Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:57, 6 May 2006

Roy Dupuis's name once appeared on your listing as bisexual....................now it doesn't........how come? just curious.

Response to above query: A link to an internal Misplaced Pages entry called List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people (since edited) including such erroneous information appeared in an early version of the Misplaced Pages entry on "Roy Dupuis." Because it was misleading, a later editor removed the link and alerted Misplaced Pages to the error in the list. While the actor has portrayed characters with various sexual orientations in his work--e.g. "Yves," a gay hustler, in Being at Home with Claude; "Dominique," a married architect pretending to be gay for business reasons, then becoming confused about his sexual identity, in J'en suis--Roy Dupuis' own orientation is heterosexual. He is not "bisexual." Whoever added his name to a list identifying him as "bisexual" conveyed inaccurate information. The list itself is still "controversial" and not reliable as a source. (Please consult the editorial advice and "discussion" and "history" sections there. Many problems still exist in that list.)

Cf. Misplaced Pages: Editing policy

External links

Please note, this article has been extensively copyedited to remove the plethora of external and fancruft links; if someone is deserving of a link then consider an article; Misplaced Pages is not a means to SEO. Also deleted the massive listings at the bottom of the page listing every little film and tv appearance - this is an encylopedia; imdb probably have such an overdose list if someone really wants ot ... --Vamp:Willow 00:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply to the above:

Citing Misplaced Pages policy: "avoid deleting information wherever possible." There were no "fancruft" links. Whatever "fancruft" is. None of the information provided in this entry comes from IMDb.com. A great deal of time and effort was expended in the compilation of this entry. Whoever "VampWillow" is had no justification for removing the information about a subject that is apparently of no interest to her. The information is both pertinent to defining the subject of the article and useful to others interested in this subject. If "VampWillow" doesn't like it, let "VampWillow" write an entry elsewhere. See the link to Misplaced Pages policy" already provided. No one asked "VampWillow" (whoever that is) to "extensively copyedit" this entry "to remove" useful information that it provides. She is free to do her work on other articles. This one is about "Roy Dupuis," not about any of the interests listed in her account of herself. As someone who spent a lot of time contributing information to this article, I am not impressed at all by the nature of her changes. She should try actually learning something about Roy Dupuis.

Addendum: It would have been helpful if "VampWillow" had created an internal link to her reference to fancruft. Now that I have read Misplaced Pages's definition of the term, I strongly disagree that the entry on "Roy Dupuis" is fancruft. "VampWillow" needs to review the definition that Misplaced Pages itself provides currently of the term. Among the points made in it: "While "fancruft" is often a succinct and frank description of such accumulations, it also implies that the content is unimportant and the contributor's judgement of notability is lacking. Thus, use of this term may be regarded as provocative." Moreover, "As with most of the issues of importance and notability in Misplaced Pages, there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects." Roy Dupuis is not an "obscure" actor; he is the most celebrated actor in French-speaking Canada. "It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Misplaced Pages. This is primarily due to the fact that things labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unreferenced, unwikified, and non-neutral - all things that lead to deletion." None of this is the case in the entry restored on "Roy Dupuis." "Such articles may also fall foul of Misplaced Pages's policy against creating 'indiscriminate collections of information.' The article as restored is not an "indiscriminate collection of information." "Well-referenced and well-written articles on obscure topics are from time to time deleted as well, but such deletions are controversial. It is also worth noting that many articles on relatively obscure topics are featured articles." Roy Dupuis is not a "relatively obscure topic." Perhaps "VampWillow" is not informed about his prominence; that just speaks to her lack of knowledge of the subject.

"Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion. Rather, the term fancruft is a shorthand for content which one or more editors consider unencyclopaedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research." The article on "Roy Dupuis" as restored does not violate any existing Misplaced Pages "policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research." All the links provided are means of verifying the research with authoritative, credible sources. None of the currently-provided links are links to fansites. The links were provided instead of footnotes to make accessibility to the information easier for ordinary readers.

It is strongly urged that "VampWillow" respect the work of others interested in a subject clearly of little value to her but of value to people who access Misplaced Pages for information. The article as restored has been widely cited and is ranked highly by search engines like Google, illustrating its general usefulness.

Further addendum: The previous work done by the major editor of this article, which was, in effect, weakened, if not "vandalized," by "VampWillow" (who, as a self-identified Misplaced Pages administrator ) should know better, was in no way related to SEO (an unfamiliar term, which I had to look up on Misplaced Pages). Using Wiki terms without giving internal links to them frustrates inquiry. Furthermore, removing informational external links and substituting empty, non-existent internal Wiki links is counter-productive. If "VampWillow" wants to supply articles for each of the useless internal Wiki links, then she needs to do so before removing informational external links, so as to be linking to better internal information links. But no editor should remove information provided via external links and provide nothing useful in their stead. That does not "improve" an article.

Once again, see editing policy and also see Misplaced Pages: Vandalism for refresher courses in what not to do to previous editors' hard work.

Hmmn. an unsigned comment - how helpful! and the use of scare quotes around my username too. Setting such behaviour aside, the response that you should have made here wasn't to re-create the links (which action is, obviously, now reverted) but to create useful *Misplaced Pages* content within this project. Misplaced Pages isn't here to link to all and sundry external sites. If it is really good enough to have an external link (and many that were there I doubted) then it is good enough to have an article about it in "Misplaced Pages space". Information is not "provided" in any manner whatsoever if it is solely an external link. --Vamp:Willow 20:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Unsigned essay was by User:69.170.218.166 --Vamp:Willow 20:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"VampWillow": Please go ruin some other article. Leave this one alone. You are not improving it. You are abusing the following Misplaced Pages official policy: "avoid deleting information wherever possible."

