Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:02, 6 July 2011

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

This is Demiurge1000's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 15 days

Juan Larrea

Mail

Sent you an email per your question on the AHA article, and due to privacy issues, can you maybe remove your question (and my answer) from the talk page of the article in question? I am glad to resolve the issue, but I don't want to have my identity accessible via wikipedia, and the question could lead there, albeit indirectly. Thanks  ;-) Montanabw 18:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Done, and I'll send a reply to your email later. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Groovy. Can you (you are an admin?) remove the comment/answer from history altogether or not? Montanabw 17:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't, but I have just emailed oversight to request it. I won't have time to reply to your email properly until tomorrow, incidentally, but don't worry since the reply won't say anything very exciting :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, oversight said no. I'll ask about RevDel when I have a moment. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Okey dokey. I won't fret. Montanabw 20:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Revdel is now done, also including some edits that needed it here and several other places. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all involved. Wonder if the COI template is needed on the AHA article? If so, I won't get my unders in a bunch about it, but seems a bit much as in that article's context, I'm not of any importance to the organization whatsoever, really. Montanabw 19:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Archival of templates

MizlaBot archived your talk page without tl'ing a template, so I did that and left a note here. --Gryllida 01:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree it would be a good idea for the bot to do that when it archives.

On the other hand, maybe the request for uninvolved help template itself should be deprecated, if it regularly fails to generate a response for several weeks, as happened here. As a possible way round that, I notice that templates like helpme and adminhelp are noted and advertised by Helpmebot, so perhaps it could do the same for the uninvolved help template. A lot of helpme and adminhelp requests are actually quite esoteric conduct and content questions, rather than simple editing questions or admin housekeeping requests, so the additional requests probably wouldn't be too tricky for helpers to deal with. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Amaranthe

Userfied per your request. Thank you for stepping up to the plate. Risker (talk) 04:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Tammy Locke

On 22 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tammy Locke, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Tammy Locke was called "an especially endearing little dumpling" for her role in 1960s western TV series The Monroes, but her antics on set included giving a live frog to the show's hairdresser? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

(Head explodes) --The Σ _contribs 07:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Oratory School edits

The Oratory School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, at least you aren't as downright officious and dismissive as SudoGhost.

Re my desire to see the Terminology and Sland section included: these aren't just MY recollections, nor just the recollections of those who have contributed to that section, but they will be, as I say, the recollections of each and every boy who has attended the OS.

I think my point is very valid: the section provides an extra dimension to the OS entry, in that it helps to convey the character and ethos of the school. British public schools pride themselves on their unique character and that is not just PR bull for would-be parents. The OS did have a certain character and the various entries, including the Terminology and Slang section, do convey that. That is something SudoGhost and you don't, perhaps appreciate. (Are you British? Did you attend a British public school? I notice SudoGhost remains schtumm on the matter. There is far, far more to a horse than it being merely a herbivorous quadruped.

I would also repeat my point about spurious 'sourcing': take a look at the entry for the game of Spoons and explain to me how well it meets the apparently rigid Wiki requirement of sourcing. I would say that it doesn't even start to do so. And that is just one example I have chosen at random (because the game is as far removed from the OS entry as can be). In the OS entry itself, I should pont out that the Introduction itself ('The Oratory School aims to assist parents in fulfilling their obligation to educate their children in accordance with the principles and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. The School educates boys . . .') isn't 'sourced'. It might well be true, but how can that information be verified in such a way that charmless committee men like SudoGhost are satisfied?

Finally, how and why did the Terminology and Slang section survive for quite a few years if, according to SudoGhost it so badly fails to meet Wiki's strict requirements? Were not others previously offended by the section's irregular nature? Apparently not, or it would have been removed far, far sooner. (BTW it was there when I first came across the entry years ago. I didn't originate it.) Pfgpowell (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I have a great many opinions on this (I'm British and did not attend the school in question) but my opinions should wait until I reply to emails that I'm supposed to have completed days ago. Talk page stalkers are welcome to offer opinions in the meantime. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Right, let's begin. First of all, you do nothing for your argument by describing people as "officious" or "charmless committeeman" just because they disagree with you. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines for content, and although editors in general are free to ignore all such rules, they do exist for a reason and editors do attempt to apply them to articles.

