Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Adrian M. H. (talk | contribs) at 20:26, 18 September 2007 (Archiving one resolved thread). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Archive 1 (7.4.2007~13.5.2007) Archive 2 (14.5.2007~20.6.2007) Archive 3 (21.6.2007~14.7.2007) Archive 4 (15.7.2007~2.8.2007) Archive 5 (3.8.2007~1.9.2007) Archive 6 (current)

Visa (document)

Seeking some outside eyes on this article. A dispute about the acceptability of an external link is in danger of spiralling out of control. A new editor responds to my comments with, bad faith personal attacks and accusations that I am being untruthful. They made a bunch of changes that were factually incorrect, changed the historical basis of the article and that were riddled with OR and POV. I asked them to source the changes, left them for 24 hours and only changed them after the editor admitted they had no sources. I'm now being attacked again, threatened with mediation and I'm tired of it. Before it gets messy could some experienced editors wander by and cast their eye over the dispute and offer an outside perspective? I think the new editor is taking my actions too personally and I'm hoping that having some extra input would help them understand the need to comply with our core policies. Also, if I'm actually acting like a complete dick having someone tell me would also be useful. Thanks Spartaz 22:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be increasingly typical. Try to follow the system and all you get is abuse. I have not investigated all the background as I type this, but if it is just between you and the other party, I recommend a 3O request. For more than two parties, an RFC is required. Adrian M. H. 22:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

My experience of 3O is that it best works for pure content disputes and there are 2 1/2 parties. I'm hoping that some outside input will avoid the need for an article RFC. Spartaz 22:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, I have read through all that discussion now. Clearly, the link is unsuitable, based on your expert assessment of its content and you are right to leave it out. I see that two other editors came out in support of your position, which is welcome, but seemed to have relatively little tangible effect. I see from Shanebb's contribs that he is quite happy to remove other links from the article, so maybe there is a bit of a double standard there. I would offer my opinion at the article's talk page, but I cannot claim any knowledge of the subject, which I think would be advantageous in successfully persuading the other parties. Adrian M. H. 23:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Article: Bloodlines: Harry Potter

Has a tag reading (app) citations needed re: treating this topic as fictional (it is) but not linking to real world data for clarification.

I have no connection with the article at all, but having read it, it is quite clear - and quite correct as it refers to it's topic. No one with any background in breeding/genetics should have any problem following this material (and I do not think it really needs a sub-section on Mendel - gene splicing for those likely to read it).

If response or further details needed, I am <e-mail removed> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.184.250.122 (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

What's the title of the article? J-ſtan _Contribs 14:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No matches for the name provided, so I guess we'll never know. Never mind. Adrian M. H. 15:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is Blood purity (Harry Potter) which has been the subject of a deletion discussion (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Blood purity) because it flies close to WP:OR. It currently contains {{synthesis}} {{Primarysources}} and {{book-in-universe}} tags because of concerns that the article does not follow closely enough the guidelines in Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), particularly "Articles dealing with fictional subjects, characters, objects, events, or locations should discuss their authorship and their significance outside the narrative." The article does not explain or assert its notability, but appears to delve rather deeply into itself in the manner commonly termed Fancruft: "One of the major aspects of fancruft articles is that they tend to focus entirely on their subject's fictional relevance, as opposed to their place in the real world." As such the tags appear to be appropriate in alerting both readers and editors to questionable aspects of the article that may need a cleanup. SilkTork *** SilkyTalk 20:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Abdel Bari Atwan

The Misplaced Pages entry for the highly respected Arab journalist and political commentator Abden Bari Awtan has unfortunately attracted the attention of contributors who wish to undermine his position for political reasons. The latest 'edit' contains several slanders - including alleged support for Osama bin Laden and a claim that Saddam Hussein funded Mr Atwan's newspaper.

These are extremely dangerous, completely unsubstantiated allegations and, as a professional journalist myself, I find it inexplicable that there is no filtering process to avoid this kind of attack of which the victim could, of course, be completely unaware. I have tried to edit the article on a number of occasions, including changing the spelling of his name which at present is incorrect transliteration, but these are immediately removed as new defamatory material is added.

I will edit the article again now but please advise me of what action can now be taken to ensure these dangerous slurs are not repeated.

Misplaced Pages is considered a trustworthy information source and it is surely in the interests of everyone that it remain so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annalasim (talk • contribs) 09:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw from your contribs that you removed a referenced statement from this article, which is likely to attract warnings. I recommend that you revert yourself and open a discussion about it. Adrian M. H. 10:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. The citations supported the quotations from the subject. However, the inflammatory, and possibly defamatory, coloring given to those quotations was not. Since there was little point to the cited quotes other than to provide context for the commentary, cutting them is at least arguably the right thing to do. Misplaced Pages policy on biographies of living persons favors aggressive deletion of badly sourced material and original research (i.e. editors' personal commentary).

