Misplaced Pages

User talk:JzG/Archive 24: 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 talk:JzG Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:44, 18 December 2006 editAction potential (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers9,090 edits →Reporting thanks: I'd appreciate it if you could expand on what you meant by promotional.← Previous edit Revision as of 14:59, 18 December 2006 edit undoJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,086 edits →Reporting thanks: WP:COINext edit →
Line 362: Line 362:


:I'd appreciate it if you could expand on what you meant by promotional or if you have any proof from any significant peer reviewed literature to say that "NLP is a cult". I agree that the article could be more descriptive. At the same time the mentors said that the article needed to be more accessible. So there is a trade off here. It can be description with formal tones or simpler and easily understood. That includes fairly representing the views of critics, as well as the counter-claims in a way that does not imply that one is more correct than the other. Even if you think NLP is pseudoscience, it still must be presented as plausible. Upon checking the facts and references we found that many were misrepresented. We are still in the process of summarising the reception of NLP, including the research to date on NLP from various fields. Unfortunately the article prior to our revisions exaggerate (even misrepresented) the position of some of the more extreme skeptics while downplaying the more reasonable definitions from authors more supportive of NLP. It is not an easy topic to describe because there are so many different views on the topic. I'll attempt to make my contributions more objective and critical. Thanks for your feedback. We probably request another peer-review soon so we can get feedback on how to get closer to feature article (or WP 1.0) candidate. --] 14:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC) :I'd appreciate it if you could expand on what you meant by promotional or if you have any proof from any significant peer reviewed literature to say that "NLP is a cult". I agree that the article could be more descriptive. At the same time the mentors said that the article needed to be more accessible. So there is a trade off here. It can be description with formal tones or simpler and easily understood. That includes fairly representing the views of critics, as well as the counter-claims in a way that does not imply that one is more correct than the other. Even if you think NLP is pseudoscience, it still must be presented as plausible. Upon checking the facts and references we found that many were misrepresented. We are still in the process of summarising the reception of NLP, including the research to date on NLP from various fields. Unfortunately the article prior to our revisions exaggerate (even misrepresented) the position of some of the more extreme skeptics while downplaying the more reasonable definitions from authors more supportive of NLP. It is not an easy topic to describe because there are so many different views on the topic. I'll attempt to make my contributions more objective and critical. Thanks for your feedback. We probably request another peer-review soon so we can get feedback on how to get closer to feature article (or WP 1.0) candidate. --] 14:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

:: I'd appreciate it if you would stop editing these articles despite your known ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:59, 18 December 2006

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:JzG/Archive-Jan-2025. Some may be manually archived earlier than that, if no further action is required or productive debate is at an end.


Archive
Archives

archiving policy
privacy policy

Guy Chapman? He's just zis Guy, you know? More about me

Thank you to everybody for messages of support, and to JoshuaZ for stepping up to the plate. I have written about what happened at User:JzG/Laura.

Read This First

If you need urgent admin help please go to the incident noticeboard. To stop a vandal, try the vandal intervention page. For general help why not try the help desk? If you need me personally and it's urgent you may email me, I read all messages even if I do not reply. If next time I log on is soon enough, click this link to start a new conversation.

This page may contain trolling. Some of it might even be from me, but never assume trolling where a misplaced sense of humour might explain things. This user posts using a British sense of humour.

Note to self: User talk:Brazucs, Esperanza admin coaching.


On Original Research.

This is in response to your comment at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Apprentice (software), where you claimed that the article was "original research." Since I wrote a fair amount of the article, I figured that was worthy of a response. I believe that either this claim is mistaken or else you are using a far broader umbrella for the term "original research" than I do.

There's a difference between original research and, for lack of a better term, "uncommon knowledge." The vast majority of content on Misplaced Pages is loosely referenced at best, and that's okay, for now. For many non-contentious topics, it's more important for the content to be laid out rather than for all the forms to be in order, and for some topics, references are hard to come by. Just because someone did not have the book on the spread of Buddhism into China that they read in college handy doesn't mean that their addition on the subject is "original research;" it's just uncited, that's all. And being unreferenced is considerably less of a problem than OR; OR is generally inappropriate no matter what, while unreferenced can be fixed with a cite request. While telling the difference can be tricky if the contributor does not reveal the source, I think that the Assume Good Faith guideline means that you should not accuse someone of OR unless it's fairly clear (for instance, "sales of the Widget2000 are listed as 30,000 units" with an edited addition of "but store clerks in some areas have reported that they're actually selling far faster than that." Or look at the talk page of Fraulein, where someone keeps on quoting personal anecdotes as evidence rather than cites.)

The Apprentice article may have been loosely cited, like most articles, but it was not OR. It couldn't have been, since as noted in the deletion debate, I myself did not play it, never logged onto a league or IRC chatroom dedicated to it, and was not part of its "scene" during its heyday. Everything I know about it was picked up by osmosis and reading secondary sources (as the primary had long since gone under) about its importance within the MtG community. The "research" I did was no different than going into a library to look up magazine articles and books for cites, something Misplaced Pages theoretically approves of. I made the article at all on something I don't play mostly as a labor of trying to do something good for Misplaced Pages, as a new user was adding extraneous details to the main M:TG article. See Talk:Magic:_The_Gathering#Apprentice_and_Magic_Workstation and later posts if you're curious; I tried to show the proper way to go about it and made the article.

