Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:27, 4 October 2015

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Re: Misplaced Pages:Former administrators/reason/resigned

Hi James, oops, I misread your edit and thought it indicated that he user was active, not that it indicated their last period of inactivity. I think listing the earliest period of inactivity would be better if we could just list one, because it makes the entries more stable and less liable to become out of date. However I can understand your reasoning for listing the most recent period too ... perhaps they can both be listed, separated by a line break, or something? Graham87 15:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Graham87: I certainly agree that keeping the entries more stable is desirable, but I don't see this issue as causing more stability problems than an inactive editor becoming active again, so that the table is out of date for a while. Personally I would be willing to sacrifice that for the advantage I think showing current inactivity gives. However, in line with your suggestion, I have tried a few ways of putting both periods into the table. The one which seems to me to work best is

|(1) November 29, 2004
(2) May 8, 2011
| (1) March 20, 2009
(2) ''present''

That shows up as follows:

Any opinion? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The only problem I have with it is a relatively minor one: my screen reader mistakenly tries to read it as a date (so it says "March first 20, 2009" instead of "1 March 20th, 2009"). This could be fixed by adding a "." after either the number or the close parenthesis; would that be alright? Graham87 02:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

If the semantic relationship is between the "(1)" entries in the two adjacent columns, and between the "(2)" entries in the two adjacent columns, this table layout is confusing. It would it be cleaner (and also fix the screen-reader issue?) to have them as numbered lists rather than hardcoded text.

Which looks like crap because an HTML "list" is indented, but could probably be fixed with CSS. Or even better, since we have adjacent pairs rather than adjacent "whole lists", put them in separate cells:

That opens up the opportunity to have the "Desysopping" and "Notes" also be matched to specific ranges (a desysop due to unactivity, then one due to ArbCom that was successfully appealed, etc.). DMacks (talk) 02:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@DMacks and Graham87: Yes, that last version is much better. That is much more like what I wanted to do, but I didn't know enough about tables to know how to do it. (I have, as far as I remember, never created a table, and on the rare occasions when I have edited them, I have just followed the formatting that's already there.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@DMacks: Yes, that sounds good to me, too. Graham87 01:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's a quick'n'dirty table formatter that offloads all the "table" markup for the rowspan into a template:

Each user is entered as:

{{FormerAdmin Table Account|username
|desysop1|start1|end1|notes1
|desysop2|start2|end2|notes2
|...
}}

supporting up to 4 entries (could add more if needed). Still working on why the username column looks like crap.(fixed) DMacks (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Completely reworked page at https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft:Michael_Laucke

Hello.

Folowing your very helpful suggestions, I completely reworked the page on Michael Laucke.

I have been working hard to respect the Misplaced Pages guidelines, policies and protocols you were kind enough to send my way. I was wondering if you could look over my radically reduced page at https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft:Michael_Laucke . Am I on the right path? I originally wanted to go slowly; several friends have mentioned that they would like to contribute to my effort in constructing an interesting and informative page, but I got a bit carried away it seems.

Nevertheless, I am striving for neutrality, verifiable content and no new research. I think I advanced a lot toward backing off and letting passions calm down. In other words, to just stick to the facts without any promotion or hype.

I am still far from finished, and certain sections still stand out as possible offenders; they will probably be discarded.

If this is not your area of familiarity within Misplaced Pages, would you be so kind as to tell me how I might get someone to look at my endeavor.

--Natalie.Desautels (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Natalie.Desautels: At a very quick glance, which is all I have time for now, it looks much better. Good work. I will try to check it more thoroughly when I get time. If I don't get back to you within two days, please remind me, as often I tend to put things aside to deal with later, and then forget them. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Well, quick is better than no glance at all : ); it is much appreciated. I very much look forward to your kind feedback, when you get the time. I have been focusing as hard as I can on honoring Misplaced Pages's important principles of neutrality, verifiable content and no new research; hopefully I have made strides along this path. ...à bientôt. Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 06:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson:Following through on your suggestion, I was wondering if you could look over my draft at https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft:Michael_Laucke . I believe I made more progress with it, and I am hoping to get feedback from you, to get an idea if it would be acceptable for submission at this stage. (I actually don't know how to submit, but I recall seeing a submit code somewhere that I place on top of the page; ...shouldn't be too hard to find it again.) Very much looking forward to learning your opinion,...and thank you very much in advance for your kind help. best regards, Natalie

--Natalie.Desautels (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The Coolrok TV Network

FYI but Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The Coolrok TV Network is up. I'm sure there's more to add. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

There's another universe of articles at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:JTa Comics. Same user though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: As you probably know, in early August I made a note of these pages, as preparation for taking them to MfD, but I then forgot about them. Thanks for doing it, and for letting me know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Gordon Music Learning Theory, a blast from the past

