Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:47, 21 February 2008

Something to say? Add a new thread.

links
archive 1
archive 2

Assistance requested

I am requesting your opinion on Aoife Hoey (bobsleigh). There is an anonymous user from Ireland who claims that the article lack notability and has proposed deletion on this article three times in the past 30 hours. I have removed the propsed deletion because she competed in the highest level of competition in bobsleigh outside of the Winter Olympics per WP:BIO on this, but they are still not convinced. If you check at the history of the article, the user has two different IP addresses. Please advise. Chris (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Disregard this. The article is now up for deletion. Chris (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for not responding; I haven't been doing much significant editing as of late. The AfD looks like it'll end in the page existing, so it should be fine. — HelloAnnyong 21:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Volodymyr Semynozhenko

Hello, you PRODed an article similar to the above name. You get a lot more Google hits with this name and I am assuming it's the same person! Yes there are problems with the sources and it's definitely not NPOV at the moment, but if he's the deputy prime minister of Ukraine I think we could give people a chance to clean it up before deleting. So I have removed your notice from this article. Hope that's okay. MSGJ (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I just saw that. That's fine; the page just needs a great deal of help. I've tagged the page with COI, as the original article was edited by him. — HelloAnnyong 15:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Fox in Socks

Thanks for your reply to my request for a "third opinion". However, I'm still confused, as you appear to have added a level 3 warning to the anonymous user for their vandalism (i.e. you thought it wasn't a content dispute), but you then promptly removed the warning. I've responded on Talk:Fox in Socks asking whether you do actually think their contributions are vandalism (if so, we can take steps to stop it), or whether it is a content dispute (in which case I'd still like a third opinion). Cheers. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I responded on the talk page. Next time, check the page history before you go pointing fingers. — HelloAnnyong 22:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused, too. Here , at 16:36 on 3 Feb., you added the warning. Here , however, at 16:37 on 3 Feb., you reverted to the page as it existed before the warning. It is true that the user subsequently blanked the page, so maybe s/he would never have noticed the warning, anyway. GreenGourd (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoa. I didn't even notice that. I didn't do that on purpose. I have a feeling I clicked revert twice on the user's edit, and something got screwed up. I've gone ahead and re-reverted my mistakes. Apologies to all! — HelloAnnyong 22:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Your Verification and Original Research Claims

As I can see, you believe that the articles that I write possess original research or additional unnoted information that is in need of verification. Based upon evidence, you solely justify these means by the length of the articles that I write and unconditionally conclude that as I used only a single reference, and the information that I have distributed is larger in proportion to such a reference, I must be creating unnecessary extentions to the information that is elaborated -- which is of course not the case at hand. If you would take the time to read the respective articles that I write, it will be evident that I simply expand upon the sophistication of the wording and dissuade its original generalized state, generally without any additional claims that would result in non-verifiable controversy; at most, conjectures are stated, which of course add to the quality of my articles. Now, as we can see that no Wikipedian can justifiably ammend the information in my articles and actually result in a more desirable presentation, the tags that you consistently place are nothing less than a waste of time, let alone an annoyance to me -- considering you can't provide complete evidence that my articles possess information that is unverified or nothing more than general controversy. I advise that you analyze my articles and see that the circumstances that you are attempting to create do not assist anything, and at most will decrease the quality of my articles, ultimately acting against Misplaced Pages's standards and gaining my disfavor. For this reason, these tags shall be removed, considering that nothing good will result of them and you are additionally unable to justify their claims. User:Exiled Ambition February 4 2008 (EST)

Alright then, let's take a look at one of the articles I've tagged - Shimazu Toshihisa. You embellished the article to read "he was relatively obligated to support his father in military service at a young age", yet I don't see that written anywhere on the Samurai archives page. You also wrote "as he has been falsely proclaimed as harboring hurt to Hideyoshi, his own life shall be taken in an ultimate prospect that the Shimazu house will be free from any form of suspicion and blame," yet that's not on the page either. "As this excusal provided to Hideyoshi that Toshihisa was indeed a man that was more than likely honest in intention, the former's heir and retainers were likewise allowed to continue in their mutual service beneath the Toyotomi flag" is also there, yet that's not in the article.