Anyway. If you still feel this is somehow Original Research, then I'd be interested to hear why. SnowFire 23:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's not original research then it should be trivially easy to cite the multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject from which it is drawn. Do that and you have fixed the problem. Other articles are completely irrelevant, I'm sure that a significant porportion of WP articles should be nuked or reworked, but we take them one at a time. Guy (Help!) 00:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
No, that's cause for an unreferenced tag (if references are not easy to come by), or a deletion based on a verifiability or notability argument (if the references are not reliable or are trivial- the rationale given by the others in favor of deletion in the thread, I'll add). That is quite separate from original research. I'm not saying that uncited facts are optimal, but there's a difference between facts that can be reliably cited but aren't yet, and unpublished material that can't be reliably cited. If something is truly a "novel narrative or historical interpretation," there won't be any possible cites for it (for instance, how telepathy is proved by my own amazing ability to read minds, or information gathered from claimed personal interviews, classic examples of OR. It's obvious that kind of stuff is unpublished.).
As for it being "trivially easy" to cite non-OR... clearly we are spoiled by Google. I don't know how to respond to this aside from saying it is false. Just from personal experience, I'm not at college anymore, but while I was, I read some fairly obscure books at the library- academic journals that are not available free online, books from 1900 and earlier, and so on. It would not be "trivially easy" to go back and cite them properly, but they are valid sources, and I would hope that a hypothetical article on a notable subject based on them would not be deleted simply due to the "proof" that it was not OR not coming within an arbitrary 5-day time limit. (Incidentally, in this case, citing it was certainly possible, though annoying due to the generic name and the mists of time eating some websites. I have actually gone back and added more cites thanks to Google, but even if I hadn't, I'd say that the article should have been kept and sent to cleanup instead.)
As for "other articles," I did not invoke a standard "but look at this article that barely skated past AfD!" comparison, you'll note. I only said that the vast majority of Misplaced Pages is unreferenced and that that is okay. I'm going to assume you're not in favor of deleting 95% of Misplaced Pages? AfD is not cleanup. Unreferenced articles are often better than no articles, and can be improved over time, including adding cites. SnowFire 03:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
That's your view, mine is that if it is not referenced before the end of the AfD then it should go, per policy. So should other unreferenced articles. That is policy. You are free to fix the problem and thus save the article. Guy (Help!) 07:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Then just say that and cite WP:V. I am taking exception to the added rationale of original research, as unreferenced is not equivalent to OR.
I wasn't here to change your opinion- you'll note that I didn't spam the talk pages of other delete voters- but rather to address what I see as a factual inaccuracy, as the page was not original research even in its earlier, uncited form. SnowFire 15:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
That which is not verifiable from reliable sources, is original research (i.e. novel synthesis form primary sources). But none of that is especially relevant; if you can cite good quality critical reviews from reliable secondary sources which support the content, then there is no problem. Incidentally, the sources you have go some way towards this, but in my view we could do with linking specific parts of the text to the sources, and hopefully finding sources outside the MTG community as well, to avoid appearances of a walled garden. Guy (Help!) 16:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree that when notability is in question, more sources from the "outside" is a good indicator of notability, although in my opinion not a required one. However, my hopes are not high for finding non-MTG community articles on Apprentice, just as I wouldn't expect there to be much written (worth citing, at least) on the King's Indian Defence outside of the chess community. (Edit: Never mind. This apparently sent the wrong message. Note: If you have a higher standard for inclusion than the de facto WP standard and wouldn't mind deleting both, that's perfectly understandable since WP effectively has very liberal inclusion policies, as I'm sure you know. I happen to think that subtopics of notable topics are probably notable if the topic is large and relevant enough.) Some of the other posters said they saw it in a magazine, and I found websites of, say, Harry Potter CCG players who'd made data sets for Apprentice with the HP card game, but the magazine cites will probably only come with time, not before the AfD finishes, and the general CCG references aren't really that far afield.

