Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:13, 26 November 2023

November 2023

You don't get to treat other editors that way on talkpages. You've been around long enough to know that. Acroterion (talk) 03:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

So it's OK to lie? Got it. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm assuming it was the "lie" comment, right? Or was it something else I did? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Acroterion Not sure if you missed this, but before I wade back in I'd like to answer to this before I find myself blocked for not knowing what I did wrong. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's what it was. You can disagree with people about things like victims lists without treating other editors who have the temerity to disagree with you like that. Acroterion (talk) 03:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The lie

Allegedly our sources at 2023 Lewiston shootings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) don't discuss the victims, and yet, in just half an hour of going through the first 8 sources in use this revision, only 13% of the checked sources (that's 1 out of 8) didn't name any victims, and 25% (that's 2 out of 8) didn't name them all. The other 6 sources (75%) name them all, often in multiple articles.

1. Source: https://apnews.com/article/lewiston-maine-shootings-49da6d06a8b5a15d3b619b3927bc33ff
   1. VS: https://apnews.com/article/maine-shooting-victims-1be7d14e90ef6c91ca23819163d29f3e
2. Source: https://www.sunjournal.com/2023/10/25/multiple-victims-reported-following-shootings-in-lewiston/
   1. VS: https://www.sunjournal.com/2023/10/26/lives-lost-in-lewiston-theres-nothing-he-wouldnt-do-for-anybody/
   2. VS: https://www.sunjournal.com/lewiston-mass-killing/ - top of page highlights victims on their landing page for the mass shooting event, also contains links to full obituaries right at the top
3. Source: https://themessenger.com/news/maine-mass-shooting-ruger-sfar-308-battle-rifle
   1. VS: https://themessenger.com/news/lewiston-maine-mass-shooting-victims-18-killed
   2. VS: https://themessenger.com/news/lewiston-mass-shooting-victim-keith-macneir-visiting-maine-celebrate-birthday
   3. VS: https://themessenger.com/news/lewiston-mass-shooting-maine-mechanic-bob-violette-dead
   4. VS: https://themessenger.com/news/beloved-asl-interpreter-helped-deaf-maine-pandemic-lewiston-mass-shooting-victims-joshua-seal
   5. VS: https://themessenger.com/news/father-son-maine-shooting-victims-lewiston-bowling-alley-young
4. Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/lewiston-shooting-timeline-maine-attack-rcna122290
   1. VS: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/lewiston-maine-massacre-manhunt-suspect-rcna122436#rcrd23551
   2. VS: https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/remembering-those-killed-in-the-lewiston-maine-mass-shooting-196584005652 - not only were they also presented in text, the nationally aired nightly news which is also re-broadcast on YouTube and other platforms, included a segment on the victims
5. Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/maine-shooting-idAFKBN31S064
   1. VS: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/maine-shooting-victims-pipefitter-who-loved-wrestling-father-son-bowling-league-2023-10-27/ - full list with additional bio details
   2. VS: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/maine-shooting-victims-father-son-out-bowling-night-bar-employee-2023-10-26/ - partial list prior to the full list being released by officials
6. Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/26/at-least-16-killed-dozens-injured-in-mass-shooting-in-us-state-of-maine
   1. VS: None found
7. Source: https://france24.com/en/live-news/20231027-maine-city-deserted-as-residents-hole-up-during-hunt-for-killer
   1. VS: https://www.france24.com/en/americas/20231027-manhunt-for-maine-mass-shooter-extends-to-second-night - partial victim list
8. Source: https://www.wmtw.com/article/where-robert-card-lewiston-maine-gunman-body-was-found/45672278
   1. VS: https://www.wmtw.com/article/victims-lewiston-maine-mass-shootings/45656677
   2. VS: https://www.wmtw.com/article/lewiston-mass-shooting-remembering-victims-stories/45657528

I sure hope pointing out lies doesn't result in blocks all the time around here, or we'll never have anyone telling the truth. I was going to go through as many sources as I could before bed, but apparently since I won't be participating for three days, it probably won't matter. Fuck you very much @Acroterion:. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand why you would use the methodology you present above, it's rather confounding. Of the enumerated sources you list above (all which come from the article), zero list the victims. So you gather articles from the same publisher that do list victims to make your point? How is that supposed to be convincing?

I guess it's probably not worth trying to understand, as, based on your comments, it sure doesn't appear like you have the intentions of editing in good faith. Crescent77 (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

On Misplaced Pages, a news "source" is a news outlet, not a news article. All these sources (and more) have given us articles about the dead or mentioned them in broader articles about the shooting. This is definitely worth understanding and Locke probably should have been allowed to tell you himself. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

No, that's inaccurate, it's not that simple. Please read WP:Verifiability :

"...the word source has four related meanings:

• The work itself (the article, book: "That book looks like a useful source for this article.") and works like it ("An obituary can be a useful biographical source", "A recent source is better than an old one")
• The creator of the work (the writer, journalist: "What do we know about that source's reputation?") and people like them ("A medical researcher is a better source than a journalist for..").
• The publication (for example, the newspaper, journal, magazine: "That source covers the arts.") and publications like them ("A newspaper is not a reliable source for medical facts").
• The publisher of the work (for example, Cambridge University Press: "That source publishes reference works.") and publishers like them ("An academic publisher is a good source of reference works")."

He would have been allowed to tell me himself, had he not gone out with a "Fuck you very much". Crescent77 (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

It is that simple, in a WP:RSN sense. The creator, the publisher, the publication. I agree one should never tell an admin anything like that. I was once blocked this hard for telling one to **** my ****. I was having a bad day, lashed out and was eventually let back in to apologize and move on. I hope the same happens here. And I hope Cole means it. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The creator, the publisher, the publication, AND the work itself. Crescent77 (talk) 04:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Not in this context, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

No, that's not how I used the term. Crescent77 (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I know. That's how he used it. Hence the misunderstanding about whether the underlying "lie" is a lie. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand that. Does he? We're only guessing at this point, as he let his anger get the best of him before we could find out. Crescent77 (talk) 04:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

If he's reading this, he understands now. It's not complicated and he's not dumb. Anyway, I think we can agree that using more precise words going forward (such as "outlets/publications" and "articles/works") could help make this a substantially less infuriating place. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk understood my meaning for "sources", and WP:RSN is exactly the meaning I was using. But in so far as WP:V goes, these would all be "publishers" or "publications". I'd continue my work on the sources listed in that revision to make the point, but it doesn't seem like you're accepting that interpretation, so much like User:Locke Cole/Mass shooting victim statistics (where I demonstrated how the overwhelming majority of US mass shooting articles include names of victims in some form or another), it will likely remain incomplete. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

 Galobtter (talk) 04:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Chevrolet (logo).svg

Thanks for uploading File:Chevrolet (logo).svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:007 (EON Productions logo, 1995).svg

A tag has been placed on File:007 (EON Productions logo, 1995).svg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Misplaced Pages having the same file format, and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. --Minorax 03:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Johnny Blaze

The article Johnny Blaze has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Misplaced Pages policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. AriTheHorse 13:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Johnny Blaze

The article Johnny Blaze has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article is poorly written, I cant find any other useful information or reliable looking sources on her. I think any sources that can be used for this article are just sources that slipped through the Misplaced Pages Blacklist.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AriTheHorse 13:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@AriTheHorse Do us all a favor: if you're gonna fix obvious vandalism, don't leave PROD notifications on talk pages. Especially TWO of them. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. AriTheHorse 19:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)