Your argument that some editors are unqualified to make decisions on this topic area because of their nationality or background, is a familiar one. Editors do indeed have differing perceptions of particular questions of content due to their background. Recently a U.S. editor was dealing with enquiries from a representative of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, and I found it interesting that the U.S. editor seemingly had no particular idea that the significance and reputation of such an organisation was greatly different from the steady stream of wonder-cure quack medical organisations and spammy internet marketing organisations that they had dealt with the same day. Equally, I regularly see British editors criticised on the grounds of "but you're British, how could you possibly make a decision about whether the renowned Hicksville, Alabama Bingo Club deserves its own Misplaced Pages article???"

So we need methods of dealing with such differences in viewpoint. One means for doing so is that we have policies and guidelines that provide a way of assessing the suitability of material regardless of a particular individual's viewpoint or knowledge of the topic. So for example, for the existence of articles we have the general notability guideline, and for the inclusion of material we have the policy on verifiability. You may regard this as all very bureaucratic, but it's necessary precisely because we need an objective means of assessing such questions.

The other means of dealing with such widely varying viewpoints and perspectives, is that we make decisions by concensus, and thus there will be a range of different people that can offer their views on it.

Now, where does this leave our disputed material? First, there is the issue of verifiability. As you rightly point out, a lot of material in Misplaced Pages is not backed up by references with inline citations - or by any references at all. However, the existence of such material doesn't mean that we want to introduce more unreferenced material. It just means we haven't quite finished yet. Verifiability is a core policy on Misplaced Pages; it is required. The policy says "editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references" - well in this case, you've now had years to find references, but your view seems to be that you simply don't need to find any.

In particular, the OS article currently lacks adequate references even after the deletion of the disputed material. That doesn't make the disputed material any more acceptable. One of the problems that you face with the disputed material is that it is a huge section of text that is all unsourced, and this adds to the issues it has with relevancy, which I'm about to cover.

The point about relevancy is that although there are no practical limits on the quantity of information that can be included in Misplaced Pages, it is still an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. What proportion of the disputed material is actually encyclopedic content? I would argue that a large proportion of it could only ever be of possible interest to former pupils of the school. You argue that the disputed material is important for demonstrating the character and ethos of the school. However, the school has been in operation for well over 150 years, so how does the frequenting of a particular shop by pupils for just a couple of decades in the twentieth century reflect the school's character and ethos for the whole of its history? I appreciate that boarding schools, and British public schools in particular, offer hard-to-quantify advantages beyond just ordinary secondary education, but does it really help with that, for us to document that the pupils buy products from a Londis corner shop just like pupils of hundreds of other schools all over the UK?

The disputed material is distinctly dated - while some of it is in the present tense, much of it is in the past tense, and seems to be referring specifically to a set of arrangements in a narrow period of the latter half of the twentieth century. "Classes were also held until 7pm"? Well, are they still? When did this change? Was it the case from the founding in 1859 onwards? And so on. I do feel that you have a perception that the ethos and character of the school, which you quite reasonably seek to emphasise, was in fact defined by how things were run in that one particular historical period. A golden age, so to speak. It's natural for pupils of any school to feel that way, and even more so for pupils of a boarding school with a distinct ethos. However, a Misplaced Pages article on a school can convey a sense of the school's whole history, its ethos and its character, and even brief coverage of unique aspects like local slang, while still remaining encyclopedic and providing proper sources. Take a look, for example, at The Avery Coonley School and The Judd School.

Now, I'd say there is a place for some of the disputed material. It's entirely reasonable to have a sentence mentioning that the school uses (or used) slang particular to it, with a few examples (bratting, beating, refectory and its pronunciation, or whatever). It's entirely reasonable to mention when bratting (and indeed beating) was formally abolished. It's reasonable to have a detailed description of the more significant aspects of the layout of the school, mentioning the relocation of the old entrance pillars for example. I would even suggest that Misplaced Pages has some articles (prefect and caning for example) that are so direly in need of additional properly referenced information, that brief mentions of OS slang for these, or OS approaches to them, would be well worth adding.