As for the OR deal, I think we may be going in circles, so I'll try and leave it at this. We may actually already agree, it's just that I feel that the distinction between unreferenced(tag), unverifiable (delete by WP:V), and original research is significant and misclassifying even unverifiable information (Which will be deleted anyway) isn't good and will create bad blood. I noticed that in a recent DfR you voted in (Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review#Starfleet_alternate_ranks_and_insignia), a user made the comment "having sources is not magical pixie dust that stops original research being original research," because even if the sources are reliable, the way they're used may be a novel synthesis. On the flip side, if a vandal removed all the references from a featured article and somehow blew away the database history, the article wouldn't suddenly be OR, even lacking references. SnowFire 04:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • The above assumes that MTG is on a par with chess (which it isn't) and that published works from mainstream publishers, available for chess, are on a par with the MTG fansites and forums used as sources for the MTG article (which is also false). Things which will "come with time" equate to crystal balling. Guy (Help!) 07:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Just so you know, I have an angry post written up all nicely dismantling what you just said, but I think I'll hold off on it. I'll just say this: you grossly misinterpreted what I was saying in that parenthetical note (That, or you were intentionally trolling), but that note was a sideline to my main thread anyway, so I'd prefer to attempt to kill it now rather than get into a flamewar over whether I phrased my point correctly. My meaning was nothing like what you were rebutting- of course chess is more important than MTG and that chess has many, many more sources; that's obvious, so I left it off. My actual point was on the occasional impossibility of avoiding the "walled garden" problem with sources; this was not intended to be a holistic comparison.
To get back onto point. As for things that will "come with time," well, that's a pretty fundamental tenent to the way Misplaced Pages works. Most articles get better and have better sources over time; taking into account the long-term of Misplaced Pages is hardly irrelevant. I'll grant that the claim in the article was fairly weak ("A magazine somewhere") and not worthy of too much weight, though. You said previously that "linking specific parts of the text to the sources" would be good. I'm a little confused by this- do you mean inline citations? (They already are inline.) Or using the quote field on the cite-webs more? SnowFire 21:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Well now. You will be aware, I expect, of the assertions of "if you delete Bloggs Computers then you might as well delete IBM"? I do not like false analogies. Feel free to use a more accurate analogy. The sources added all appear to be self-editable. If that is not the case, what is their editorial policy? Guy (Help!) 23:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, except that is not what I was saying. If for some reason IBM was only covered only in the computing press, it would still be notable. Thus, the mere fact that Bloggs Computers is also only covered in the computing press is not, by itself, sufficient cause for deletion. Obviously this is false in the case of IBM, but it's true of lots of other topics even more notable than chess- I was originally going to use an obscure geology topic, actually. Heck, the sources guideline says to beware citing things like newspapers or the popular press for science topics even when they are mentioned there, and no one disputes their notability. The notability guideline in such cases, to my mind, is a balance- the more important the mother topic and the more crucial the daughter topic, the better the argument for notability, so major subtopics of minor articles might well be worth an article, as are minutiae to things like physics or football/soccer.
None of the sources given are self-editable, by the way. The quality of random articles at starcitygames (which got the most cites) can be somewhat erratic due to the fact that theoretically anyone can submit an article, although in reality the vast majority of articles are from established columnists. None of the cites I used are from random contributors, I believe; notably, one of the articles I cited twice actually came from the editor of the site. SnowFire 23:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh for heaven's sake. Look, we have enormous numbers of crufty articles on trivial software, OK? They come up every day. In alm ost every case, they are unsourced, or sourced only from the game's website. That is, they are almost certainly original research. So, to a good first approximation, an unsourced article about a piece of software with appeal only to a certain gaming community is likely OR. I'm glad you added sources to fix that, except that the sources don't, to my inexpert eye (I am no MTG player) appear to substantiate much of the content; but we'll assume good faith and allow that the content is now sourced. But I am not convinced of the quality of those sources. What I'm looking for, as always, is evidence that the software has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. If people would care to cite the magazine reviews they "seem to remember" that would help a lot. Guy (Help!) 23:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that more citing and notice would certainly be nice, but it won't be coming from me since I don't subscribe to the (generally worthless anyway) gaming press. And if you have a more aggressive deletion policy than mine, then more power to you.
Like I said long ago, I wasn't here to change your mind or even your vote on this article, and to the extent that this conversation covered that, it was sidetracked. The sole reason I popped up here was to find out if you thought that the article had been made with OR, or if your definition of OR was super-broad, since that would be a Misplaced Pages-wide type thing. I will tentatively hope that it was the first, and I will grant that looking back on the old article now, one section does stink of OR (the part I commented out, and that was also not written by me). SnowFire 00:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
All completely reasonable. I think this was simply a case of angry dolphins - or is it cross porpoises? Something like that. Extrapolation between the specific and the generic, anyway. I think we probably agree pretty much to the letter what actually constitutes OR, my main desire here is to use, wherever possible, canonical policy rather than guidelines in deletion debates. Guidelines are about enforcing policy, and failing a guideline is a good rule of thumb indicating that policy has been violated in some way (e.g. a non-notable subject will usually, by definition, fail verifiability and not a directory), where one can finger the specific policy it's good to do so. Not all uncited pop culture articles are OR. Only most of them :-) Guy (Help!) 16:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Question

Thank you for commenting at my RfC; I see you have endorsed Ghirla's statement 'from his perspective'. I do wonder what prevented you from endorsing my reply 'from my perspective'? I'd very much appreciate an explanation why his statement seems to you more reliable then my reply (how can I learn if I don't understand...). Thank you, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

First, I've only got partway down the thing. Second, Ghirla's perspective is important in that it defines what is likely to happen to poeple attempting to correct bias in articles "owned" by a particular group of editors. Since neither of you are children, you should have settled your differences long ago, I don't thin k you (either of you) are working towards that even now. Guy (Help!) 17:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
As far as settling bias goes, do note that there is reasonable bias and unreasonable. Close to 20 of my articles has been featured (thus deemed apparently neutral and unbiased by the community, and supported during FAC nominations by Russian editors too, including the controversial cases like Katyn massacre, Polish-Soviet War or History of Solidarity. There is a big difference between good collaboration between Polish, Russian and others editors, which resulted in FACing those articles, and unconstructive (to say the least) comments such as this or this, voiced by a small but very vocal minority of users who support fringe, often revisionist POVs (ex: ). The problem is that editors like myself create valuable content, and Ghirla insterts his very strong POV and calls us trolls, vandals, nationalists and so on when we attempt to build a consensus on some middle ground (which we eventually do, with the help of various modarate editors, as the FAs show); and when we much more midly criticize him he cries that he is offended (example) and that there is a (sic!) 'anti-Ghirla crusade' or Ghirlaphobia'; just look at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Piotrus where he again engages in ad hominem attacks, calling Lástocska a Russophobe, since she dared to criticize him... I'd dearly love to settle this conflict. I made many gestures of good will, such as refusing to support an ArbCom againt Ghirla few months ago and declaring that 'I have no beef with him' (this was noted by other editors). As for his reply - well, the RfC sais it all, I believe. If you have any idea how I can solve this conflict other then leaving Misplaced Pages, do let me know.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
This message is what the RFC is about. Piotrus, please look at your contributions and estimate how much of them are "requests for input", "Ghirlandajo said... so I search for your opinion", "I know that you have had conflicts with Ghirla, so please comments on his latest outburst...", "thanks for reporting on Ghirla's actions", etc, etc. I don't how others feel in such situations, but I regards such actions as objectionable and incivil. How many Russian editors did you ask to comment? I suspect that zero. Can you name a single instance when I acted this way? --Ghirla 17:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Well yes. Here we have two apparently excellent editors, both working on sections of the project which do not attract much activity (perhaps we need a Balkan Pokemon?) but who appear to be rehashing last century's disputes. Ghirla, you are not blameless (you know you are not) but Piotrus, you are acting like my kids! "Mum, Mum, look what Michael did!" You really do need to meet up in RL or a neutral forum or something and just learn to like each other, or at least to allow your mutual distrust not to dominate your interactions. Yeah, yeah, I'm a fine one to talk :-) Guy (Help!) 17:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow, you really have an inspiring effect on me. I fail to see how an experienced editor could so perfectly misunderstand the problem, but since two editors I respect (you and mikka) seem to share this view, I posted a loooong reply to your concerns (and some others) on talk. If this doesn't clarify the issue, I really don't know what can.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the problem is that you are personalising things too much. But I am still too busy to go back and finish reading the rest yet, I have two concerts to sing in tomorrow and I'm between pieces rehearsing. Guy (Help!) 21:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I have now read more, commented on some and sent you an email. Hopefully that will do for now. Guy (Help!) 16:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

ZOMG ROGUE ADMIN ABUSE!

