Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:40, 11 December 2018

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• A request for adminship is open for discussion.
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

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, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Electric Outboards Page

Hello,

I noticed you deleted the Electric Outboards page, calling it "Spam-tastic" because it included a handful of current manufacturers. This page now redirects to the "Electric powered" section of the "Outboard motor" page, which contains very little information, some of which is inaccurate or incomplete.

I am not sure I understand what was wrong with my and some of the other previous contributions to this page. Since there are a limited number of manufacturers, I feel it is logical and helpful to the general public to list the specifications of each, and to include an accurate history. Deleting this page for the reason stated is akin to deleting the wikipedia page on cars because it mentions Mercedes-Benz and GM. I put a lot of time and effort into making this page a valuable resource to those who are interesting in powering their boats with electric outboards. I have no malicious intentions, no ties to any manufacturer, and am not a spammer. Misplaced Pages exists to supply the general public with useful accurate information. Getting rid of this information seems to be an attack on Wikipedias ideology.

If there is a problem with lack of citations, or if anything is actually inaccurate, I would love to get your feedback. I would be glad to work with you to get this page up and running again. I see you have made many positive contributions to Misplaced Pages and are a much more experienced editor than myself. However I believe your edits on this particular page have erased valuable information that is otherwise not easily accessible. For this reason I feel it is important to reach out to you.

I look forward to your thoughts. Rdoaner (talk) 04:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

MoneySavingExpert.com

Hi JzG. You removed many links about this site (link) stating "excessive self-sourcing - site is a native advertising spam bin and this article seems to be abused in order to promote link juice". As a person probably responsible for a lot of these links, I can assure you this is not the case. I created a request to remove the site from the blocklist (link) but as I rarely use Misplaced Pages these days, not even sure I did it correctly. The reason I created the article for MoneySavingExpert many years ago was that I was a passionate forum user there and I still tweak the article sometimes because changes come up in my RSS feed. But as with a lot of people, I'm a Facebook/Twitter guy these days and don't really give that much thought to "MSE". So I won't really be fighting to much to have them removed from the spam blacklist - They can do that for themselves. If the site is removed from the blacklist, would you restore those citation links? (where appropriate). As I mentioned on the blacklist page, those citations are only there because of malicious edits trying to change things for no apparent reason Aldaden (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Around half the sources were the site itself. One or two sources to the site (foundation date for example) are normally acceptable, but that looked more like SEO than anything else. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I fear that might be my fault some of the time. Every so often someone would come along and just want to remove something or mess with the article. You can see a small fraction of it in the talk page for the article. As a forum user, I could often correlate - forum arguments, then complaints that people had been expelled from the forum, then coincidentally someone would want to mess with the MSE article. I'd often respond by restoring a bit that had been messed with and adding a citation from the website. I don't know if you're aware of the site. Back in the day it was scrupulus in it's ethics. Now they're owned by MoneySuperMarket but they've made a big thing about keeping their ethics moneysavingexpert.com/site/moneysavingexpert-finance/. I'd be very suprised if they've gone all blackhat. I created the article when it was a little site and I liked it so much I wanted it to succeed. I'm trying to remind myself now that they're part of a big company now and they can fight for themselves. Still have a soft spot for them tho Aldaden (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I can tell it was written by a fan. It was, sadly, a little too obvious. Guy (Help!) 00:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually I'm responsible for very little of the current article. It has many fans. Forum currently has 1.8 million members. The ones that aren't angry with the site, as mentioned, come over and try to put how wonderful the site is without citation. Which I may have "fixed" with citation from site. Can't remember if I did that once or a few times. Would hate for it to be called a spam site because of my bad. Aldaden (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Malcolm Kendrick

I have been told you are the administrator responsible for the decision to delete this Misplaced Pages biography. I am asking you please to reconsider. Dr Kendrick is a Scots doctor who has practised as a GP in Macclesfield, Cheshire, for many years. He is one of an increasing number of GPs who are concerned about aspects of modern medicine and has published several books on the subject for the general reader. As his opinions are highly critical of the status quo, he has had few reviews in the medical journals, who prefer to ignore him rather than answer his specific points. His main concern is that 40 years of intensive research have failed to prove that cholesterol/saturated fat is the cause of cardio-vascular disease, and that the prevailing belief that it is, is the main reason for the huge increase in the prevalence of obesity and type 2 diabetes throughout the world. This is possibly the major public health issue of our times and threatens to bankrupt health care systems in many countries. Because Dr Kendrick remains something of an outsider in academic circles, though he is right at the front line of practical medicine, he lack notability in the strict sense of Misplaced Pages's guidelines. The effect of this is to censor his contributions to an important debate of great public importance. It raises the suspicion that Misplaced Pages is in thrall to those who profit from the present situation to the detriment of patients. The page about him has been removed by an editor who is now going after other people with similar concerns, but whether this is a personal campaign or is more widely organised is unclear. The page about Dr Kendrick was brief and non-controversial, but gave Misplaced Pages readers details of his publications and a link to his blog, enabling them to follow his arguments elsewhere if they so wished. If David Icke can retain his Misplaced Pages page, when a respected physician who wishes to help his patients cannot, there is something very wrong with Misplaced Pages.Shirley49 (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Please see arguments to avoid regarding deletion. See also our general notability guideline, as noted by editors advocating deletion. Guy (Help!) 23:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I have read them both. They need to be applied with flexibility and common sense. Notability now has the effect of turning Misplaced Pages into an academic cartel, which is extremely elitist, or alternatively, catering only for the widely popular. If somebody's credentials are false, they can be challenged at any stage provided the page remains extant. At present, all those on the inside have to do to suppress unwelcome criticism, is to refuse to review or discuss the outsider's work. Where is the academic ideal of open debate here? A Misplaced Pages page should not be taken down except in very exceptional circumstances; if necessary it should be amended by agreement, to keep it within the law. Where secondary sources are hard to come by because of the circumstances, what's the hurry? A note asking for them can be affixed, and this will draw the reader's attention to a lack of academic or other credentials which might dent the subject's standing, but increasingly it might not, as conformity within academia seems to be more valued nowadays than it used to be. If Misplaced Pages wants to discuss controversial subjects it must do so fairly, not insult the minority viewpoint in its pages, and it should also provide a link to a page where the minority can express freely what may, occasionally, in the future, become the accepted truth. Anything else is censorship, which I thought the free world was opposed to. For example, Misplaced Pages has a page about flat earthers, which discusses them in a reasonably objective way, relating their various beliefs and factions with clarity. But get a subject which is controversial, like the lipid hypothesis, and the bias towards the mainstream view become far more obvious, and this is given the last word in any discussion of the dissenting viewpoints. I stress, once Misplaced Pages gets the reputation of suppressing free speech from anyone, it will lose whatever reputation it still has more quickly than you or any other administrator can press delete.Shirley49 (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