There's no preventing this kind of thing in an encyclopedia that anyone in the world is allowed to edit. that's why we need volunteer groups like the Counter-Vandalism Unit and so on. The best thing is for knowledgeable people interested in accuracy to keep an eye on articles that attract this kind of thing and fix problems as they arise. Page protection is available for extreme cases, but that's an absolute last resort when it comes to articles. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

My most recent properly referenced citations and quotes were indiscriminately removed by 'web hamster'. I have been reprimanded for removing a 'referenced' quote (even though it is not from a trustworthy source) for which I apologize and have now left the offending (mis)quote in place. However I must expect the same respect surely for my entries - one of which was a quote from the US PBS broadcast (the equivalent of the BBC)!!? I cannot help but wonder what hidden agenda is guiding 'web hamster' and 'Ice 77' that they feel they must portray Abdel Bari Atwan in an untrue and unflattering light. Do these contributors have any 'specialist knowledge' of their subject? I do, as a professional journalist who has often met and talked with Abdel Bari Atwan as well as reading all his editorials which are translated by the BBC monitoring service. Surely encylopedic entires should be created by people with specialism n the subject described? Please will somebody intervene and take appropriate action. This level of indisciminate vandalism bringing the whole Misplaced Pages project into disrepute. User Annalasim 10:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You do not need any specialist knowledge to edit articles. WP does not make that kind of demand. Frankly, it is hard to tell who has issues with bias in this matter; we are only seeing your side of it, which primarily involves casting aspersions on the other parties. I will ask the other editors for comment. Adrian M. H. 15:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have now requested comments from the two editors concerned so that we may get a fuller picture. Adrian M. H. 15:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think WP:BLPN would be a better place for this discussion. Basically User:Annalasim has been introducing POV and editorialising into the article in order to counter what he sees as unduly negative content. He claims that a quote sourced from the Jerusalem Post is incorrect but hasn't substantiated this. Any unsourced contentious material about a living person can and should be removed without discussion. However problems with properly sourced material need to be discussed on the article talk page or if that fails on WP:BLPN. Iceage77 16:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. A perfect example of which is currently on the article's talk page right now. It was reported that Atwan was denied entry to Australia on the grounds of his attitude to terrorist organisations. It appeared that this was a false report but as it was discussed first it was never entered into the article. If either Ice77 or myself had an agenda to defame or denigrate Atwan then that would have been a perfect opportunity. Neither of us did as we both only have the intention of being accurate whether it puts Atwan in a good light or a bad one. We both leave Mr Atwan to provide the controversy. --WebHamster 16:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• I was asked to look at the relevant article by another editor who was concerned that Annalasim's edits were biased, disruptive and verged on vandalism. He/she was frequently making POV statements with no citations to back it up (e.g. the continued attempts to decry MEMRI: "MEMRI is not a reliable source" "it's a Zionist interest group" etc). He/she continually deleted swathes of text on that grounds that he/she didn't think it was right or that it was defamatory. When I came into the equation I attempted maintain neutrality and prevent an edit war. I've reverted and changed both Annalasim's edits and Ice77's in order to achieve a compromise. Personally I have no agenda or even an interest in the subject of the article. Prior to the commencement of editing I'd never even heard of him. I then went off and did research, some of which is in the article. The article history and diffs should speak for themselves. I edited and included any material that was sourced from ostensibly reliable sources whether it put Atwan in a good light or a bad one. As a public figure if his supporters don't wish to see his words in print then they should advise him to keep his mouth shut and not try to delete them once he's spoken them. Throughout the history of this article Annalasim has been pedantic, histrionic and biased. I've placed warning notices on her talk page twice for deleting sourced text and replacing it with unsourced editorialising and personal opinion. Just today I warned him/her that should he/she make any more of these edits then I would bring his/her attention to the administrators. Presumably this is Annalasim's attempt to forestall that. I am perfectly happy for any administrator to audit any of the edits I have done to that article and compare them to the edits made by Annalasim. The words will speak for themselves. --WebHamster 16:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you, for responding. It is pretty clear from your comments that Annalasim is not being as cooperative as he could and should be and lacks the grounds for pushing accusations of bias on your part. It is clear that you are working in good faith. I agree with you that a BLP noticeboard post, or perhaps a request for comment, would be an appropriate step towards resolving your dispute. Annalasim; I hope that you can work more positively and civilly on this article. Your intentions appear to be good, but you just need to take a different approach and collaborate better, I think. Adrian M. H. 22:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

strange dispute concerning Covenant College

I'm not sure how to best sum up the dispute. Right now I and another editor Flowanda are in disagreement over some content in the Covenant College article, in particular the section titled "Accreditation non-compliance warnings and restoration". The issue as I understand it is that one of the citations refers to an official statement from Covenant College which was distributed via e-mail and appears only in that blog, which also happens to be my personal blog (which I give in my user profile, along with full disclosure of all my other possible conflicts of interest).

Third part input over the dispute was corrected, and he felt that in this situation it was not inappropriate to cite the "e-mail-within-a-blog", but only that the section needed to be shortened as not to give "undue weight" to that section in regards to the rest of the article.