You better not have been using feelings of an almost human nature. That will not do. Will 18:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

your note

Hi Jay - I'm not sure which text you're talking about of mine that needs work - you posted your note under the heading "Megan Marshck", but I haven't edited that page. So could you be more specific? Thank youTvoz 18:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh, first, sorry, I meant Guy not Jay. And second, you posted your note on my talk page under the Marshack heading where a separate article about her that I didn't edit was being discussed, so, yeah, I didn't know which text you meant. I'm editing lots of articles in addition to Rockefeller. I asked you politely to clarify, so thank you for clarifying. As for your advice, I followed bold-revert-talk - the problem is that the editor who made 6 reverts in a day to the text would not. The text in that section could indeed stand expansion, but I was trying to come up with the fourth point that you left out - consensus - by posting something that communicated what I think must be communicated, but was carefully worded and referenced so as to perhaps last more than five minutes on the page. So, if you have something to suggest about the specifics, I'm all ears. But I was not playing games with my question above to you, so you didn't need to respond as if I was. Tvoz 19:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: correction again, you did mention consensus. That's what I was trying to do, if you'll go back and read the history and the talk page. Tvoz 19:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • It's all one subject. I don't think she is notable, I think that there should be a redirect or even delete the article, but you need to go and engage on Talk, with the mediation on Nelson Rockefeller, not just edit-war. The way to deal with issues of supposed bias and POV is to talk about them, see what the broader consensus is, work on the text. Guy (Help!) 19:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Right. To be clear, I am talking about the Rockefeller page only. I haven't commented yet about whether I think Marshack should have her own page or not. And if you would look at the Rockefeller edit history and at the talk page you would see that many attempts were made to avoid edit warring, to change the text to accommodate, and to try to reach consensus. This was an out of control editor (read his talk page too, I might suggest) who apparently has a history of removing comments and references wholesale, with specious accusations, rather than trying to reach consensus. Read my comments on Rockefeller, please. The now-blocked editor was unwilling to be engaged. That is why I am glad about the offer of mediation. Tvoz 21:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that. The point is, there are legitimate questions about the edit. A mediator is there, they will help with that. I don't see any problem putting the facts in there, duly sourced and attributed, but I am not going to have time to think long and hard about the specifics, whereas the mediator will. Please do just accept all this at face value. The person who removed it will be dealt with separately, and I have no reason to believe this will impact on the situation. A second pair of eyes on the text will be good, so go with the flow, polish up the tone and work on making the encyclopaedia better, which is what you appear to be doing. This really is no big deal, I was just saying not to get too upset about the whole thing. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

MinervaSimpson

Although you've already blocked the account, I'm wondering if I should still file a checkuser on him (or if that's unnecessary if he's been blocked indef.} -WarthogDemon 19:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Maybe worth it if you feel the puppeteer is still active and causing trouble, but CheckUser is not for fishing so you'd need to identify the account. Guy (Help!) 19:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Understood. I'm 99.9% positive of who it is, so I'll file one. Thanks. -WarthogDemon 19:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Question. Should I put the Checkfile Case under code B or F? -WarthogDemon 19:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Depends on whether the main account is currently blocked. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
It is blocked for reasons of trolling. -WarthogDemon 19:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Code F. Guy (Help!) 20:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

J E ANderson nom on AfD

SOunds like a good idea. My only concern is that after Avidor's start, I made well over a dozen edits, making ME appear to be the 'other side' inthe 'debate' about PLRT or whatever alphabet soup it is. I'm NOT. I found it through AN/I, and jsut wanted to fix an article. anyways, i'm voting for delete anyways. ThuranX 19:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Note on AFD

You voted to delete on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Mischief Makers. I don't know the specifics of this page, but the nominator was indefinitely blocked; the account first edited yesterday and his only purpose was to nominate articles edited by WietsE for deletion. I speedy kept the other AFDs, but did not for this one because of delete "votes". I have no opinion, but because of the nominator, you may wish to look into this debate further. Ral315 (talk) 01:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Hey Guy, User:Davidbspalding has suggested that WP:TIND and WP:CHILL should be merged. I personally don't see the need, as while the essays are similar in message they were written in different tones and this would be lost in a merge. Linking between the two is probably enough. Would be great to hear your thoughts on this. Deizio talk 01:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Keller Williams Realty

Hey JzG, just wanted to bring something to your attention concerning the article Keller Williams Realty. I noticed you deleted it a couple of days ago as a CSD G11, and I just deleted a newer version of the article which was completely insane (the version you deleted at least looked like a reasonable article, although could have been G11 as well). The reason I ask is when checking links I ran across the following AfDs: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gary Keller Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Joe Williams (real estate) and at least some users seem to think that this is a worthy article and that maybe the old version might be legit. Anyway, just wanted to let you know, thanks! --- Deville (Talk) 03:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete of The Adventures of Fatman

The article was speedily deleted for being non-notable, but if I'd ahd the chance I'd have added the 8 non-trivial articles (reviews) of the game that can easily be found at: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=adventures%20of%20fatman%20review

Please can you reinstate the page and let us have a proper notability debate?