The point here is that you cannot embellish or expand these articles. You weren't there, and you can't speak to these people's mindsets or intentions unless they are specifically stated in the reference. Read WP:OR - it says that OR includes "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas." If you want, we can start working our way up the dispute resolution process to get a bit more consensus on this. — HelloAnnyong 20:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that with this evidence, your argument is now well-justified. However, as with the first claim that you have shown, it cannot be ultimately verified that even though Toshihisa was obligated to support his father in military service at a relatively young age, it is still highly denoted and nothing less than expected that he indeed did support his father at an age regarded as relatively young. As this claim is thus relative and valuable to the article's presentation but still defies verification, I should have added a word such as 'surmisabely' or 'more than likely' in order to show to the respective reader that the statement is not absolute, therefore making it appropriate since the information contributes to the article and is thus proven as being nothing more than a conjecture. With your final statement, the case to is reciprocated, for all that needs to be added is a word or two that verifies the possibility that Toshihisa's retainers were allowed to continue their mutual service by means of the evidence that Toshihisa was not plotting harm to the Toyotomi, but at the same time additionally verified as not being the absolute resolution to such circumstances. This is ultimately all that I need to show for the articles that I have contributed; and as it is highly probable that no one will regardlessly edit such articles and actually achieve any favorable outcome to the information that I have distributed, the best option would be for the tags to be removed, at which I will then verify that any such information that is not directly stated from my respective references, but is still highly denoted, shall be verified as being conjecture, so that any user who reads these articles will know what is evidence, and what is a contributing possibility to that evidence. User:Exiled Ambition 4 February 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 01:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No. This issue isn't solved with adding in words that change the assertion. The fact is that the statement, whether or not it contains a hint of doubt, is still unreferenced and unverifiable. If there's no sourcing, then the statement is your own interpretation, and that's OR. Until there's proper sourcing, the tags stay where they are. — HelloAnnyong 02:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if that is justifiably the case, you must take into consideration the circumstances that I am present within when making each article: Samurai Archives is relatively the only source that can be found on the internet for the vast majority of these historical figures, and at very selective times I might be able to reinforce such a reference with GoogleBook, but the probability of being able to is always seemingly slim. Naturally, as you continue in your attempts to dissuade me from adding "peacock" terminology, it would be relatively impossible not to embellish the information by some means when faced with a single source, considering that if I did not expand the article with additional words of justification, I would be convicted of plagiarism, and that would obviously not be a desirable resolution in any situation. This the rational reasoning behind why these tags should be removed, for even if any other user attempted to ammend the information that I distribute and remove additional terminology that would not be ultimately needed, they will additionally possess the inability to expand it with a secondary source, and therefore adding the tag altogether will be a worthless course of action for everyone. According to these circumstances, I advise that each article that I create can only be tagged upon the condition that an additional reference justifiably exists and can reinforce the existing information in order to negate any additional terminology that is rendered as unneeded, otherwise according to your standards, it would be impossible to create articles, and ultimately I will receive all the blame when I simply acted upon the regulations set forth by Misplaced Pages. User:Exiled Ambition 5 February 2008 (EST)

Look, it's simple. You're writing biographical articles, so they need to adhere to the notability criteria for people. It says there that people are notable "if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." You've got one source listed, but that's insufficient. According to the same criteria, if an article does not have sufficient sources, it should be tagged as not meeting the standard criteria.

In other words, if a person is notable, there should be more than one source out there for him. If you can't find a second source for them, then they shouldn't have an article. You can't have an article with one source and say, "Oh, I can't find a second source, so... I should be exempt from the criteria." Stop making yourself out to be a martyr. — HelloAnnyong 02:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Review closure

You may be interested in the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Discussions#Review closure: bare minimum. Hyacinth (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Though a counting of votes is not required. I think it is reasonable to expect someone who closes a review to be able to justify ruling against the number of votes if questioned. Is this unreasonable? Hyacinth (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see Colgate Univ talk page

Please see the talk page - I found how the A&M article deals with "transportation" WhisperToMe (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you look at this template

Would you look at this template: Template:2008 Republican presidential candidates. Anonymous editors keep deleting Alan Keyes. I don't think he has a chance, but he IS a candidate. He filed with the FEC, is on the ballot in 20 states and is campaigning. I attempted to discuss it on the talk page and got no cooperation. Can we semi-protect it? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Tao of the traveller.

