Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:21, 23 June 2008

Something to say? Add a new thread.

links
archive 1
archive 2
archive 3

Renaissance Pleasure Faire of Southern California -- spam?

Hello, I'm back after a long hiatus. I just wanted to let you know (as someone who's been a good steward of the Renaissance fair page) that I've nominated the Renaissance Pleasure Faire of Southern California page for speedy deletion as spam. I've been looking over the individual fair pages, and while most of them are pretty thin, this one is outright ... well, I don't know quite what to say. Every one of its footnotes (88 of them!) is a link, and every one I've followed leads to a commercial advertising site. It hasn't got much content, either, mostly just list after list of acts and merchants.

I hope I'm not being harsh, but ... geez. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying, but I think that since the faire is so notable (it's one of the originals, I believe) the article should stay. To that end, I've removed both the CSD and all those links. I'm gonna try to work on the page first. — HelloAnnyong 15:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a more humane approach. Good luck. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

discussion archival policy?

Hi there,

I'm not sure I agree the edit wasn't constructive. If you examine those pages and pages of arguing, you will notice that the current top-level organisers of that website have taken turns to come in and spam their website on the page, and engage in circular arguments defending various acts such as: putting their website URL #1 in the list of external sites; creating a new external links category of "other" to advertise their website; editing the history section to advertise their website at the top of the page. What has frustrated me and others on that page is not just their blinkered sense of being the best, but that they rotate their core organisers to give the appearance of consensus in the discussion page. I have noticed other discussion pages in wikipedia eventually get archived. And frankly I think that they have figured since they cant get a wikipedia page setup ( it was deleted ), they can't advertise their link on the page, they will just dominate any other discussion with pages and pages of the same thing over and over. Addressing that imbalance was the goal of this edit. They've yet again left, no doubt to return with the same rotating furor, and we are left with a discussion page that appears to have nothing but unbalanced representation of a single website.

So what to do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.137.103 (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between outright deletion and archiving. I've gone ahead and properly archived all the stuff there, as you can see. Generally archiving is only done when a page gets overly long, but I guess it's okay to do here. If they want to snipe at each other, that's fine; it's still sort of on topic, so they can mention it there as much as they want. Once their links make it to the main page, it's a different story. — HelloAnnyong 20:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, now you have archived all the discussion on that page that wasn't specifically related to their website, since they came in and created a new topic every time they replied or sent a new person in. And it starts half-way through. It may be "sort of on topic" but nothing else can get discussed there now because they have spammed it so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.137.103 (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

3O / ZCBI

Thanks for stepping up. I was unwilling to enter into an edit war for fear of 3RR, and my original massive culling was to stop myself AFDing the darned thing as an advert. I don't think Saurabhmadan gets it, and it wouldn't surprise me it Userlinks:Arindammandal1 turns out to be a sock puppet account. Oh well! --Blowdart | 15:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You know, I thought the same thing. We'll see if it becomes a problem. If we're in agreement on the AfD thing, then maybe we should nominate it.. — HelloAnnyong 15:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Given he also created redirects for On year mba, and One year pgp course (is a PGP course an MBA? I don't know, but I find the idea of a single year MBA very suspect with regards to legitimacy) it does smack more and more of something rather fake here. --Blowdart | 16:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Problems_with_the Van_Resistance

Dear User:HelloAnnyong There is something wrong in the whole process. It is "supposedly" Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia; all articles must follow Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research. The current version of the article is owned by couple of Authors that WP:OWN the article and do not let any editor involved with it. There is a current exchange between another Administrator which involved with the issue, please look at these exchanges. User_talk:Khoikhoi#Problems_with_the_Van_Resistance and User_talk:Seemsclose#Re:_Problems_with_the_Van_Resistance. It has been told to me to negotiate with people. If you read the responses, my edits, without any credible source provided forward, are rejected by MEOW. I'm questioning the validity of whole process and integrity of the people involved to this process. ALL MY editions, which provide full citations, and use WP:style guide to help other editors reach the sources I use, is being favored over a person who keeps the article as it is. My improvements can be reached at this page User:Seemsclose/Van Resistance‎. I'm in a position to think, If one editor rejects, and in the position of responsibility (Admins, third opinions) do not take responsibility, an article can be kept forever in poor condition (poor= no Verifiability) at the Misplaced Pages. I'm personally asking to you, which version, (the or my version) is your personal choice. --Seemsclose (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

How is your research going? It has been 10 days. --Seemsclose (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh well

Disheartening isn't it? There was a point when it actually looked as if mediation might get going - with sources and two completely neutral mediators. But no...... There is an enduring problem with Wikipedias inability to recognise that in some circumstances, forms of dispute resolution that rely on assumptions of good faith and willingness to put your cards on the table cannot work and something else is required. In the more popular subjects its not such a problem as there will usually be a preponderance of sensible editors. (Mind you, that didn't work with attachment pages last year when the whole lot were run by one attachment therapist with 6 sockpuppets for over a year). It requires an unnatural degree of perseveration to keep going. At least the Attachment theory page is looking alot better now. Thanks for all your efforts anyway. I hope you will still be around to help. Do you feel up to tackling Michael Rutter again? Fainites 17:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Blimey! Tough stuff. It is a shame it had to end like this - but people did try - including you and a variety of admins and mediators. Fainites 22:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I know, man, I feel really bad about how it turned out, but.. I suppose there was no other way. Anyway... back to work, I guess. — HelloAnnyong 22:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey! We're volunteers remember! Fainites 23:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"don't use brs"

Why not? Those pharagraphs are a little short and it's a bit ugly for them to stand alone, but also some of them are related to each other. For example the 1st two in the "real" section talk about some important details about some of the stories. diego_pmc (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Forcing line breaks with HTML tends to break articles. If you want to put a break there, just hit enter twice. — HelloAnnyong 16:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The thing is I don't. What do you mean by "break articles"?diego_pmc (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

But you are. Those <br> tags you add are line breaks. Wiki has a built-in formatting style, and using those tags breaks it. — HelloAnnyong 16:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Breaks what/how?! If you look at the text you'll see that I also placed "normal" breaks (without <br>) - the reason I'm using br in some cases is that it arranges the text better. The places where I've placed brs is where there are two paragraphs which present information related to the same "category". And also for aesthetic reasons: those paragraphs are too short to stand alone in the section, so I grouped them (where it fitted), while also separating them enough to indicate they don't talk about the same idea. diego_pmc (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks sloppy that way. Either put the text on the end of the paragraph or start a new paragraph entirely. Look at every other article on this project and see how their paragraphs are broken up. They don't use the br tags, they use full line breaks. Misplaced Pages:Don't use line breaks is part of the Wiki manual of style. Read the article. It says that in general, manual line breaks - that is, <br/> - are generally reserved for items in a list, or in an infobox. — HelloAnnyong 17:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)