  • I don't see how a website HAVING forums precludes it from being reliable. It doesn't mean that the articles are written by forum people. If you can let me see the deleted Fatman page (stick it on my user page if you like) then I can come up with a better version to get reinstated, notability references and all. --Amaccormack 22:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • -forums excludes a large number of forum posts, giving (in general) a better result in terms of actual unique hits. In general, it leaves the main site in the results. You don't need the deleted version, it was really not worth the effort of restoring. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, in your example it didn't leave the main site, and my supposedly flawed search had good articles for the first 8 hits, which you apparently didn't even check. But anyway, after your refusal, I went and got the article from google's cache and improved it so that it has references and meets the WP:SOFTWARE notability requirements. You may wish to review it at The Adventures of Fatman. --Amaccormack 10:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Great, glad you approve. I'm not sure that DIY games necessarily qualifies as a reliable source in terms of proving notability, etc. but I believe anyone interested in the game would want to know that it did get awards from what was a good source of adventure game reviews (they did try an play nearly EVERY amateur adventure game as they came out) until the main editor (not the adventure editor, Jozef Purdes who now carries on on his own blog and on gamesetwatch) gave up on the site and let its domain lapse, apparently. So DIYgames is now defunct, but it was respected in its day. --Amaccormack 08:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem here is that the assertion of notability appears to rest primarily on the reputation of DIY Games, so it would be useful to know what that reputation is. Regardless of whether the subject is judged encyclopaedic or not, per WP:N, there is no possible doubt that this is a perfectly decent article and not a speedy candidate, so I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt :-) Guy (Help!) 11:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocking

Covertly stating that I will be blocked will not stop me from voicing my opinion about Morwen's baseless accusation that I threatened her and she is in fear of her life. It is a ridiculous accusation and it is also interesting that all the people who had issues with me on the Star Trek AfDs are now coming to Morwen's defense on this. I will not give in to bullying, you can be assured. -Husnock 14:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Oh do give up. You made a comment which Morwen found intimidating. You can either accept that or you can continue to escalate the dispute, but you can't deny that Morwen found it threatening, or that her basis for doing so was valid as assessed by multiplpe neutral third parties. Your behaviour is becoming disruptive. Guy (Help!) 14:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Input

In regards to the comment you made on this AfD Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/James_Kim_(timeline_of_death). Could you also stop by and give your opinion here Talk:James_Kim#Timeline.3F as we're having a consensus issue.--Crossmr 19:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The consensus issue wasn't about 3RR, it was about the inclusion of the timeline in the article. Since you'd commented on the AfD as to its encyclopedic value I thought perhaps you could comment on its value within the main article.--Crossmr 21:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I know, but I couldn't resist. Guy (Help!) 21:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind your comment on 3RR, but the Timeline is the bigger issue on the article at the moment. Since you'd expressed an opinion elsewhere on it, I was hoping you could help further the discussion there. We need to form a much clearer consensus on whether or not its appropriate to the article.--Crossmr 21:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Thoughts on resolving this? One of the editors just attempted to extend the timeline to over twice its existing size. It was not benefiting the article before that change.--Crossmr 06:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking with one of the editors who was for the timeline I went ahead last night and made an integration of the timeline with the narrative in a manner that allows for quickly see on what day things occurred. When you get a chance I would appreciate your input.--Crossmr 21:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

MfD alert

Once again, one of your pages is up for nomination at MfD. Not sure whether anyone is bothering to notify creators of such things so I'm letting you know. Newyorkbrad 19:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Docued

Hi, I noticed that you blocked User:Docued. (Perhaps you saw the note on WP:ANI?) I reviewed the user's contributions. The articles have lists of films that link to the documentary film company that employs the editor. I've prodded many of the articles, however, the degree of spamming causes me to ponder whether they meet speedy criteria for spamming. If not, do you think the external links to the company should be deleted? (A lot of work for prodded articles.) — ERcheck (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • It's more than likely that they do. One or two may be valid subjects, but we can probably wait for a neutral third party to create them. However, some good-faith contributors seem to believe that these may contribute to the coverage of something. Guy (Help!) 14:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Just a note of caution: Not all of the links to DER were added by Docued. I probably added one or two myself at some point. While DER certainly sells and distributes films, as a nonprofit consortium of academics and filmmakers, they also provide film clips, scholarly papers and proceedings of meetings that would be useful to a reader seeking further info on visual anthropology. I don't know how strongly to interpret the rules against commercial links in this case, but some of those DER links go directly to non-catalog pages (such as the tribute to Jean Rouch). The Ax Fight page cited a PDF of a paper written by anthropologists that was hosted on the DER site (and written specifically for them, I believe). But if I'm entirely off-base here, let me know.--Media anthro 14:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Robert Gardner: Gardner is definitely notable and very influential within anthropology. This article was in existence before Docued came along, so I didn't think to list it in response to your question. (two other articles to which Docued contributed, Jay Ruby and Jean Rouch, are also subjects notable in terms of filmmaking and publishing.))--Media anthro 16:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ali Sina

The page is still a source to have increase google hit on ali sina. Why not that page is deleted? Even deletion review comes out as delete now. It should not be redirected to anywhere but deleted. --- ALM 14:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixity of Species

Please go back, read the article that was deleted. Make a legitimate opinion on whether it should be deleted. Don't be ignorant on topics before you voice you opinions...that is the worst thing an admin can do.