Hi there. Regarding the above.I am a newcomer to Misplaced Pages, and hoping/ attempting to get the hang of things. I had noticed films being 'advertised' on Misplaced Pages...the Australian Indie 'Black Water' for one, and read an article saying how this was a savvy and OK thing to do, and should be followed by Indie film makers. I am not sure of the diffeence between the 'Black Water ' approach and my approach, though mine was more wordy, and did not yet include a visual.

Any guidance on the matter will be much appreciated . Thanks in advance. Bettine James. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettine james (talk • contribs) 13:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you link me to the Wiki article on the Black Water film? I can't find it anywhere. In regards to your question, the article needs to be written to Misplaced Pages standards: with a neutral tone, an encyclopedic style, and with verifiable sources. Read WP:V and WP:RS for more information on the last point. I'd urge you to take a look at similar movie articles to get an idea of what the article should sound like.

One more issue to take stock of is that of conflict of interest - WP:COI. I don't know your involvement in the production of the film, but if you're at all involved with the film in any regard, you may be counted as a COI. Basically this means that you wouldn't really be able to provide a neutral, non-point of view look at the topic. It also means that, if "Tao of the traveller" is really that notable on its own, other secondary sources will report on the movie, so you wouldn't have to create your own article. Here's another example of COI: I would be COI if I created an article about myself. The question then becomes whether or not I'm notable enough for an article on me to exist - the resolution of which would be "Well, you're notable if someone else (newspaper, magazine, notable website, etc) has reported on you."

The more important issue here is that the article passes the notability requirements for movies, listed at WP:MOVIE. Your article needs to assert - and prove - that the movie is notable and should be listed. The linked page above mentions that movies are notable if they've been "widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics," or if they've "received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking," or a few other criteria.

Since "Tao" is not out yet, it's also subject to the criteria of future films, listed at WP:NFF. More specifically, it states that "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles, unless the production itself is notable per notability guidelines." So if your movie isn't yet released in theaters, it shouldn't be listed.

This is a lot to process, so let me know if there's anything else I can clarify. — HelloAnnyong 14:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong. Thanks a lot for your very good and clear guidance. Yes, a lot to learn there, and goodness elsewhere, for the uninitiated. The film I referred to can be found by typing in ...Black Water (2007 film).... However, it appears to fulfil the requirements of Misplaced Pages, which TOTT did not. Kind regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manesar (talk • contribs) 15:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops! Thats another thing to learn...hit the edit button: don't start a new thread. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manesar (talk • contribs) 15:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh. You mean Black Water (2007 film), right? One of the key differences is that this movie has already been released. — HelloAnnyong 15:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well almost, certainly up coming distribution...but got plenty of press and was definitely 'out there'. Thanks for your advice to us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettine james (talk • contribs) 17:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Daours & Bussy-les-Daours

...are two separate villages, half a mile apart, with two separate maries, Mayors and populations ! Look closely: M le maire at Daours is Gérard Holleville and the village is on the D1 M le Maire at Bussy-lès-Daours is J F Devaux and the village is on the D1a ! Village names often take this form. In my area, there's Hesdin and Campagnes-les-Hesdin
Dickie (talk) 10:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The bot had marked them as copies of each other, so I acted accordingly. — HelloAnnyong 13:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by

At Insight magazine. I may need assistance and I'm pretty new...any advice on the situation?

WNDL42 (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If other issues come up that aren't settled by talking to the other editors, let me know. — HelloAnnyong 20:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

wtf

what is the reason for the deletion of my article about taylor cribbes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madeblind666 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted under WP:CSD#A7, which says that the person was not notable. Sorry. — HelloAnnyong 06:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

he is a musicsion, is that notable enough. he is from victoria australia. this is an out rage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madeblind666 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The Root Cellar

Hi. I split the plot into paragraphs. Is this better? I guess nobody can read my unbroken text. Thanks. ~AH1 02:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

