Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:18, 20 March 2012

Jim	Talk	Contribs	Sandbox	Logs	Blocks	Deletions	Protections	Email	Uploads

University of Birmingham Liberal Democrat Society

Jim,

As you have correctly pointed out the page is a University club, its notability comes in the form that it dates back to nearly a century and that there are over one-hundred members of the club. It plays an important role in the formation of the University of Birmingham which, obviously, had dramatic historical implications for the city of Birmingham as a whole. I find it somewhat pedantic of you to neglect this as notable, the Society itself IS historical and other if universities, whose clubs date to a similar time, are allowed to have Misplaced Pages pages then I simply don't understand why ours is discriminated against. I do, of course, have a claim to interest; being the alumnus of said University and Society.

There is plenty of scholarly work written on the society, not least in Ives, E. The First Civic University: Birmingham, 1880-1980 - An Introductory History (Birmingham: University of Birmingham Press) and several articles written by Birmingham historian Carl Chinn, which I urge you to consult before you dismiss such a page on, what seems to be, a claim which is unfounded and belied by your lack of knowledge of the subject. Of course this is esoteric knowledge but enough people belong to the society for it to be considered 'notable' and this is a point which is concurred by the fact that there are several, similar sized, institutions, societies and clubs listed on Misplaced Pages.

I urge you to either reconsider your decision, apply the same punitive measures to other, similar, university societies or to enlighten yourself as to the importance of the society through the consulting of said titles.

I am new to the Misplaced Pages editing community and, so far, I have found it a most excruciatingly aloof affair. I did not expect the editorial and administrative community to be this abrupt. The lack of help in an accessible medium, I fear, also precludes the vast majority of people from submitting their own, important, contributions; thus ameliorating the actual mission of the website and inhibiting the free and undeterred access to and propagation of knowledge.

Mattykey (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit to Griffon vulture

Hi, I have Griffon vulture on my watchlist and noticed you reverted an edit made by an IP this afternoon. I had checked the edit earlier and it looked to me like a good-faith attempt to source an unreferenced passage. On closer inspection I see that it was incorrectly formatted but in my opinion an improvement, since the original didn't cite anything. I thought I'd check with you before I add it back in and clean up the formatting, to make sure you didn't have another reason for reverting. Thanks! ~ Kimelea (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

These numbers are being slowly modified and has been recognized as a form of surreptitious vandalism - see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_50#Problem_edits here, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_59#Bird_sizes here etc. for recent discussions. These are best reverted as discussed in the past on sight as they are all deliberate mis-citations. Shyamal (talk) 04:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, a previous incarnation added plausible but unsourced items to the prey list of dozens of birds. It's a subtle but persistent form of vandalism. The editor concerned never responds to comments on his talk page, and even when blocked (several times now) just continues from another IP Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both, I'm glad I asked. I'm using Dcoetzee's Followed users program, would it help if I follow these IPs around or shall I leave you guys to it? ~ Kimelea (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

If it can be automated, do keep an eye on that IP range. Several other similar IP editors around in any case. (more) Shyamal (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Feed Me's Big Adventure -- please revert deletion if possible

So I don't go on very often, which is why it took me almost a year to respond, but I simply don't understand. Major artist (Feed Me - if you listen to house music even casually, chances are you've heard of him) releases his only LP thus far (a Big deal for any artist) on one of the most famous (and exclusive) record labels in all of electronica (mau5trap records). Any release on mau5trap should have a wiki entry as it is, let alone the only LP of a major artist.

I don't even think the album's that great, but it's a big deal. And having to go to discogs.com to look at the album's tracklist is annoying considering the best source of information the world will ever know should have that information as well.

To Expand: http://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/41008/Feed-Me-Feed-Mes-Big-Adventure/ is a review of the album from a major music website. http://www.ministryofsound.com/lifestyle/blog/761/interview-feed-me/ is an interview with Feed Me by Ministry of Sound during which he says "You've already achieved so much in your music career - what goals do you still have left that you want to achieve? Complete an album". This was that album. Directing me to general notability websites and saying that creating a wiki would serve to promote (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING#ADVERTISING - which of these points applies?) doesn't help my confusion as to why an indisputably major artist releasing his first lp doesn't qualify as notable. I don't even like Feed Me that much, I'm still just upset that his lp doesn't have a wiki . Ferociouslettuce (talk) 07:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Haha -- wikipedia personalities are incorrigible. It's so hard to make yourself heard as an outsider, and while it's possible (somehow, even though I still don't see it at all) that this doesn't meet the notability requirements, having that album as an entry with a tracklisting is definitely not advertising ... at all. If it had had a pitchfork or RA review in addition to the sputnikmusic one would that have been enough? Ferociouslettuce (talk) 12:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

• News and notes: Chapters Council proposals take form as research applications invited for Misplaced Pages Academy and HighBeam accounts

• Discussion report: Article Rescue Squadron in need of rescue yet again

• WikiProject report: Lessons from another Misplaced Pages: Czech WikiProject Protected Areas

• Featured content: Featured content on the upswing!

• Arbitration report: Race and intelligence 'review' opened, Article titles at voting

• Technology report: Bugmeister to leave at end of May, but developers keen to "chart" a path ahead

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)