You wrote:

Endorse deletion, new articles with "much better titles" are not a way of fixing consensus to delete. Guy (Help!) 18:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Your previous opinion:

Endorse valid process, and with only 84 Googles I see no pressing reason to spend too much time agonising further over this. If someone wants to make it a redirect to creationism or something then that should be uncontroversial. Guy (Help!) 09:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears to me that a "much better title" is exactly what is needed. If 84 ghits is not good enough then 14,700 ghits and 648 google books should be. Your reason for deletion is now completely negated. Please go back, read the article and come up with a legitimate reason why it should be delete other than "the other people say so" and if you can't find one...change you "endorsement". Pbarnes 19:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

DMWD

I'd been working from a copy from the local library. I'll have to check it back out again (could do with writing up a page on the Harvey Projector, for one!) and maybe have a hunt around for Nevil Shute's biography, which might have details on one or two of the projects. A category sounds like a good idea, though I'm not sure how populated it'd get – there seems to be something of a dearth of information about most of the projects outside of Pawle's book. GeeJo ⁄(c) • 19:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

We seem to have quite a few of them, with Goodeve, Shute, Hedgehog, Squid, Panjandrum, Hajile and the like plus elements of Mulberry. A navbox would probably be better, though. I have Slide Rule and Pawle in boxes somewhere. I also have biographies of Barnes Wallis and Sidney Cotton, and a history of Handley Page I will work through when I get a round tuit :-) Guy (Help!) 19:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Pacific Western University

Hi! Though they have not been accredited in the past, I just looked them up and they have a listing on the California regulatory site. Please take a look at the talk page. The recent edit you made may be in error regarding "any accrediting body." Thanks! Jokestress 22:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

E-mail

Hi. You might want to check your e-mail. --A. B. 23:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You'll love this one.

Check out the first paragraph on User:Jonezy 10. -- Fan-1967 23:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

My post on another talk page

Hi. You may be able to help me with my request at post -- Jreferee 01:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

And mine please at Talk:Enviga#Suggest_we_delete_and_reorganise  :) Abtract 11:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Pacific Western University

I'm puzzled: you've reintroduced the assertion that the institution is unaccredited without citing sources, even though you cited something from the New York Times in your post to the mailing list? --bainer (talk) 11:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • We can cite the NYT piece if necessary, but I think it much more likely that PWU will call the office if there is any link made whatsoever to content critical of the place; it could be sourced to CHEA though. Guy (Help!) 11:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi JzG/Guy- I wrote an expansion of the Pacific Western University article that presently is on my computer. The information was based on reputable sources. The structure of my expanision is based on Wikiproject School. I reviewed all postings on the topic and believe my changes address all concerns. I would like to add my changes to the article. Please let me know how I can go about doing this. Thanks. -- Jreferee 14:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I worked up a new version, which is based on verifiable data. I expanded the article from 237 words to 2,486 words (1,427 characters to 20,408 characters). My revision includes many of the existing lines but adds a significant amount of new material based on Wikiproject School guidelines. Posting my revisions on the talk page will overwhelm the talk page. My suggestion is to post my revisions at Pacific Western University and let others revise it as they see fit. Please let me know whether we can proceed this way. Thanks. -- Jreferee 14:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you take a look?

Hello JzG,

The group you and another have tagged at http://en.wikipedia.org/AUFORN - Is in fact a private commercial company that sells magazines & books, see my post at http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Lucasbfr#Could_be_a_vandal_at_work.3F

It looks as if Admin User_talk:Lucasbfr is not avaliable at this time to help, as the same ISP posted up links to the company and its owners etc at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Australian_ufology&action=history

It look as if "Mantom555" is from the same company, all the inputs have the owners names all over them?

Thankyou & Best Regards TimMU 14:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you like to do the honors?

Remember WP:ANI#Admin_plays_detective...what_next.3F? Well I've received two barnstars and the Sherlock Holmes Deductive Reasoning Award, but no one has gone ahead and banned User:AWilliamson. I've only banned one of his socks - creatively named User:Durova. - because it was an impersonation account. Since I've been involved in disputes with him, it would be more appropriate if someone else actually banned the main account. You were among the first to respond to the thread: would you like to? The only dissenting voice has been EReference, which Akhilleus and I both suspect is a sock. Durova 22:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Guy--in addition to the accounts you've already blocked, you may wish to take a look at the list of suspected socks at User:Highest-Authority-on-Joan-of-Arc-Related-Scholarship/AWilliamson sock puppets. Also, as Durova just mentioned, EReference warrants scrutiny--the discussion that we had on his user talk page is particularly interesting. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the help. Durova 04:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


I want to bring up YTMND with you one last time

Sorry to do this, but I just want to straighten things out. I want to know exactly why we blacklisted YTMNDs. Frankly, Misplaced Pages is the only place in the entire world where the official position is anti-YTMND. If it's because of copyvios, why would news articles link to them? Also, this could have the wrong effect, and as you know, a sizeable number of Wikipedians think of all YTMNDers as vandals (which is most certainly not true). You yourself said the following on the spam blacklist:

  • (a) add YTMNDs to mainstream articles,
    • While this is true, in some cases such as the Picard and Finding Forrester articles, it should be okay. While in most cases it's wrong, we have to take into account the whole picture.
  • (b) create and link to YTMNDs which violate copyright
    • Frankly, this saying is a Misplaced Pages is supposed to hate YTMND because it violates copyright. I should probably mention that a lot of the sites are parodies and as such fall into Fair Use. Also, YTMNDers are much stricter than Wikipedians when it comes to source citation, believe it or not.
  • (c) abuse Misplaced Pages for viral marketing
    • Is there an example of this?
  • (d) create and link to attacks on Wikipedians.
    • I have not once seen a single site focused on a single Wikipedian. Most of the Wiki-related YTMNDs are vandalism sites which I am very admant about stopping.

