Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:30, 21 March 2014

Template:Archive box collapsible

"Misplaced Pages's articles are no place for strong views. Or rather, we feel about strong views the way that a natural history museum feels about tigers. We admire them and want our visitors to see how fierce and clever they are, so we stuff them and mount them for close inspection. We put up all sorts of carefully worded signs to get people to appreciate them as much as we do. But however much we adore tigers, a live tiger loose in the museum is seen as an urgent problem." --WP:TIGER

Only 993070174 articles left until our billionth article!

We are only 993070174 articles away from our 1,000,000,000th article... --Guy Macon

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.

Wikibreak

Guy Macon is suffering from physical health issues. This may affect his ability to work on Misplaced Pages. Consequently, he may not be able to respond to talk-page messages or e-mails in a timely manner. Your patience is greatly appreciated.

New discussion

Start a new discussion thread

IIRC, RfC's re COI: WTF? (FWIW)

Hi, you've recently mentioned some recent RfC's involving COI.... can you clue me in on this? best regards, --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 07:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:No paid advocacy

Misplaced Pages:Paid editing policy proposal

Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest limit

--Guy Macon (talk) 07:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

TY!  :-) --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 21:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

COI stuff

Hi Guy. I was wondering if you had time to chip-in on a couple articles where I have a COI. User:North8000 has already reviewed my work here on improving the SMS Audio page, but I was hoping to find someone to do the Request Edit.

I've also submitted an AfC here for Brilliant Earth, which User:Fluffernutter provided feedback on here (that I implemented), but he/she said they were not confident enough about company articles to do the formal approve/decline. The backlog is about a month long and I was hoping not to wait so long to get an answer ;-)

CorporateM (Talk) 16:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Mass reversion

Hello! I noticed that you mass-reverted edits by User:76.120.175.135, citing WP:NOTBROKEN (and I see from your messages on the editor's talk page that you observed actual problems with some of the changes).

I just want to point out that some of the user's edits appear to have been constructive. This reversion appeared on my watchlist. The user had repaired a disambiguation page link (per WP:HOWTODAB) and a piped article link (per WP:DABPIPE and WP:DABPIPING). I checked some of the other reverted edits at random and saw additional disambiguation page link repairs (such as this one). I also saw edits that the user shouldn't have been performed (per WP:NOTBROKEN), but that also shouldn't have been reverted (because doing so only added another unnecessary revision).

I suggest that you examine your edits and self-revert those in which you accidentally undid improvements (and please try to be more careful in the future). Thank you. —David Levy 12:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification; I had not realized that I had reverted some good edits. I will go through every edit I made and make sure they are good. Again, I appreciate you letting me know that I made errors and giving me the chance to self-revert. I will post a followup not here when I am confident that I caught all of the bad edits. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again.  :-) —David Levy 13:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

76.120.175.135

I have to tell you something. The guy with this IP address suggest moving Die Hard to Die Hard (film), which I don't find it necessary and it doesn't change a thing about it since Die Hard is the main name of the film, among other things. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Right now the proposal to move the page is losing, and I don't think anyone will agree that it needs to be moved, so let's wait and see what happens. I have to clean up some errors I made earlier first, but after that I will look into whether the IP user is making a habit of suggesting moves that don't make sense. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The proposed move has now been closed (Misplaced Pages:Snowball clause). The result was no move. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Can this be used as RfC evidence?

FWIW, the evidence is this: after the RfC was filed and around the Guy/JzG posted at AN about QG and chiro, QG initially became highly (and imo weirdly) conciliatory, asking for a "truce", telling me and Mallexikon that he's stop editing acu articles if we wanted, asking me to undo all his edits since Decmber-ish, and changing his mind about whether category:pseudoscience should be used for the article. Then, a few days later, after I came out in support of a topic ban that others had previously suggested, QG reversed course 180 degrees, posting complaints about my edits at acu (all of which had been resolved earlier, AFAIK), deciding that acu should be in category:pseudoscience after all, and edit-warring over an NPOV tag that I'd placed on another article. This is imo battleground editing; I find it really inappropriate to make content changes for WP-political reasons. Regards, --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 14:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that you are correct (I am not taking sides, not having looked at the evidence myself) while there is no explicit rule on this, in general it is better to stay silent if the behavior is at the RFC/U itself and let those evaluating the RFC/U decide for themselves. Not responding (except for correcting statements of fact when you have diffs/citations showing that they are wrong) actually strengthens your argument. Psychologically, our brains tell us "you have to respond or everyone will think that it is true!" but the reality is the exact opposite. That's why you so often see someone in an argument making points in the form of questions; instinctively they know that responding usually weakens their opponent's position. Plus, the subjects of RFC/Us are often stressed out and are given a lot of slack.

If the behavior is in an article (including changing the category) and your complaint is valid that is the best kind of evidence. Even then staying cool and sticking to the facts is to your advantage.

Behavior on article talk pages isn't as good for evidence, and behavior o a user talkpage is worse. It's a judgement call whether to point it out at the RFC/U , and egregious behavior is better evidence. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The six-fingered man

This made me laugh out loud if for no other reason than how very true it is. Thanks! Risker (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The UAF DRN

Since the OP has now reported me at ANI for allegedly stalking him, and did not return to DRN after his unblock, is there any point in keeping this open? Dougweller (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Здравствуйте, товарищ! DRN does not take cases that are at other dispute resolution venues, so I closed it. I was going to close it after 3 days of inactivity anyway. -Guy Macon (talk)

FYI

Hi Guy. Somehow, this did not happen. Δρ.Κ.  15:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Mistake or feature?

I do not know whether this is a mistake. In this FAQ, poitics stands for politics, poetics or both? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Induction motor, etc

(Discussion moved to User talk:Ac driver.)

Arbitration case request: Debian

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Debian and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

This request may still be in the filing party's talk page. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

from Gregg Easterbrook

Hi Guy,

Nice to hear from you. I simply wrote a brief entry about myself, with secondary sources. It follows the example of this entry http://en.wikipedia.org/Nicholas_Lemann -- Nick's career and mine are similar.

Last month I asked tech-savvy friend of my daughter's if he could propose a revised entry -- I knew I'd bungle it if I tried myself -- but he said it was tagged as vandalism. I would be happy to send the same entry to you, and have you do with it whatever is appropriate under the Misplaced Pages rules structure.

To me much of what's in the current entry seems verbose, but I recognize that under the Misplaced Pages format, only users can make that call. Best Gregg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.152.126 (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Case request declined

The arbitration request involving you (Debian) has been declined by the Arbitration Committee

The comments made by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The power of persuasion

I must hand it to Guy Macon. That was quite some rhetoric. For instance, "then in comments in the article talk page":

• : "Consensus has been acquired".
• : "You may not" (assume consensus by silence).

That certainly proves the material is unsuitable. And the Committee bought it. I cannot blame Guy Macon for being persuasive. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Opted-out of message delivery