Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:14, 2 February 2018

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

WikiProject Misplaced Pages

Awesome —PaleoNeonate – 18:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I take an egalitarian approach to WikiProjects. GMG 18:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alternative for Germany

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alternative for Germany. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Would you mind reviewing work-in-progress draft?

Hello, GreenMeansGo -

You were very helpful in responding to the question I posted in the Teahouse recently, so I was hoping I could ask for your assistance once more.

I'm still working on revising the Kelly D. Brownell article, including improving the content so it better adheres to NPOV and citation standards. If you have time, would you mind taking a quick look at my in-progress draft and see if it's on the right track? I've looked at the MOS a lot lately, but I'm a little shaky on at least one bit of formatting (quotes). None of the edits have been made in the mainspace; it's all in my Sandbox.

If it's not too much of an imposition, I'd love to get your take on it and any recommendations / corrections you might want to offer. In any case, thanks again for your help earlier.

Mdrozdowski (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey Melissa. Honestly it looks pretty good, so these are fairly minor critiques compared to your run-of-the-mill paid article writing, which is usually in much worse shape and much more overtly professional.

• Some of the content starts to devolve into extensive listing, which starts to become difficult to read at times. You way want to check out guidance at WP:BULLET, and consider formatting some of these as bulleted lists in cases where it might make it more digestible for readers.
• I would probably do a scrub for things that are talking about related topics but not the subject of the article directly (see also WP:COATRACK). There are at least a few instances of this that popped out to me. For example: The inaugural recipient was Senior Associate Dean Dr. Judith Kelly, in recognition of her commitment to inclusive excellence. That's nice for Judith, and should go in her article if she has or gets one, but it doesn't really belong in an article about someone else. Similarly, the center's mission is to develop global food policy solutions. Again, that might be appropriate in the main article for the center, but Misplaced Pages articles are supposed to be comparatively short on context compared to other mediums. This is because we have a theoretically unlimited amount of main articles we can write, and which we can point readers to for more information, rather than trying to give the "big picture" in a way that a newspaper might do.
• Honoring faculty members for their exemplary qualities... and everything that goes to the end of that section I would probably take out. An encyclopedia article doesn't really want to include man-on-the-street type testimonials, unless the person who's giving it is somehow important in their own right, and the quote is central to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject, in a way like professional movie reviews might be for a blockbuster, but student feedback isn't necessarily for an academic.

I might also say to keep an eye out for comparatively minor details creeping in overall, since it is getting pretty long. Our guidance on length suggests no more than 4,000 to 10,000 words long, but these longest of articles are usually about massive subjects, like major wars, countries, or heads of state, and your average academic biography is generally going to be much shorter. Not that we should skimp on the important stuff, but we don't want to add unnecessary stuff just to make it feel beefier. But the subject seems to easily meet our notability standards for academics, and I really don't think you will have any problems getting it accepted by an WP:AFC reviewer. GMG 18:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your input; it's very helpful. I'll definitely check out all of these, and take you up on your suggestions and recommendations. This is the first BLP I've done, so it's taking some getting used to. If you drop by for another look-see, please do feel free to point out any mistakes.

Thanks again for your time and for taking a look; I appreciate it.

Mdrozdowski (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Justice Party (South Korea)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Justice Party (South Korea). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Redirect

HI GreenMeansGo, Good day. I have consulted on redirect question in WP:Teahouse before, I was told advised by you that to add "title= xxxxx&redirect=no" from the redirect page. However, I try on do that on UFC 224 which has been redirected to List of UFC events, and added the URL plus title=UFC224&redirect=no, and I could not find the redirect page. I think I might understand you instruction incorrectly. Could you kindly explain again step by step on how to do it starting from tying UFC 224 on the search window? Thanks in advance. CASSIOPEIA 16:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey Cass. That's strange. When I copy/paste this: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=UFC_224&redirect=no as in here, it works just fine for me. Is there maybe a typo somewhere else in the url? GMG 16:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi GMG, Oh yes, I forgot to put the under score between UFC and 224. Got it. Thanks a lot. CASSIOPEIA 16:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

No problem at all. GMG 16:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Deletions

Apart from copyright violations, her articles (well, some of them) have many problems. I am looking at a lot of them trying to get rid of the copyright violations. I'm not going to simply ignore some deficient articles like Adam Geiger when I come across them (I alreday ignore many problems in them just becaus I don't want to edit too many of her articles). I can stop sending notifications to her, but this is usually frowned upon. But I'll not stop nominating them for deletion just because she or you doesn't like that. Fram (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey Fram. If it's a copyright violation or a BLP violation, obviously it needs to go and go now. You don't need the likes of me to tell you that. But Philip Bainbridge (died 1918) has already been kept, and wherever Villa Il Palmerino ends up, it doesn't look a lot like deletion. So you're not exactly getting slam dunks on these, and if one of these is borderline, there's a good chance it could be deleted wrongly just because you've exhausted the time of the few people who are paying close attention. I seriously doubt either one of us could say when we'd only been around a few months that many of our articles didn't have "many problems" too.

It's not going to be the end of the project if you put an article on a non-notable subject on a to-do list to set for a week. Consider that there are at least one or two of us left who are big gushy softies and actually care about editor retention, and hold out some hope that things like this can be somehow resolved amicably, if people stop piling on for a second.

I've already I think, pretty clearly expressed that I don't think you've done a particularly stellar job at effectively communicating things in a way that's going to help a new editor learn and become a long time contributor of the type we will always need. I'm not up in my capslock button threatening to take you to ArbCom over it, although I do wish you would take it to heart, and relax for a little bit. GMG 14:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

You are aware that she was indefinitely blocked for copyright violations already once before, without my involvement? She isn't a "new editor" who needs to learn, she is an editor who had her chances, many of them and blew them. Feel free to take me to ArbCom over this, it seems to be the season for silly ArbCom threaths anyway. If she had misinterpreted some copyright statement to mean that it is a PD source, fine, that's not unusual. But to misinterpret a serious number of wildly different sources all as being public domain, when you have already been indefinitely blocked for copyvio and unblocked with conditions, shows that she was not interested in getting this right (as is obvious from her comments after the block). I asked her to check her articles after I noticed nw copyvios, but she never replied and only removed whatever I noted. She couldn't even be bothered to clean up or indicate to me other articles which used the same copyvio source incorrectly (like articles using Cecil Beaton's work as if it was PD).

When we have an editor who has been given warnings and blocks for a problem, who continues with the same behaviour afterwards despite further warnings, and who shows no indications at all that they have learned anything or are changing their approach in any way, then there is not much left to do except blocking again. Fram (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not issuing a veiled threat by pointing out that I haven't threatened you. Dragging you to AN or ArbCom for public shaming and ultimately no action wouldn't help to build a better encyclopedia, and would be a waste of both our time. We're not here to bend the arc of the moral universe more closely to justice; we're here to write.

When you reached the point where your comments, important comments that needed to be taken to heart, were being summarily removed, you should have reached out to someone else to try a different approach, because she obviously saw you as a bully (whether she was right or not), and she was not going to listen no matter how important the information was. Surely you have a short list of editors you can turn to in cases like that. If you don't, make one and put me on it, and now you do. GMG 15:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

No. Fram (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)