Frankly, we don't want to be seen like this as a group. Look at some of my work on Misplaced Pages, and some work of some other YTMNDers on Misplaced Pages, and you'll see we're not all vandals. I really hate to bring this up with you, but I really appreciate you're taking time to think back on this. I have the same problems you do with many YTMNDers, but I just want to make sure you're not mad at the entire community. Sir Crazyswordsman 07:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

  • There are actually five reasons they were blacklisted.
  • They were repeatedly added to mainstream articles despite often having no actual relevance (whatever YTMNDers might think , the world in general does not care how many indifferent Flash animations are made about a subject). Sometimes this might rise above the level of profoundly irrelevant, but usually it did not. External links are there to support the content as additional sources, further reading and to link to sites which give more detail than would be appropriate in a Misplaced Pages article. YTMNDs almost without exception do none of the above.
  • They are generally rich media requiring an external player, per WP:EL links to avoid.
  • Offsite attacks, which are a zero-tolerance thing.
  • The viral marketing element (see "safety not guaranteed", scientology, numerous others).
  • A large number of them contain copyright violations - virtually all the soundtracks and most of the pictures are unfree with no stated copyright waiver from the originator (this is the clincher); this absolutely does not come under the "fair use parody" header, since it is not the soundtrack which is being parodied.
So, no element of malice, but three things which violate strong consensus on links (copyright, attacks and rich media) plus two things which are merely tedious (and an abuse of the project). The real question is, what YTMND links are proposed which would actually genuinely add to the project per WP:EL? Apart from the occasional "OMG LOL" junk I have seen nothing which would actually enhance an article. Even the scientology ones are unhelpful in that they have unclear copyright and no provable authority. Guy (Help!) 07:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No comment/query

I have nothing to say, except that I have had interactions with the author before (pleasant ones) and therefore do not wish to opine, but see what you think about Theo Clarke (the article, not the user). Geogre 13:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:California Bureau of Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education (BPPVE)

I was directed from WP:AN to you for assistance with an issue involving Pacific Western University. A user has apparently created a series of categories under Category:California Bureau of Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education (BPPVE) to give Pacific Western University the appearance of accreditation. The category tree has been nominated for deletion, and the debate surrounding the Pacific Western University article now continues at WP:CFD. Could you provide moderation or oversight over the debate (or at least comment on the category) at WP:CFD? Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 18:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

PWU figures

Did you just unilaterally erase the bios and article histories of key Pacific Western University personnel Ronald Detrick and Steven Warfield? I just spent the better part of a day writing those to support the PWU article. Jokestress 21:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. You wrote them to support the PWU article. We do have one or two articles on the people who run unaccredited schools, where they are independently notable, but these peopel were not and the articles contained no assertion of notability (WP:CSD criterion A7). If you look through my history you'll see that I take a very dim view of attempts to "Gastroturf" unaccredited schools. Guy (Help!) 21:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Then please send the text you unilaterally deleted without discussion, as I did it all in Misplaced Pages directly (which I won't do again if this kind of admin action is the way things are headed here). Some of that information should probably considered for the PWU article (Warfield's arrest, etc.). FYI, I am a Quackwatch affiliate and agree entirely with you about diploma mills, but your unilateral actions are highly troubling and smack of zealotry and disregard for process. Your implication that my good faith effort to write articles by clicking on red links (which is what I do primarily, having started 600 or 700 biographies) is "gastroturfing" is frankly insulting. Jokestress 22:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you need to calm down a bit, please. I might be a bit of a rouge admin, but when I act boldly I do so because I believe it's in the best interests of the encyclopaedia. Warfield's arrest seems to me to be a WP:LIVING violation, for example, since it's just about the only thing about him which has ever been in the press, and it seems he was never charged or convicted - I don't see what part of WP:BIO he is asserted to meet and I have no desire to start a puppet theatre on AfD, which is what has happened in the past with similar scenarios. I have no reason to doubt your good faith (I did check your contribution history, you are not one of the editors who concerns me especially here) but I do have some reason to doubt the good faith of those who insert redlinks to "key figures" in the history of an institution which has received virtually no coverage other than allegations of being a diploma mill; we also have the WP:OFFICE problem, someone out there is throwing their weight around and we have to be very, very careful. Gastroturfing is definitely going on, as witness the number of articles where PWU degrees have recently been added without any note that they are unaccredited. As you probably know, Misplaced Pages is the number one most attractive target these days for people promoting dodgy businesses, fringe theories and other sorts of things we don't want. So. If you really want the text you are welcome to it, of course, and I'm sorry for the wasted effort, but I am very concerned that we are being abused by supporters of what looks on the face of it very much like a diploma mill - the awarding of "life experience" degrees and fixed-price degrees (both done by PWU) is generally considered diagnostic. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Please email me the deleted text and I'll get it to an offsite resource like credentialwatch. Thanks. Jokestress 22:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Done. On the whole I think that is a much better idea. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Doris Brougham

Did you unilaterally delete this article? Jokestress 08:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I see you removed this and Srully Blotnick without discussion. Please reinstate both and send them through AfD or I am going to report these incidents. I also suggest you stop unilaterally deleting biographies with citations and disputed notability and send them through AfD instead. Misplaced Pages works by consensus, not fiat. Thanks. Jokestress 08:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Same applies. Articles on individuals with no evident claim to notability can be deleted under WP:CSD criterion A7. deletion review is available, as always. Guy (Help!) 09:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Reported. I guarantee these will be overturned, and I reiterate that AfD is better in instances like these. Jokestress 09:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
You guarantee, eh? Well maybe you're right, but maybe you're not. You've been around the project longer than I have, I think, but I have spent a long time around AfD and DRV because admins do that shit. In the end I don't think this is personal, so let's wait and see. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Re to comment on my talk page

Hi. I see your point, but I am quite surprised that this had caused controversy to begin with. The other editor has made a habit of making many minuscule changes to articles - following them requires a lot of attention, and, since the wording replaced is unlikely to have been "wrong" (as opposed to "not the best possible"), that effort was not worth it (just because he did not want to use diacritics for some peculiar reason). With or without diacritics, some of the minor edits were simply redundant.

