Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:45, 16 July 2006

Hey, I left a msg at the invoicing bureau's talk page. Here's our boilerplate welcome, as well...it has some useful links. Welcome!

Hello, Reswobslc/Archive 1, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Kchase02 T 07:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll change it to a redirect. Check out Misplaced Pages:Community Portal for some things you could do (maintenance related and desired articles). Wordsearch the page for requests and stubs and go through those lists. See if there's anything that strikes your fancy. Cheers and happy editing! Sorry your page didn't work out.--Kchase02 T 08:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Berkeley of the West

An editor has expressed concern that Berkeley of the West may not be neutral. Please do not remove the template without addressing those concerns.Viridae 23:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The editor didn't give any reason why, other than suggesting that NPOV was somehow obvious. It's not obvious to me. Looking at the subjects of his previous edits, the only thing obvious to me is that he is Mormon, and my guess is that he was offended by the inclusion of the term. I suppose he will call it NPOV until if and whenever the article gets deleted. Understood it is a term Mormons may not like to hear, but that doesn't make it NPOV any more than the article on hell isn't NPOV for not talking about heaven. Perhaps you can assist me in understanding how this article is not NPOV. Reswobslc 23:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe sentances like The term's underlying suggestion is that if the folks at BYU who claim academic freedom is not an issue can't even properly reference the location of their own school on a map, that they must be too sheltered to be in a sufficiently well-informed position to make that sort of claim. are overly critical of the students. I also think the use of presumably in this sentence is designed to be derogatory: while students at BYU presumably find the level of freedom acceptable enough to attend the university.. See WP:AWW. Viridae 23:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no WP:CRIT saying being critical is not allowed, otherwise we wouldn't have pages like Microsloth to criticize Microsoft, or a nigger page, or the terms described on this page and this page and this page and this page. All of these reference terms that are undoubtedly critical of the groups they refer to. When someone makes a big public mistake (and publishing a prominent obvious error in a newspaper is a textbook example), they're going to merit legitimate criticism, whether they're a BYU student, a Microsoft employee, a Presidential advisor, or whoever they might be. Just because a page about criticism (or a critical term) contains criticism, doesn't make it NPOV! If you look at BYU's entry, you'll see that academic freedom at BYU is an ongoing sore spot there, all the way up to the level of the AAUP, and not some little jab one guy took at the University writing a biased Misplaced Pages article to laugh at the mistakes of three of its students. Further, I am not sure I agree that the second statement you mention (the while students at BYU presumably find the level of freedom acceptable enough to attend the university.) is intended as an attempt at WP:AWW, rather it is simply a logical one, like presumably your chair is not on fire because you're still sitting in it., but a word means something different to everyone and acknowledge that many will agree with you on that point and not me and that's reason enough to be concerned about it. Reswobslc 00:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

My view on that second sentance was that it was a fairly disparraging way of putting it. I am considering editing it to say something along the lines of "However the university has many students enrolled, indicating that the freedom given is acceptable for those that attend.". I believe that imparts more neutrality than the current sentence. Viridae 01:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The changes you made have removed my misgivings over the neutrality of the article. The NPOV template has been removed. Thanks for being a worthwhile editor to work with. Viridae 01:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Demand reduction

Hello! Please don't remove AfD notices from articles. This is to be done by the closing admin. If you wanted to recind the AfD nomination then this should have been mentioned in the discussion itself. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  11:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The AfD nomination I removed was my own, done after the article was completely rewritten. In any case, I am unable to determine if you are asking me to heed this request as a personal favor, or per Misplaced Pages policy, or as an informal reflection of "the way things are done around here". WP:AFD does not mention that not removing one's own AfD nomination is policy or even a suggestion, and if this is the case, it ought to be changed to reflect that, as that page mentions many other things that are far less significant. Regarding your suggestion that I mention my desire to withdraw the nomination in the discussion, I note that I did (search for the text "Withdraw Nomination" in the discussion, signed by me). Thanks for your attention Reswobslc 22:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The notice is given in {{Drmafd}}. The closest guideline that I can find at short notice is in Misplaced Pages:Speedy_keep#Applicability: "Please realize that while you may personally dislike having an AFD tag on your favorite article, it is not actually doing any harm, and will be gone in less than a week.". The process was referred to by Arthur Rubin. The correct course of action for a non-admin participant in an AfD is given in WP:AfD#What_to_do_after_an_AfD_discussion_has_passed_with_a_confirmation.3F, i.e. nothing, as the process will continue.

