, and should therefore not subject to criticism or edit? Or is the decision strictly that a separate criticism section is not warranted? Just seeking clarification of meaning and intention of the decision. One other thing, if my observation that the vast majority of editors are 'like-minded' is correct ... and someone proposes to make edits that posits an opposing viewpoint and the edits are removed and/or challenged ... how would a request for mediation ever meet Prerequisite #5? All the other editors would need to do is not agree to mediation. Doesn't this conundrum make it virtually impossible for someone to make critical edits in good faith? In practice, its a firewall that protects the world-view of the majority. With that in mind, has Misplaced Pages undertaken research to determine the composition of its editors? Are its members evenly represented or philosophically and politically skewed? One would think that if Wiki were serious about being 'neutral' that they would want to know this. Thanks.Tolinjr (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The closure is not intended to imply anything about the merits of the dispute or about the merits of the position of any particular party to the dispute. Participation in moderated content dispute resolution is always voluntary and, indeed, more applications for DR fail due to refusal or failure to participate than succeed. (Which is, by the way, also true in real world dispute resolution.) However, to require participation or to have some kind of mandatory content arbitration flies in the face of the wiki model on which Misplaced Pages is based. As for the demographics of Misplaced Pages editors, there have been any number of studies, but so long as Misplaced Pages is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" then the demographics are simply what they are at any given time. What that may imply, I do not say, but if you'll take a look at the article on Reliability of Misplaced Pages you'll find that we generally produce a product which is at least very close to the reliability of other encyclopedias, if not equal or better. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. A couple of quick thoughts in closing ... I noted that in a previous discussion on your 'talk' page, that the term edit-warring was used. Having been thorough this process, and having interacted with several other editors, I must say that it is an excellent word, indeed. The Wiki system that you describe is one that places moderates (such as myself) ... and certainly conservatives ... in a very difficult position. As I am sure you are aware, the demographics of current editors is not a reflection of the public at large. A brief review of editor's user pages and their selection of userboxes reveals this almost immediately. As matter of fact, as I was building my own user page, I found dozens of pro-socialist, green party, anti-Bush, 99 per center, Occupy Wall Street, pro-Marx and Saul Alinsky, and almost a hundred various pro-Obama userboxes available ... yet I could not find a single one ... not one ... that was labeled 'business-owner' or 'entrepreneur' ... and there was only one that mentioned 'free-enterprise' at all. This is clearly a reflection of the demographic of editors. In fact, it would be easy for Misplaced Pages to tabulate which userboxes are being used, and how often ... and the results would be quite clarifying. For the record, among the most frequent Criticisms of Misplaced Pages are systemic bias, partisanship, 'hive mind' consensus, and exposure to political operatives. I would submit to you that an article like "Income Inequality in the United States" would be particularly subject to all of these. In fact, I can tell you, based on their discussions, their editing histories, and their own user profiles, that at least two of the editors who conflicted with me are political activists. And one happens to be a senior editor who has the ability to erase or 'lock-out' other editors from the system. Not good. Take a look at Misplaced Pages:Systemic Bias ... the article admits that editors are self-selecting ... Wikipedians are people that have enough free time to participate in the project. The points of view of editors focused on other activities, such as earning a living, are underrepresented ... and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Politics also discusses the fact that political bias exists and that one solution is ... Rather than only encouraging existing users, attempt to recruit new users to the project who can help counter these biases. TransporterMan ... I am one of those new users ... and I attempted to counter those biases ... and I have been effectively shut out of the system. Misplaced Pages seems to 'talk the talk' ... but it doesn't 'walk the walk'.

Irene Caesar

As someone previously involved with the page, I'm hoping you can weigh in at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Irene Caesar. Thanks. --— Rhododendrites \\ 21:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

1896 Cavaradossi

Dear TransporterMan, Thanks for your comment on the Fernando de Lucia talk page. I am the guilty party it seems and I have left an explanation and am about to remove the offending statement from the article. Please do query any other blunders of mine you may find and a word on my own talk page will usually get a reply! Thanks again, Eebahgum (talk) 09:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the update and the correction. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hands off of Drama

I hate drama. But I like to make sure the Wiki has the most accurate articles. I'm not nearly well versed enough in Peter Sellers to be able to create a RfC or Mediation. Can you suggest/create one for me?--RandomLittleHelpertalk 18:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Since you've not been involved in the discussion you really shouldn't file for mediation or other moderated dispute resolution for the parties, but you can offer on the talk page to serve as a neutral party to help them formulate a RFC statement. The instructions on how to file the RFC are here and they're pretty straight-forward. What you would help with is step #3. Because of my duties at DRN (where I'm the coordinator for the next two months) and at MEDCOM (where I'm the Chairperson for the next five months), I'd prefer not to get involved with that. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I would like my Atomic Hydrogen Power article put back up on Misplaced Pages, HACNY

Hi,

This Misplaced Pages person VQuakr (talk) removed by Atomic Hydrogen Power article without giving a reason that would be enough for the article to be removed.