Clearly, like many other people, you feel that British public schools have a particular importance and role in greater proportion than their mere numbers. That should be easy enough to establish and verify with references; but British public school merely redirects to Independent school (United Kingdom), which talks mainly about independent schools generally, rather than public schools in particular. If the ethos and character is as important as you and many others think, then what should be happening is for referenced information to be put into an article explaining that, rather than unreferenced trivia being added to articles on individual schools.

However, going back to verifiability, rather than relevancy, again, for any of this material to be added, it does need a source. And why should it be so difficult to find one? If the school is of the importance you suggest, then presumably someone has written a history of it? Such a history would almost certainly be written by an ex-pupil, and thus would surely mention many of these aspects that you see as key to school life. Even if there is no such history, if the school is significant then it will have many significant alumni, and their biographies or autobiographies would be suitable sources for some of the material.

Hopefully this makes clear to you why it's reasonable to demand sources for this material, but I will also answer your specific points about why you feel it sources are not necessary. The disputed material was not in the article for "many" years; it was in the article for a moderate period of time, a few years ago. Standards for verifiability were lower then; they have improved. The article was not paid much attention back then. Unfortunately, this is common for school articles. But the interest in the article increased, and the disputed material was challenged. To go back in, it needs sources. You also mentioned that other parts of the article are unsourced, for example the fact that it is a boys-only school. Yes, these statements should be sourced too (although if material is sourced in the body of the article then it does not need sourcing separately in the lead); typically, citing the OFSTED report would be the most common way of doing so.

I think all of the disputed material is worth preserving for posterity - just, not all of it has a place on Misplaced Pages. Perhaps http://www.wikia.com/ has a suitable place for hosting such things, or could provide one. I believe http://www.friendsreunited.co.uk/ has a facility for posting memories of a particular school, and similar material. These types of sites are ideal for that sort of material that cannot be sourced, or that is unencyclopedic - but would still be of interest to former pupils, of whom I guess there are quite a few thousands in this case. However, improving the quality of Misplaced Pages articles with sourced encyclopedic material is, in my mind, much more worthwhile.

You mentioned escalating the disagreement to whoever makes decisions on such things. The starting point for this is Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Loredana Brigandì

Loredana Brigandì (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What shall we do about this article - did you have a look at the possible copy vio? I only found that article and her website bio is also a similar article..? Is she notable? Off2riorob (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I've requested semi-protection as a first step. I've not had time to look into notability, but if there isn't much out there then we should AfD it. If the non-controversial current content of the article is directly copypasted from her website then you may wish to stubbify it in the meantime anyway. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I reported the IP at the vandal noticeboard. Off2riorob (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Personal website from 2004 - http://web.archive.org/web/20070107093413/http://www.loredanabrigandi.org/id19.htm - similar to say the least.note - stubbed back.Off2riorob (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Request

Demiurge1000, can we talk via some real-time chat now? Maybe I'll be lucky enough to convince you that I am a normal person and you will then persuade That Ole Cheesy Dude to talk to me. 78.128.185.9 (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I just replied to this on his talk page. Yes, talk to me on IRC. Or, if you prefer, create yourself an account on Misplaced Pages with email enabled, and I will email you there. But the other editor has said he does not wish to speak to you privately, and I recommend that you respect that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding added material "2G spectrum..." in article " Subrata Roy"