I see that you asked a question about deleting the AfD tag but that no answer was forthcoming in the AfD debate. A good place to ask questions about policy and procedures is the village pump, where advice will be offered at short notice. You make a good point about the removal of tags before the five day limit not being explicit, so I will see to it that this is made clear in the process.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  23:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You may have touched on a good point that's highly relevant to the AfD debate you're referring to, though I am not sure if you're talking about the specific case of one removing his own AfD tag. That is because the notice you've quoted is talking about if someone else AfD's an article you wrote, not if you're the person who AfD'd someone else's article and then said whoops and changed your mind, and appears to be of low relevance to the mistake I made. The AfD template clearly says on it, "please don't remove this until the discussion is over". But a little bit of selective interpretation applies when one considers removing the AfD tag shortly after he placed it there himself. Just like we all know a red light means stop, but if the light is broken and never turns green, it doesn't mean sit there and run out of gas hoping it eventually does. Certainly I will think harder and review more carefully before nominating an AfD thus eliminating the need to quickly rescind one, and this should never happen again to me now that I know, but I respond simply to draw attention to the fact that the rule is unclear or undefined in the first place and is likely to trip up other newbies as long as it stays that way. Reswobslc 23:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Advertising and speedy deletion

I have removed one of your speedy deletion tags as advertising is not one of our speedy deletion criteria. I changed it to a {{prod}}, which means proposed deletion. You can read more about our policies on that here - it's essentially a mechanism for pages that unanimously should be deleted, but don't fit one of the speedy rules. Thanks for your help in new page patrol, and let me know if you have any questions. (ESkog) 02:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"speedy", not "lightning"

G'day Reswobslc,

I see you've been doing a lot of good work helping us get rid of nonsense articles and so on. Well done! If I could just make a point ... there's enthusiasm, and then there's enthusiasm.

Among your list of excellent actions, you also tagged The Pavilion, Westville as a speedy candidate when it was only a couple of minutes old. I've deleted it because its author, who had expressed a desire to improve on the article before it was tagged, decided he'd rather revert you than do any improving, and so he can probably just as easily start from scratch at this point. However, as a general rule it's a good idea to be a bit more laid-back about articles that've just been created which the author obviously intends to improve. Killing it before they even start can be very discouraging to new editors. Thanks, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 08:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't it empty (or nearly empty) in the first place? (As noted, it's gone, so I can't doublecheck). Where did I miss his expression that he was going to improve it? (no talk page, none was deleted either). If it were really empty, am I really setting him back by tagging it? If I were him, and I saw "this page is tagged because it was empty", would I really feel criticized, or would the encyclopedic non-value of a blank page be obvious, along with the conclusion that if I were to put an article there, it would no longer be empty? As you noted, I did tag a lot of pages (enthusiasm is one way of putting it, or it could simply be that I chose to select pages off the new pages log and that's why new pages were targeted). If I tagged it for some other reason than empty, would you remind me so I know what not to do? Reswobslc 17:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Warning

Hi, Reswobsic, if you don't want to be blocked, please refrain from posting things about an editor having "nothing better to do and nothing of significant size in his pants to do it with." I suggest you go back and either remove or modify that post. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 06:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It's hypothetical. I don't even know the guy, never interacted with him. It's an attempt to characterize his apparent behavior. But I can see how that doesn't belong. Fixed. Reswobslc 06:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. AnnH ♫ 06:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this comment: Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure why I needed to be warned twice about the same comment. I assume that the previous warning directly above the one you left was overlooked (regardless of the included acknowledgment that the comment in question was edited 18 hours earlier in response to the first warning - you included a link to the revision before that edit was made). Secondly, in this case, as the discussion at hand is the implementation of policy and the persistent actions of an administrator which drove an editor with 6000+ edits completely away from Misplaced Pages as a result, the behavior of the individual I "attacked" is in fact the content and not the contributor. I referred to the actions of an administrator as that of a jerk, which is a person whose qualities and behavior are unlikable. I have no problem understanding how avoiding ad hominem remarks about other editors is a policy that's essential to peace and collaboration, but when the ad hominem argument is used to justify silencing criticism of an administrator's disagreeable actions, it's hardly the same thing anymore. As previously stated, said administrator behaved like a jerk and I stand by it. If I need to be blocked for expressing such an opinion (especially regarding a conflict that I had absolutely no involvement in, whose parties are individuals I have never interacted with, and therefore, I make a claim to a neutral point of view regarding it), then so be it. Such a block only reinforces the argument I made in the first place on the page in question. I am not a troll and have plenty to contribute as my edit history attests. Meanwhile, I have other ways to enjoy my life while being blocked besides adding value to Misplaced Pages in a voluntary and uncompensated manner. If I need to be blocked, let's get the block rolling. Reswobslc 03:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not really care for explanations and rationale for personal attacks. Neither are valid. I refactored you calling another editor a "jerk". See Diff and that was the warning for. Read the policy:

There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them.

