Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:10, 8 March 2017

Skip to the bottom

Headings and links

Welcome back to Misplaced Pages! This is just a quick note to point out that the wiki guidelines discourage the inclusion of links within headings especially when only part of the heading is linked. See MOS:HEAD. The subject of the link has often been mentioned and linked earlier in the article (and in this case probably should not be linked again) or will be mentioned early in the section and can be linked at that point. — Jpacobb (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Even in a talk page? Man y'all are hardcore. I mean I guess it is here forever. Thanks for the heads-up!Endercase (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

NPOV thoughts

What is the definition here for a valid point of view? Should NPOV ever be used to remove cited "oppressive" points of view? Endercase (talk)

Stealth banning

I fail to see how removing references to Breitbart and Infowars violates NPOV. Neither is considered a reliable source. I will not revert my edits. Trivialist (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Trivialist The enforcement of an illegitimate ban on users that didn't participate in your discussion to ban is a clear violation of NPOV. Please see the talk page I referred you too. I do not understand why you would refuse to revert. The sources were reliable in context. Endercase (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your comments. I removed the Breitbart and Infowars material because they are not considered reliable sources. I don't care who added them. If there are more reliable sources for that information, that's fine. Trivialist (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I am saying that "not considered reliable sources" is POV. As such, no general ban on those sources may occur. Endercase (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I take it you haven't heard about the recent Daily Mail thing? Trivialist (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Please just read the links I left on your talk page. I don't want to have to copy and paste everything. Just because a thing happened don't mean it was justified. Their discussion had clear logical errors that I point out in the discussion. Endercase (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Who are you? Also re: your comments on RSN

Sorry if this seems confrontational, but I'm just curious if you have used any other accounts or been editing logged out.

It's pretty unusual for an account to make five edits, disappear for half a decade, and then come back and become relatively prolific on two talk pages and a noticeboard, and I'm noticing that a significant number of your opinions on said noticeboard appear to be somewhat extreme.

Have you read WP:RS? Being a dissenting voice is fine (I usually try to give some alternative point of view on matters brought up there that attract my attention), but if you regularly post things that are not supported by community consensus, there's a small chance no one else will post and your opinion could mislead someone.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

wp:RS makes no mention of banning sources and says that context must be considered. That is not occurring. I didn't notice the problem until my reliable sources in a minor edit were removed with the information that I had added, with no reason given but a "ban" . That was out of order and I wanted to know why it had happened. Found out the "ban" wasn't created following protocol, and I chose to stand up for my right to add accurate and valuable information to Misplaced Pages. You don't need to be "someone" to fix a problem. Endercase (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, that's a red herring; no one is arguing that certain sources should be banned -- they are arguing that your use of Breitbart is inappropriate. And I was not even referring to the main thread you apparently showed up on RSN to open (I hadn't read it before coming here) -- I'm referring to your activity throughout the many threads you have posted in. On the FRC thread, for example, you said that the discussion belonged on the talk page of the relevant article, as though the reliability of the FRC for factual claims was completely tangential. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I also notice you dodged the question as to whether you have used other accounts. I was assuming good faith (hence my asking you outright rather than doing research and opening and SPI), but if you twist my question into somehow being about the right of nobodies to edit Misplaced Pages rather than answering it straight ... well, I'll ask it again: have you used any other accounts? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

By the way: another reason I'm asking about this rather (other than your unusual edit history) is that your user page links to the deletion log and calls it a list of our fallen articles, but you yourself have never edited a page that was deleted. This either shows a pretty offensive disrespect for the Misplaced Pages community's deletion process, or a bitterness that some article you worked on under another name was deleted at some point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I have never used another account, why would I? It seems as if the use of one account throughout all time would earn more respect. Additionally, I believe in transparency and honesty and would not misrepresent myself to you. Our in that reference refers to all of Misplaced Pages. I don't see how that is disrespectful. Also, deletion is a misnomer, they are hidden (fallen). I don't understand why someone would have strong feelings about the hiding of their articles (I mean they could/should just post it on their blog or whatever) If no-one is arguing for a ban then why are they banned? Requiring a special exemption for use is a ban. There is no personal bitterness toward our processes, I just like to use strong/poetic wording because it is prettier and demonstrates my honesty though the apparent strength of my beliefs. I haven't upset you is some way have I? You are beginning to sound a bit hostile. Not a single user (other than you) has actually spoken to my specific use of that source thus far actually. Endercase (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, what does FRC and SPI mean? I didn't mean to "twist" your words. I just think a bit differently. 2 weeks ago I was not even aware that Misplaced Pages deleted articles other than the really dumb ones about people's dogs. Endercase (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I know what SPI means now. Sock Puppet Investigation. Right? I don't believe in using of sock puppets, I don't like that sort of manipulation. Of course, you shouldn't just trust me on that. But why would I switch to my real username for all the drama? A quick search of that username will show you James P.S. Case. If you would like you can hit me up outside at some other account for verification. I still haven't found FRC yet. Endercase (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/FRC is not helpful in this case (from your context). It might need updated. Endercase (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You twisted my words by changing my question about whether you have used other accounts to a question about whether you are someone important (a question I don't generally ask Wikipedians who don't have clear COI problems), and you answered the latter question even though I had not asked it.

For what it's worth, the vast, vast majority of mainspace pages that get deleted probably are either about people's dogs or other trivial matters like that. That is why linking to the list of all of them and apparently lamenting their status as "fallen articles" could be seen as an offensive jab at Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines. The other possible explanation, though, is that you edited some articles in the past that got deleted, but your edit history doesn't bare that out.

I have no interest in off-wiki contact with you, and if you want to blank your own edit and get this rev-delled, as you appear to have (accidentally?) outed yourself, I will understand. I am just concerned that you

A little over two days ago, you posted in a thread on RSN about the Family Research Council, which is the only place you and I had interacted before I posted here, and is clearly already listed on FRC. "Ctrl+F"ing "FRC" on RSN would have revealed this pretty quickly, although if you were more careful about looking into each thread you comment in perhaps misunderstandings like this could be avoided. Looking a bit more carefully at your comments than I did earlier, I notice you cited BOLD in 6 out of 11 threads you commented in; AGF is unclear on whether it would be better to assume you are not posting in a bunch of threads without reading them first or to assume you are not posting based on a personal opinion that conflicts with policy; I chose the latter in this case, but if the former would have been correct, then I'll end this by saying you really should be more careful.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I am used to a significantly faster paced social media and may have posted may too much in various locations for that reason. I don't know what is normal here. This is a very strange experience compared to other forms of social media. Yes, I will call this a social media. Admittedly, one with a significantly different focus. Endercase (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you saying you are editing Misplaced Pages because you are upset that your Twitter account got stealth-banned? Perhaps it would be a good idea for you to stay away from articles on social media and right-wing politics for a while. Misplaced Pages tends to be kinder to users who are clearly here to build an encyclopedia, and single-purpose accounts that start causing problems get in trouble quite quickly. You should also be more careful when commenting in multiple threads on the same noticeboard. If your comments are out of line with policy, they can be quite disruptive. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)