Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:20, 16 November 2018

(Refresh)

Instead of doing something useful, You have been staring at this page since 06:45 Sunday, January 12, 2025 UTC.

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

What it wikipedia's policy on instantiating or subclassing topics? How exhaustively should any topic be subdivided or qualified? I ask because I recently came accross Straw Feminism which seemed to me to be trivial instantiation of a straw man, wherein the article provides no useful additional information- but is apparently marked as "keep". If anything it should perhaps be moved to wiktionary. It is apparently sufficiently notable because some people have used it in articles, but then should we not instantiate every straw man in any law, fiction, or philosophy?

Hi, Ethanpet113, welcome to Misplaced Pages. The page at Misplaced Pages:Splitting gives some general guidelines about when it might be appropriate to split a topic off from a main article. In the case of Straw Feminism, the article was nominated for deletion last year, and kept after discussion. Those who argued for keeping the page said that topic was worthy of a standalone article because sources have talked about "Straw Feminism" in depth, as more than just an example of the "straw man" fallacy. That's the key part on Misplaced Pages: has the subject received enough coverage in reliable, independent sources to justify a stand-alone article? In this case, the consensus was yes. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to The Misplaced Pages Adventure!

Hi Ethanpet113! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Misplaced Pages Adventure Start Page
• The Misplaced Pages Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Misplaced Pages Help pages

-- 05:36, Monday, November 20, 2017 (UTC)

Applying WP:WEASEL

Per WP:WEASEL, words like "some" are not automatically weasel words and they might be validly used in the lead as a summary. Also see what Template:Who states in its "Use good judgment" paragraph about such words. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gender variance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Manspreading. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Shouldn't need to warn a user with a 10 year old account but your edit was blatant OR. If you're unfamiliar with this, please review the linked policies above. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Noted, I can see in hindsight it's a little too tangential, I shouldn't edit late into the night.🤔 Additional note, account age has very little to do with understanding of edit policy, Misplaced Pages is notoriously bad at providing precise instructions regarding edits. It has many many articles on what not to do, but if it has a shortlist it cannot easily be found. The alternative is I just have to edit and have senior editors rollback until I learn. I imagine this is especially bad for unregistered users. Ideally on the main page or side bar there should be linked a very quick synopsis of edit and citation policy, so everyone knows the big faux pas.

Drive-by tagging

Hi Ethanpet, please don't engage in any more drive-by tagging. If we were all to do that, every single article would have multiple tags, because all articles are imperfect. Please first try to improve the article, and tag only when you genuinely don't have time and the problem is such that readers and other editors need to be alerted. Many thanks, SarahSV 18:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: The tagging is not drive by, all articles are imperfect, but some articles are significantly more imperfect than others, I could understand if you didn't want me to tag bomb a B-class article, because they've been determined to be reasonably good, but I'm evaluating new articles for their structure, citations, and use of unestablished or fringe statements. I use sparkle to tag the top after I have evaluated and made corrections to an article to indicate that there are still errors which are beyond my skill or scope to correct. So I have made attempts to modify the article either before or immediately after tagging them. Sparkle generally tries to automatically group these taggings into a multiple issues, automatically. If a section is particularly egregious I may tag it with the corresponding section tag. The trouble with asking me not to do that is the articles in question are start or c class, and they are the entire reason for which those cleanup templates exist, so to argue that I shouldn't doesn't make any sense to me. Ethanpet113 (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't realize when I wrote the above that you're the editor who wanted to merge Womanism into Third-wave feminism. I think you need to be much more careful when editing articles about feminism. Regarding the tagging, there's nothing to suggest that The NeuroGenderings Network is a hoax; a few seconds looking at the sources or googling it would show you it was genuine. Likewise, there's nothing to suggest that the author has a COI. Your tags on White privilege were also baffling and were removed immediately. When you see other editors regularly remove your tags, it's a sign that you're over-tagging. These tags are better left for situations where you've tried to fix an article but someone has prevented you, and the tag is a last resort because the article is seriously deficient. SarahSV 22:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I'll incorporate your advice on tagging in my edit strategy, and instead list the problems with the article which I don't have the expertise to fix on its talk page. I legitimately cannot find what is distinct between womanism and third wave feminism(they seem to have exactly the same set of goals). And the Neurogenderingerings network is primarily manifested as a wordpress blog, which anyone could have created. It's description seemed to be a mashup of various sciency/sociologically sounding words, which did not seem to impart any actual information. Legitimate conferences tend to at the very least be able to afford some domain name space, it was perfectly legitimate to consider that suspicious.Ethanpet113 (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for agreeing to list problems on talk pages. As for merging womanism with third-wave feminism, that would be a category error; womanism is a philosophy, while third-wave feminism is a period within feminism. Re: the network, it's an informal group of female academics who study feminism and neuroscience. It emerged out of a conference, but it isn't the name of a conference. SarahSV 23:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Re: the network, Being that the page is about the academics and not the conference itself, wouldn't it be more well served as a Category page?E.g. Category:Feminist Scholars that Emphasize Neurology

That's a bit like creating "Category:People who write news for the UK's state broadcaster", instead of BBC News. SarahSV 01:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:Votestacking at WP:Articles for deletion/The NeuroGenderings Network

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence WP:Articles for deletion/The NeuroGenderings Network. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Misplaced Pages's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. This message also applies to selectively pinging other editors. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

re:Degradation of Sociology Related Pages (Village Pump post)

@Ethanpet113:, as I stated on the Village Pump: page size of Feminism is 153 kB, page size of Sexism is 183 kB. So, I just wanted to drop by and outline something you can do about it:

• put a template very long on top
• put a post on the Talk page saying you propose splitting the page
• on top of the Talk page note the WikiProjects listed
• message all the WikiProject Talk pages that you intend to split or reduce the page. make sure to mention WP:Splitting and WP:Summary style

If you decide to do this, ping me and I'll engage in any discussion on the topic Talk page.

Seahawk01 (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

Hello, I'm I80and. Misplaced Pages is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Linux seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.

Misplaced Pages does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.

i80and (talk) 01:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Linux. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Your drive-by twinkle tagging

Regarding this edit. Please don't create merge proposals with discussion links like |discuss=Talk:Casino Gaming#Proposed merge with Server centric gaming without actually initiating a discussion. You proposed a merge to Casino Gaming which is a red link, and that's generally not helpful. It requires me to search your edit history in an attempt to determine what your intentions were. I'm not wanting to be too critical because you did find an issue needing to be addressed, but, as I'm not familiar with Twinkle use here, I don't know if that was due to luck or insightfulness. wbm1058 (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary-sanctions alert

Hi Ethanpet113, this is to alert you that discretionary sanctions are in effect for articles and talk pages related to gender disputes or controversies, an area in which you've been active. Please take note of this and of any other advice editors are leaving for you. Many thanks, SarahSV 23:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Misplaced Pages's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33