My Atomic Hydrogen Power article consists of more than eight pages with quotes from science and trade magazine from scientists such as Nobel Prize winner in the 1930s, Dr. Langmuir, whose work on atomic hydrogen helped General Electric develop the atomic hydrogen welder in 1926 for international sales in the General Electric catalog. My article covers that and a lot more, and the atomic welder section is not a duplicate of what is on Misplaced Pages as the section I have handles its development by GE scientists. At the end of my article I have external links to GE films made of the atomic hydrogen welders in the 1940s that are on YouTube. My article has several sections including Dr. Langmuir's work with Dr. Wood on tungsten and thorium, as well as a brief medical section and more. Atomic hydrogen Welders were equipped with heavy suits and photographic film to measure radiation levels. My article also mentions a new particle regarding atomic hydrogen power later discovered in 1976.

One Misplaced Pages person, VQuakr (talk), had my article of Atomic Hydrogen Power removed, and that person seems to be quibbling about vocabulary of atomic hydrogen, as he feels it is not accurate. This "atomic hydrogen" term is what scientist Nobel Prize winning scientist Dr. Langmuir and other scientist named it, and the formulas they used to discuss it, and it is how it is printed in journals and trade magazines.

There is not much on Misplaced Pages about the development by early scientists of clean energy technology, or about General Electric prior to 1935. I would like my Atomic Hydrogen Power article put back up. Who do I contact to have my Atomic Hydrogen Power put back up? HACNY (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The processes for contesting a deletion are set out at Deletion review. If that does not succeed then there is no further appeal, as far as I know. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Seeking advice

Hello TransporterMan,

I have a content dispute with a user and we have discussed it in the talk page, in a RfC, then in a DRN, but all that failed to resolve the problem. Then, I requested a mediation but the other user didn't agree to participate and the case is rejected.

I read your WP:DISCFAIL and found it very interesting. But your assumption "editor simply won't respond, or won't engage in the back-and-forth discussion that DR requires" doesn't apply.

In the meantime I observed a pattern of misconduct by that user. Lies, proxying a tbanned user, fakes, and a refusal to consider all the reliable sources presented. Of course I think that I can deliver the diffs to prove my accusations.

Now, what is the next step?. RSN, RfC/U, ANI or WP:RFAR?. RSN deals with content and he has already refused the mediation. RfC/U needs 2 claimers and I am alone. ANI is not very different from a RfC: they try "to get fresh eyes on NPOV discussions". Is WP:RFAR really the only way?. --Keysanger (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Remember that RfC/U, ANI, and WP:RFAR are only for conduct disputes; they will not decide what is or what is not the proper content for an article, only whether or not someone is misbehaving. RFC/U is to get others to opine on that issue; the other two are for seeking actual sanctions: blocking, topic bans, interaction bans, or site bans. RFAR is unlikely to help you unless you can show that you have gone to ANI or some other disciplinary forum first. RSN is an advice forum for sourcing issues, not either a conduct or content dispute resolution source. You've exhausted your dispute resolution options for content matters, so your only options here are to either address conduct with the understanding that your content concerns will not be addressed, go back to the talk page, or just drop the stick. I express no opinion here, neither express nor implied, about the merits of your content or conduct concerns; I'm only speaking to procedure. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and best regards --Keysanger (talk) 09:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Decline Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Misleading Filename

Aren't Commons common? Is there at least another place (maybe in the commons) where this request could be moved to or recreated at? --Aiwok (talk) 08:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid that while Misplaced Pages calls upon the resources of Wikimedia Commons, it's a separate entity with its own standards and procedures. You'll need to take up your dispute with whatever procedures that they may provide there, but I'm not familiar with what they have and don't have. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, thanks anyways.. I'll try to find out if there are Commons counterparts of the entities you just mentioned in the topic below. (requst for comment etc.) --Aiwok (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Advice about Dispute

I see you closed the dispute at Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Person_of_Interest_.28TV_series.29. I am not sure why. I did not bring up the other discussions and editors since there was no "dispute" with them. There were discussions and not reverting being done. The lack of discussion on the primary topic is the issue: reverting with no discussion at repeated attempts. I am new to "dispute resolution": Where is the appropriate place for this type of dispute? I would appreciate any advice for handling this.AbramTerger (talk) 12:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The single biggest problem was that the other editor had not responded within a reasonable period of time. Participation in dispute resolution is always voluntary and without the participation of all significant parties there is nothing we at DRN can do, since the only thing DRN can do is to try to help the parties come to an agreed consensus. Moreover, on the primary dispute the other editor had only made one comment on the talk page; that does not constitute extensive discussion as required by all forms of moderated content dispute resolution at Misplaced Pages, including DRN, Third Opinion, and formal mediation. You might consider a Request for comments. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 12:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for rhe comments and the advice. I will try the Request for comments. Take care.AbramTerger (talk) 01:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

re: Christian terrorism

RfC is removed from list - but if Bryon Morrigan declines the mediation, then it will likely resume. I trust he will not refuse the mediation process though. Collect (talk) 14:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)