Go waste your time doing something else. I have spent many, many hours working on this article for over 2 years. Check the history. I do not log on for reasons of abuse by Misplaced Pages trolls. What you are doing is very annoying and not useful to people interested in the subject of "Roy Dupuis," which, apparently, is not you. Remove useful information one more time, and I will bring your practice to the attention of Misplaced Pages. You are abusing your title as an "administrator" (so you say).

(above comment by User:69.170.218.166 again)

Dear "User:69.170.218.166" (for you have not created a username and if you have really been here "for over two years" then it would be helpful for you to do so - and also for you to learn to use the "Show preview" option and learn correct wiki-markup as I had to correct quite a bit), Misplaced Pages articles serve as an information source about different subjects; in some cases places or events, in others people. This one is about a person. It is an article about a person. It is not a directory of links to other websites with no connection to Misplaced Pages. You have now had three different editors remove these external links and I suggest you should learn from this. An article (and clearly you are very interested in Roy Dupuis) is not under the ownership or control of a single person - whether they have a username or not. At the bottom of the edit page you will have seen If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. Others can and will edit this page - it is the "wikipedia way" - as can you. But you may not add lots of external links which do not benefit this (or even 'a') Misplaced Pages article. One final thing; this isn't an abuse of position; indeed all Misplaced Pages pages with large numbers of external links are being checked for the usefulness and applicability of those links - this article just happened to be one of the earlier ones to be looked at given the very high number of such external links. --Vamp:Willow 09:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

MEDIATION?

Ladies … As amusing as this exchange has been, the comedy is now beginning to pall. I am not a practiced Misplaced Pages contributor, so please forgive me if I bypass your conventions and mark-ups. This is a simple attempt by an amateur to mediate. VampWillow, you’re a ruthless woman – your cuts are swingeing and uncompromising, excising superfluous material like a surgeon cutting infection out of a wound. (I reckon you still missed a few rotten bits, but never mind.) It took me 3 seconds’ deep thought to understand the principle of internal vs external links. Rather than creating “useless internal Wiki links”, you are inviting 69.170.218.166 to populate these links, thus enriching the Misplaced Pages knowledge base.

69.170.218.166, - why don’t you take the administrators’ advice and devote your time to fleshing out such internal links as are necessary? This exercise in itself may encourage you to reflect on priorities regarding relevance.

VampWillow while the original article was ludicrous for the most part, the post VW version is unbalanced and far from adequate. A lot of time is being wasted here … can’t we be sensible?

A well-wisher. (unsigned, but added by User:195.10.45.201)

I welcome a fresh eye - and looking at your edit history Mr/Ms "195.10.45.201" you clearly have a wider range of interests. Could I plead with both of you though to sign your talk contributions ("--~~~~" will do so whether you are logged in or not). At the moment Misplaced Pages editors - like myself - are starting a blitz on the number of external links we have; links taking users away from Misplaced Pages rather than take them to other articles we already have (or could have). This article was one of the worst offenders and, in part, some of the problems were also due to the 'overkill' of details. The word "selected" means highlights, not every little minutae about someone. I would *love* to see additional information at the targets of those blue links, and content at those red links. But not the re-introduction of external links which do not add value to the user's Misplaced Pages experience. --Vamp:Willow 17:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"and looking at your edit history Mr/Ms "195.10.45.201" you clearly have a wider range of interests" - blimey! that'll teach me to use my work computer. I am not that (those) person(s)!

. I was pointing out Misplaced Pages's encouragment of all users not to use and (if found) to delete gratuitous personal attacks. Whoever removed my comment (which did not post at all) and the previous material did not leave a signature or date/time stamp (or any evidence of being in Talk). Perhaps administrators can do that. I don't know. Whatever the case, the offensive material that I was commenting on is mostly gone, though unfortunately, it still resides in the history of editing changes (for the most part), from what I can tell. There seem to be odd Misplaced Pages-induced editing glitches every now and then leading to automatic deletion of material, perhaps while more than one person is editing at the same time (just a guess).] --NYScholar 21:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If there is an editing conflict you will see a message saying so. I would recommend that before posting you copy the text to clipboard (ctrl+c) so you won't lose it if the edit does not register succesfully for any reason. I'm not sure what you mean by someone removing a comment that did not post succesfully, how can you remove something that is not there? And NYScholar = gentility = viv? Just curious. S Sepp 22:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I did see an "editing conflict" message pop up; that's why I thought the disappearance of my post (which had looked as if it had posted) and other people's posts seemed related to such a conflict. Since then, I've looked at the semi-protection request page and noticed that the requests re: this page have all been removed, so maybe an administrator did remove those comments.

"I'm not sure what you mean by someone removing a comment that did not post succesfully, how can you remove something that is not there?" It was in my editing box and looked as if it had posted (after the "editing conflict" message popped up, but then when I went to read my reply in Talk, not only was it gone, but the comment I had been replying to was gone too (and I didn't remove either of them).

In response to your curiosity: the answer is no.

To all: Please let's not discuss specific Misplaced Pages users' identities in these Talk pages at all; they are not germane to the editing issues. To do so opens people up to personal attacks like those previously deleted. People use log-in identities to maintain privacy on the internet and to avoid identity theft and related safety issues. It is not a good idea to ferret out clues or to try to uncover or to publicly try to connect people's Misplaced Pages or other non-Misplaced Pages screen or log-in identities since people wish to maintain such privacy and protection online. Thanks!