Since the concerned matter is sub-judice, i.e. pending before court of law, any vexatious or biased comment or accusation causing damage to the image and reputation of an individual in lieu of any court verdict against the said individual, amounts to a criminal offence of Defamation under section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. All persons who draft, publish, or aid and assist in drafting or publishing any such defamatory content are liable to be prosecuted in the court of law. --115.113.103.104 (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a note that the IP address has been blocked for making legal threats, and that another contributor has questioned the relevance of the "Indian Penal Code" to people and organisations that are not in India. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for telling me! It's a real help. Btw, the size of some of those satellite images is so immense, and my computer is already packed with tropical storm database downloads :) Thanks!! Hurricanefan25 (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW I'm often in chatrooms. Is there a Misplaced Pages chatroom, or a hurricane one? You seem to know a lot about wiki so I thought I might ask you. Hurricanefan25 (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, see the lower left portion of Misplaced Pages:Questions, under "Live chat help". If you can get that to work, type /join #wiki-hurricanes once you are already in the chat, and it will (additionally) add you to an IRC chat with some names in that you might find familiar :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, there's a hurricane chat room? Now I've seen it all. Well, I hope you settle in there Hurricanefan. I'll reply to your questions tomorrow morning, I hope that's alright. Also while I'm here, Hi Demiurge1000, hope all's well. Worm · (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

From what I remember of last year, the hurricane channel seems to be about pokemon a lot of the time, but it's been around for a good few years. Yeah I'm doing great, just trying to dig myself out from under the far too many things I started doing all at once :-) I hear you got yourself talked into undergoing a painful bureaucratic procedure - I'll hopefully drop by tomorrow and see how that's going. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I know the feeling. I can't remember the last time (before, er a couple of nights ago) where I had a nice quiet evening helping people on IRC. So much to do, so little time. As for the painful bureaucratic procedure, I ended up talking myself into it, still waiting for the pain to kick in though, I'm sure I pissed someone off somewhere... Worm · (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

In appreciation

		The Airborne Barnstar
		For copy editing Operation Fustian, I have great pleasure in awarding you the Airborne Barnstar. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Really appreciate the work you did. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, what a great barnstar to have. It was really fascinating to do... having grown up playing computer games based on Operation Market Garden and later walking across the John Frost Bridge (carrying an umbrella for leadership purposes of course), only while doing this copyediting did I discover that poor old John Frost had already been cut off and nearly overrun at an earlier "bridge slightly too far" during Fustian, over a year before Arnhem. It really gives an idea of the courage of these paratroopers, it wasn't just the Arnhem operation that went wrong, but almost every mission they went on involved complete chaos, surrounded behind enemy lines, waiting for relief columns that were always late, knowing they would mostly be without heavy weapons while facing tanks - and then to plan to do the same thing again, repeatedly! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Not just twice in North Africa covered a bit here. Frosts 2nd Battalion was dropped behind the German lines to capture an airfield and expected the rest of the army to advance and relieve them. Stiff German resistance meant they British 1st Army was held up at the start line. Frost when he contacted 1st Army was told, as the battalion was trapped fifty miles behind the German lines, they had been written off. The battalion surrounded managed to fight through to the British lines, with around sixty per cent casualties. Sometimes Hollywood etc, does not do them justice. Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: TS Debra (1978)

Done. Hurricanefan25 (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For all your fine contributions! Fewq567 (talk) 07:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

"anonymous (street meat)

I just don't know how to do an article on my UCLA short -- selected by the California International Short Film Competition, March 24, 2011

http://calshorts.info/Cal_Shorts_Archive.html

There already is one! It's at imdb! Misplaced Pages doesn't have articles about short films unless they are uniquely ground-breaking in some major way. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC) What are you talking about? Mig (talk) 01:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I have credits on IMDb -- what are you talking about?Mig (talk) 01:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies. I was talking about Misplaced Pages. Were you asking about something else? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC) It's just one more credit and since it was on my page -- the link didn't go anywhere. http://en.wikipedia.org/Migdia_Chinea_Varela I personally don't know what to do with it. All the other information on my page is accurate and I can vouch for that. Mig (talk) 02:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

If you could help me post it correctly -- it would be greatly appreciated.  I have not had a chance to do anything much since my schedule at UCLA is so grueling.  I'm trying to do many things at once -- thanx very much!

Migdia Mig (talk) 02:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Demiurge1000.

I will change my username and hope that I don't lose my entry.

BTW: I notice that the heading of my entry isn't showing on the entry. I'm not sure how to make this happen. Please advise.

Thanks again so much for your help. You are awesome!

Adrienne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Escoebliss (talk • contribs) 17:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)