You have your warning and I am sure that you are clear on the consequences of engaging on personal attacks: Don't. If you have an unresolved issue with an admin, place a user conduct RfC, or ask for help from other experienced editors. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Backup camera

I suggest that this article redirects to Rearview_mirror#Augmentations_and_alternatives as the matter is discussed in the appropriate section. More details can be added there, if required.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Are there any guidelines you can refer me to? I don't disagree with your suggestion, but it appears to me that whether something merits its own article is highly subjective and I feel somewhat lost on the topic, whether it's regarding this article or others. I feel there's enough interesting information about the subject to merit its own article, if for no other reason than that such information would be largely off-topic for an article about a rear view mirror. Reswobslc 18:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Redirect#What_do_we_use_redirects_for.3F: "Sub-topics or closely related topics that should be explained within the text." The articles discuss two methods of achieving the same objective, so to avoid replicating information in both or sending researchers to two pages to look at essentially the same article, one can redirect towards the other and all pertinent facts can be discussed without a researcher unknowingly missing something.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

May I solicit your opinion as to whether the article still ought to be merged in light of the following?

• • Although I'm sure your car probably has a usable rear-view mirror, big trucks and motorhomes (who are the biggest users of these) don't. The size of such vehicles and the cargo they carry moots the usefulness of a rear-view mirror, and in such a context, the idea of a backup camera being a "rear-view-mirror augmentation" starts to become nonsensical.
  • I've added significantly more to the article since the proposed merge that is of low relevance to rear-view mirrors.

Keep in mind I agree with the merge if that's the way it ought to be - my objective here is not to attempt to argue against one, but to better understand when a separate article is appropriate and when one is not. If you still feel it should be merged, let's merge it. Reswobslc 19:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Warning about Personal Insults

I have put this on the ExMormon Page. I want you to be aware of it. I know you have declared you are new here, but I have asked you to be polite numerous times. Eventually you must start to listen to this request!

One last time I am going to ask you to refrain from personal insults. If you continue to do such things, I will request an administrator attend to the issue. I have pointed this out to you before. You seem unable to post without insulting. Please get control of this tendency. Again, assume good faith. Discuss the article.--Anon 64 22:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL!!!! What are you talking about? If you, who has a total of 34 days of editing experience on Misplaced Pages, editing a grand total of 2 unique articles (both of which are of the controversial POV-heavy nature) want to imitate an administrator by leaving me a "warning", the least you could do is provide a link to the supposed violation! If you are talking about this edit, where I declined to answer two question of yours on the basis that I believed your asking of them was trolling (along with your subsequent statement that my refusal to answer your questions was "not legitimate"), that is not a personal attack by any means (see WP:NPA#Examples_that_are_not_personal_attacks). Finally, you should consider using the {{subst:npa2}} and {{subst:npa3}} templates in the future when you warn people of making personal attacks, as when you make statements such as "You seem unable to post without insulting. Please get control of this tendency", you are in fact including personal attacks in your personal attack warning. This looks pretty silly. So does warning me "one last time" when this is the first time you've attempted such a thing... or if it's not silly, it's at least dishonest. There is nothing wrong with being WP:BOLD by "warning me" but you'll stand a little taller if you have your facts straight before you do! Reswobslc 00:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I am talking about your continual insulting of others. As far as my total days of experience, they are irrelevant. I left you information about my intent. This is according to Misplaced Pages Policy. You are supposed to try to work out differences before taking it to the next level. The supposed violation was on the discussion page where we were communicating. I have repeatedly brought them to your attention. Yes, calling another editor a Troll is a personal attack. On the other hand, my comment is not a personal attack. However, yes, I have warned you one last time. It is the last time that you will engage in personal insult without me bringing it to the attention of an administrator. You seem to be unable to post without insulting. I do not know why, but you need to get this under control. I have told you this several times before. Would you like the list of prior times? -- Anon 64 14:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I don't "continually insult others". Please either call an administrator and have them straighten out my supposed spree of insults, or GO AWAY! As all you seem to be doing lately is begging for my attention and responses (AKA trolling) to the point that you won't even let me stop talking to you over at Talk:Exmormonism, as now you have to come over to my talk page to continue to pester me (AKA trolling as well). GO AWAY!!!!!!!! (This response will not be copied to your talk page - DO NOT respond on mine - we have nothing to talk about - go get an admin if i'm a big bad meanie). Reswobslc 15:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)