This was not about ownership of the text. I happen to have created much of the text, but have certainly allowed similar edits on it, and will welcome much more substantial changes if it should be the case. This was, IMO, a mere decrease in quality, and rather impolite in the assumption that I or other editors were supposed to re-add the diacritics. Dahn 11:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I was just letting you know and assuming good faith on all sides. A slightly longer or more conciliatory edit summary should not be a big deal, and I left a note on his Talk saying that my reading of the summary was different to his, and that it was a reasonable action (for stated reasons). I really don't think it is a big deal, but I do know (from previous interactions) that this user - and these subjects - are a bit touchy. Given your long editing history I don't think you'll have any trouble fixing the problem, and if you do it'll probably be the other party's fault not yours. Guy (Help!) 13:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Dahn 15:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The real Leona Lewis

Just a note: on December 16, 2006, the genuine Leona Lewis won the X-Factor competition, and her page is no longer a redirect but a full (and legitimate) article; Leona Louise Lewis and Leona-Louise Lewis redirect to it. The User:Leonalewis you blocked was very probably not the same person, but borrowing the real singer's name. – SAJordan contribs 21:39, 17 Dec 2006 (UTC).

A Matter for Discussion

I have a matter that has been bugging me for some time now, and A Man in Black recommended you after he and I have come to blows with this.

The particular matter concerns various Yu-Gi-Oh! and Yu-Gi-Oh! GX [ages. I understand entirely Misplaced Pages's policy on sourcing material. However, AMIB says direct observations and fansites are not allowed. I agree on the latter, but the former confuses me. Simply put, the official Yu-Gi-Oh! page does not supply much information about anything, and is often outdated. If only the official page were to be used for a source, then several pages would either be deleted or have vast amount of content removed.

I think that, at least for the case of Yu-Gi-Oh!, and probably other shows where this is a problem, direct observation of the episodes is the only reliable source. Now, this issue started with AMIB deleting an unsourced article, but I can supply an on-line copy of the episode in which the information disclosed in the article is given, and by all accounts I do not understand why such a video is not a viable source. I just feel that, if we can supply any official material to back-up the information, it should count as a source, and in the case of television shows, wouldn't the episodes themselves be excellent sources? In this particular show, they're the only trustworthy source that isn't a fansite.

What I'm asking is why direct observation is not allowed. In the case of Yu-Gi-Oh!, it's more or less the only reliable source we have that isn't a fansite. I think the rulings on direct observation of television shows should have exceptions for shows where the official sites offer little to no useful information.

Drake Clawfang 05:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that he and I fundamentally agree here. Direct observation may be acceptable for an uncontroversial fact, and we can cite an episode as a source provided we give sufficient detail for verification (episode foo, 8min 7s in), but we absolutely may not draw inferences from observation - thus, if character foo is seen in red in five episodes and not seen at all in any others we may say that foo appears only in red, but we may not say that red is their favourite colour, or speculate on whether other colours are possible, and if there are no sources other than observation, then inclusion is highly questionable. What is the precise piece of information you want to include in this instance? Guy (Help!) 08:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Well there is a character in GX that uses two main monsters: Cyber Dragon and Cyberdark Dragon, and the two are based off of Chinese mythos and the yin-yang, with the Cyber Dragons being the yang and the Cyberdark being the yin. His master who gives him the cards uses a balanced deck that is neither, is a balance between the two forces. AMIB deleted ths article for not having a source. As mentioned, I can provide an on-line video (unfortunately, it will be Japanese, the dubbed anime omits these details) and I can easily provide the time in which he describes the yin-yang properties of the card. If I do this, can I recreate the page? Drake Clawfang 13:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Without a reliable secondary source to back at least the core substance of the article I'm afraid you're onto a loser. However accurate, it will be denounced as fancruft - if it is not documented even by the Yu-Gi-Oh! sites, it's almost certainly below the level of notability we expect, and will most likely be dismissed as unverifiable as well with only one source, and that primary. Primary notability criterion: has been the subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. That's because WP:NOT a directory as well as WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS and ensuring WP:NPOV. An article which relies entirely on watching the episodes is always going to be a problem. Guy (Help!) 13:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Reporting thanks

Hello again Guy. Your assessment of the NLP article seems to have served as a useful warning to keep the basic facts clear. Though they did fight your assessment (contrary to even the most obvious facts) I am sure your message got through to them on some level. They haven’t tried to fix the problem and they’re still deleting the basics from the opening . But I’m certainly reassured that admin has not forsaken the NLP article and Misplaced Pages authorities are helpful. I found it very odd that those NLP editors who claim to have been around so much longer than myself have shown such a “concerted” misunderstanding of basic NPOV policies. They seem to be very unlike other long term editors I have come across. I did doubt myself for a while but another investigation of the policy pages shows that the NPOV policy is clear on this matter. There is quite a lot of work for me to do on the journalism Misplaced Pages articles and I’ll not have much time to explain the obvious on the NLP article. But I guess it should be easier now to maintain the most basic NLP facts and report it straight according to NPOV policies. Always open to suggestion. Thanks. AlanBarnet 07:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you could expand on what you meant by promotional or if you have any proof from any significant peer reviewed literature to say that "NLP is a cult". I agree that the article could be more descriptive. At the same time the mentors said that the article needed to be more accessible. So there is a trade off here. It can be description with formal tones or simpler and easily understood. That includes fairly representing the views of critics, as well as the counter-claims in a way that does not imply that one is more correct than the other. Even if you think NLP is pseudoscience, it still must be presented as plausible. Upon checking the facts and references we found that many were misrepresented. We are still in the process of summarising the reception of NLP, including the research to date on NLP from various fields. Unfortunately the article prior to our revisions exaggerate (even misrepresented) the position of some of the more extreme skeptics while downplaying the more reasonable definitions from authors more supportive of NLP. It is not an easy topic to describe because there are so many different views on the topic. I'll attempt to make my contributions more objective and critical. Thanks for your feedback. We probably request another peer-review soon so we can get feedback on how to get closer to feature article (or WP 1.0) candidate. --Comaze 14:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you would stop editing these articles despite your known conflict of interest. Guy (Help!) 14:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)