Remember this? It's been recreated yet again, first as Audiation by a new editor (expanded hugely by an IP) and then via a cut-and-paste move by yet another new editor to Music Learning Theory. I've now moved it to Gordon Music Learning Theory, but obviously can't fix the cut-and-paste or delete the inappropriate redirect Music Learning Theory. Is it significantly different from its previous incarnations? It probably meets notability, but at the moment it's sourced almost entirely to Gordon. Voceditenore (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Never mind about the inappropriate redirect Music Learning Theory. It's now been started as an article on the general subject of music learning theory, as opposed to Gordon's. The only remaining problem is the cut-and-paste move. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Voceditenore: Yes, I do vaguely remember it. I have history-merged the article history at Audiation into the new article at Gordon Music Learning Theory. History merges can be a messy business, and I pretty well always manage to make one or two mistakes on the way, but I got it right in the end, I think. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I was also partly concerned that the re-created article might have been repeating the copyvio from the first one to which I don't have access. However, on closer examination, the current one seems OK in that respect, if rather one-sided and heavily dependent on Gordon's own writings. That aspect also appears to be on the way to improvement now, so all's well that ends well. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Voceditenore: The message I posted above was actually a very much shortened version of an earlier draft message, in which I went into some detail about issues of copyright, lack of neutral point of view, and notability. Having spent a significant amount of time composing the message, I decided that, since you had said "The only remaining problem is the cut-and-paste move", I might as well deal with only that problem. However, since you have now mentioned the other issues, I will give you a very brief summary of the conclusions I came to in that abandoned draft post. (1) I see no copyright problem in the new article. (2) Point of view is not as neutral as it might be, but it's nowhere near as bad as the original (deleted) version of Audiation, and what problems there are can be cleaned up. (3) The references leave much to be desired, most of them being either from Gordon himself or from two people who are co-authors with him of various works, and therefore not independent sources. (At least that was so when I posted above: I have not re-checked to see if there are new refs now.) (4) Despite the poor referencing, it looks as though the subject probably is notable, and if you or someone else is willing to put the work in, suitable references are probably available. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I've been in touch with one of the editors at Talk:Gordon Music Learning Theory who seems keen to improve the article and has access to the University of Rochester library. I've suggested some further sources to him/her and I'm pretty sure the article will gradually improve. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Zurich00swiss at WP:ANI

FYI a courtesy note to inform you of Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Zurich00swiss_and_WP:NOTWEBHOST. Zurich00swiss is a user you previously unblocked, and I linked to the unblock request in this new report. RichardOSmith (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Ashwin Porwal

The subject or persons associated with the subject have been repeatedly recreating this article over the years, as you know. A search shows a multitude of socks, which I presume are stale, and it also shows article replications that strike me as copyright violations. I have tagged as such on Commons. (sigh) Coretheapple (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)and sorry for screwing up the header in posting this.... Coretheapple (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: Thanks for that information. I hadn't thought to do a search, but your search showed up one more account that I didn't know about, namely AshwinPorwal12, and one more version of the article that I didn't know about, Doctor Ashwin Porwal. The latest account (Teju joshi) claims to be a grateful patient, rather than Ashwin Porwal himself, and that may be true, or it may be that he has realised that COI editing is not looked on kindly, so it is better to pretend to be a third party. I am inclined to think it is likely to be a different person, as the versions of the article created by Teju joshi are distinctly different from the ones created by the earlier accounts. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

As for "screwing up the header", it's a kind of mistake which is all too easy to make: I have done things like that many times. Not a matter to worry about.The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes I saw that. Gratitude takes many forms I imagine. However, given that this is an SPI, and not a regular Misplaced Pages user, it struck me as a rather odd way of showing gratitude. But I'm cynical. Honestly have no idea how I made that boo-boo, by the way. I usually just plaster posts beneath the ones above, but maybe my fingers strayed. Perhaps I need a doctor like this gent? Coretheapple (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: Given that this is an SPI? Perhaps SPA? Although I think this may be a different person from the earlier accounts, that does not mean that I am convinced by the "grateful patient" line: it could be someone else who has been given the job of creating the article instead of the doctor doing it himself. That it is actually the same person seems on the face of it unlikely, mainly because the new versions of the article are much more clumsy and amateurish than the old ones, but that could be because the doctor has given up copying and pasting copyright-infringing content, and his own writing is not up to much. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: No, I've looked again, and the old accounts knew how to do wiki markup for things like section headings, infoboxes, and so on, but the new account doesn't. I have decided it is virtually certainly a different person. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Could well be another member of the team. Yes, I meant SPA. Coretheapple (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• By the way, I believe that this photo at Commons, just proposed for deletion, might be identical to the one that you just deleted here. Coretheapple (talk) 13:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Similar, but far from identical. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, I was working from memory. Coretheapple (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

About Page

This is why nobody uses Misplaced Pages because of stuff like this so I really don't care what you do to the JTa page just quit worrying it's a freaking page on a website that should've been down a long time ago so... Jaylen2020 (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jaylen2020: "Nobody uses Misplaced Pages"??? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Request

Help me, I only joined Misplaced Pages today writing a jokey article on a pretend band, this was meant to be work for school. But I must have accidentally published it online when I should have put it in my sandbox. And all 6 hours of work I put into and now all of it has been deleted. So is there a way to like bring it back just so I could put it in my sandbox or even copy/paste it on to another website for documentation. Please don't make it a waste of time for me. Thank you. Sorry for any inconveniences I've caused and it won't happen again. JordanSaward talk @ https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sex_Swing_(Band) —Preceding undated comment added 16:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Atlantic International University Edit you recently made

Hello,

I noticed you made an edit to the Atlantic International University Article adding an unreuputable/Reliable citation stating that the University is "Bogus." Please note that this is considered slander. Fyi, some confuse being unaccredited as being bogus or a diploma mill. As you know legally, Accreditation is Voluntary process in the United States. You have some who are state approved and or accredited in other countries by recognized accrediting bodies. In the UK there are 7 bodies, one being Accreditation Service for International Colleges in which AIU has recently been granted accreditation by ASIC. I'm requesting that you please remove the unreuputable/article citation you recently added ASAP as this considered Slander and non nuetrl. In the Accreditation section it already States the needed information. The information you added is redundant and non-nuetral.

Thanks Number 1 Law Man (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)Number 1 Law Man