All that discussion at the AfD, and you still haven't got it. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 06:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Journal check, please

Environmental Health Perspectives 19:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme:, a horrible article on a decent looking journal. It is published with support from NIH and has a fair IF. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, maybe now that you've trimmed it down, some academic editors will do a better job expanding it. It seemed worthy to me considering EHP’s 5-Year JIF is 9.87 per Clarivate Analytics. From what I'm understanding about JIF, the highest you can go is 10, isn't it? 02:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes. The issue is that journals in some niches will attract more citations irrespective of merit, but in this case it does look OK. But the article was almost exclusively self-sourced. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Unfulfilled - What the heck?

Guy, I understand you are trying to assist with what appears to be an edit war, but you are way off base for completely blanking the entire episode summary of this episode Unfulfilled. Per WP:TV and WP:MOSTV the airing of the episode itself is sufficient source itself for the basis of a plot review. Your removal of the content that has been hardly worked on by myself and other editors is completely irresponsible. If your sole objection is to the Forbes source (and I'd love to see some proof that Forbes is not a WP:RS), it can easily be replaced with one of the other sources in the article which all say the same thing as the Forbes source did. Please restore the content. Thank you. - SanAnMan (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The sources are not reliable. There's a Forbes contributor blog, J. Random Website, and most of it had no source at all. Guy (Help!) 15:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, Guy, you're missing the main point. Any episode recap uses the airing of the episode itself as the source of the recap. This is allowed per WP:TV and WP:MOSTV. If not, there would be no episode recaps whatsoever on any television episode. Stop and take a look at each and every episode of this season of South Park just for an example. This has been done this way for years, not just on this episode, but every single article that has a recap of the episode. Your blanking of the content is unjustified. Again, the Forbes article being used as a source can be easily replaced, but the content is independently written and needs to be reinstated. - SanAnMan (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:V, WP:RS and also in this case WP:BLP. Watching TV shows and summarising the plot might be common, and might be approved by the subset of editors that watch TV shows and summarise the plot, but it's not policy. Guy (Help!) 15:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

You might want to read MOS:TVPLOT, "Plot summaries may be sourced from the works themselves, as long as only basic descriptions are given", and per WP:PRIMARY, the existence of the television episode itself suffices as a primary source. If you're going to blank this episode summary, you might as well go out and blank each and every single episode summary ever written. - SanAnMan (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and as for WP:BLP, since this episode isn't about an actual living person, but a fictional parody of said person, that policy doesn't even come close to applying. Maybe if you watched the episode in question you might have realized this. Every episode of South Park includes the disclaimer "All characters and events in this show - even those based on real people - are entirely fictional." Waiting on a response. - SanAnMan (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

MoS pages are written by small cliques of similarly interested editors. Policy has a vastly broader consensus. MoS cannot override policy, however much the small cliques might wish otherwise. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

It is becoming apparent that you are not budging. Consider this issue elevated to ANI. - SanAnMan (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Astoundingly, that's where I found it in the first place. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

BOFH? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Think Geek. Guy (Help!) 15:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Could you keep an eye on ...

Could you keep an eye on User:Jytdog? Non-admins are edit-warring to place and keep this template on his userpage (which was never placed by any Arb or admin): . -- Softlavender (talk) 08:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Might be an idea to protect the page to stop it becoming a locus of dispute? Alexbrn (talk) 08:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Handled (locked) by DeltaQuad. Never mind. Softlavender (talk) 09:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

American Council on Science and Health

My bad, I guess I was tired because I thought you just removed the {{Citation needed}} while keeping the unsourced statement . The RedBurn (ϕ) 09:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@The RedBurn: No harm no foul. Guy (Help!) 09:27, 11 December 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 pseudoscience and fringe science. 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

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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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

Tornado chaser (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page