3rd opinion on Certis CISCO

Hi, thanks for providing a 3rd opinion at Certis CISCO. This is my first time using 3rd Opinion, so I had a few questions regarding process, which I hope you will be able to answer. I noticed that after providing the 3rd opinion, you removed the listing from WP:Third Opinion. I guess this means no one else will be providing a 3rd opinion? If so, and since it seems you agree with me that the disputed section is undue weight , and not in line with other similar articles, what would be the next step forward? I don;t think the other editor agrees with you or me on this, so would it be ok to edit the section over his objections? if not, what is the next step? Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Right; a third opinion is just meant to break the back and forth debate between two editors. The other editor is being stubborn and will probably seek an RfC. In the meantime, I'd say go ahead and make the edits based on the consensus. If the user doesn't like it, we'll seek other means. — HelloAnnyong 18:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've gone ahead and did this. Please keep an eye on the article. Also, feel free to amend my edits if you think I've trimmed it down too far - I was trying to make it consistent with the LAPD article. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Carrying Cost

Your bot added tags for WP:OR and orphan to my new page. The orphaned nature of the page results from the fact that it had been created 15 minutes before. The OR claim is invalid-- however you rightly point out that sources were not included yet. I'll have peer-reviewed sources within a few days, but please reference the talk page where I already outlined the things to be added. Carrying cost is a very well recognized concept in business and none of the concepts I used in the article were unusual, novel or controversial. They're all right out of what a typical undergraduate business student will pick up in a distribution management class.

Wellspring (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Um.. I don't run a bot. It's just me over here. I marked it with OR because, unless there's references, it can be seen as original research. I also tagged it with the orphan tag because no pages link to it - see this page if you don't believe me. — HelloAnnyong 16:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I mis-read your notes-- I thought Friendly was a tagbot. My point re: orphan is that the article was 15 minutes old, of course it didn't have any links into it yet. Regarding the citation, the right thing to do is to mark it (as you did) with the requirement that it cite its sources and the appropriate tag. Unless you have a specific point you consider to be OR, it is not appropriate to tag it that way. The cite tag is sufficient to raise the issue and trigger action. If some time passes during which the references can either be added or the unsourced text removed and the facts aren't touched, then simply remove or comment out the text and note why on the talk page.

Look I appreciate that you're patrolling for unsourced statements and articles, but if you'd like to contribute to the page, please use the talk page.

Wellspring (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Article Watch

You need to add a sentence or so at the article watch page explaining the problem, and alter the project tag on the article's talk page as instructed on the article watch page (I'm sure you have already done both) it isn't necessary to add something to the project talk page, though you can if you want, one of the senior members (me probably) will overlook the article, watch for vandalism and deal with any occurrences. SGGH 00:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've left a suggestion at the talk page of Certis CISCO, it's probably not a new one but it is how I feel the article should read. SGGH 08:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be a decision made there, let me know if there are any problems. If it quietens down to your satisfaction you can take off the article watch, but if you want us to keep checking just leave it on :) SGGH 14:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Paul Herget

In response to your hasty deletion of the Paul Herget page:

I feel that this page is undeserving of a deletion. Every piece of evidence in this page is either true or has been prophesied by Nostradamus. We feel that this is a worthy page, as Nostradamus' writings are generally taken seriously. We feel that this page should be put under careful consideration before deleted with no real foundation.--Mclovin13375 (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That's nice. — HelloAnnyong 04:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The Hasty Deletion

I find this speedy deletion attempt appalling in every sense of the word. I study this subject matter. I find it disgusting that the educated and scholastic pursuit of information is squelched by the so-called "experts" on wikipedia.

Thank You

Respectfully Submitted

--Pherget (talk) 04:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Good for you. See above. — HelloAnnyong 04:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Paul Herget Speedy Deleation

Everything to this date is true and all else will become true.

Good Day Sir --Buzz tanner (talk) 04:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Buzz Tanner

Speedy Deletion of the Paul Herget Article

I would like to say first and foremost that prediction and provocative consideration for the future are critical for a society to function. No theory can be made without first considering the possibilities for the future. I find it very painful to the forwarding of education to instantly desire deletion for an article with information that, to the present, is true.

I thought Misplaced Pages was a site for the discovery of knowledge, not the murder of it

Sincerely --Donutoblivion (talk) 04:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Paul Herget

Why wont you take the people above seriously. All of their arguements are credible and I for one am familiar with the predictions by Nostradamus concerning Paul Herget. I implore that you consider the validity of this page before deleting it. This page is a necessary addition to wikipedia.

Thank you and God bless.--MaxinDaHouse1010 (talk) 04:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)