The other editor, Flowanda, did not agree with this recommendation, nor with a later suggested resolution, claiming that his concerns were not addressed.

I'm not really sure what to do at this point. I feel like I've tried to drill down to the core issue, namely, is it ok to cite a blog that contains an official statement from Covenant College on a matter that has been determined to be noteworthy? I understand it's a tricky situation, as blogs are typically NOT acceptable sources.

Any help/guidance in resolving the issue would be appreciated.

Oh and, I'm in no way affiliated with Covenant College. I did attend there 5 years ago. Qmax 05:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• You could ask for another opinion or open a request for comment if you prefer. --Aarktica 21:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks as if the issue is resolved, possibly. 2 of the 3 editors involved in the discussion are in agreement, and I think the third is also, but they seem to still be frustrated and may bring the issue up again in the future. I suppose we could make this matter as resolved. Many thanks. Qmax 22:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This page is more for technical help or assistance with editing. Disputes should go to a dispute-resolution organization. J-ſtan_Contribs 22:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Air Force Combat Controller - candidate for deletion

I am not computer saavy, but am doing my best to construct subject Wiki. Misplaced Pages instructions overwhelm me and much of what I do is trial and error. So I often make mistakes.

FOR EXAMPLE: I always provide sources for the IMAGES that I upload, but quite often they are removed within twenty-four hours. Some times I reload them a half dozen times before the "UPLOAD TAKES".

Your assistance is requested to help properly format the Wiki and save it from destruction. I have put alot of hours into the project.

Gene Adcock Gene Adcock 18:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, images do not use sources as such; they use licenses and tags; get the wrong license and that is serious for obvious reasons, so they need to be removed. Leave the tag out and that is just as problematic. Is it actually the license tags to which you are referring? Upload an image that is copyrighted or something and that is even worse. Frankly copyright infringers should be nailed to something, but obviously, I have a vested interest in that, given the day job. I will comment on the other part of your query when I have gone away and snooped through the relevant pages/histories/etc. Adrian M. H. 18:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I just went to check your contributions in the usual manner and what should I see, but a user page masquerading as an article. Please take the time to read the User page policy and you will understand why this is up for deletion. Adrian M. H. 20:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

OP seems to have misunderstood the purpose of this project. We're not here to "the collection and preservation of CCT heritage, history and exploits" or anyone else's for that matter where they are not suitable for a general encyclopedia.. This is an encyclopedia, after all, and its resources are not available for other purposes.

It seems clear that a wiki would be an ideal means to accomplish your goal, but you need to set up your own, on your own server. The software that runs Misplaced Pages is free and is available for download. If you don't have the technical skills to do set it up and run it on your own, try to find someone who is. You are likely to find someone like that among more recently discharged AF personnel, and no doubt one of them will be able to help you. Ask around at veterans' organizations. You would have the advantage of being able to host it under your own domain name, which will make it easier to find, and you will be able to operate it by your own rules. (Hosting costs, but is fairly inexpensive. It's not difficult to find web hosting that will probably suit your needs for the neighborhood of $5-10/month.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag without details provided

The Bodies ...The Exhibition article recently has been tagged but no details of the objection were provided. There were some old sections on the discussion page that had made some suggestions, but the NPOV appeared separately. I made the edits suggested in the old posts. The person posting the NPOV doesn't seem to be interested in dialog. What should we do?

Thank you in advance Mom de guerre 04:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The article's at BODIES... The Exhibition, for the record. And the NPOV tag is most likely there because the criticism section of the article is more than twice as long as the rest of the article, which is probably far too much considering the guidelines for neutral point of view. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think your action was the proper first step. If you wish, you could seek a third opinion on the subject matter. Hope this helps, --Aarktica 21:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Kraków

Please help resolve an ongoing issue with User:Jotel (no user page) who's removing major parts of an article nominated by me for the FA status. I do not wish to engage in a revert war and yet, the user keeps on deleting paragraphs which I write in response to requests made by FA reviewers. His rationale is WP:IDONTLIKEIT and is followed by removals of virtually anything I write since my previous nomination. Here are his latest deletions including his edit summaries:

• ("socio-political emancipation of the county" - what this has to do wirh Cracow??) (-1,751)
• (rm 'general knowledge' info. The article is about Cracow, not Poland in general) (-1,720)

User:Jotel is poised to fail the nomination and has been adding his "oppose" votes in different parts of the nomination page (as if there were two or three of them). Here are some examples of his multiple "oppose" votes including his edit summaries:

• ("eye-opening statistics on catechism": irrelevant)
• (Kraków - oppose: references are in a mess)
• (references: need a major rewrite)

I responded to user's actions with the thorough explanation of criteria in the following edit made to the first nomination page:

• (my reply to comment by Jotel) (+20,501)

However, feeling trolled by User:Jotel I also stopped editing Misplaced Pages for a month, which I'm used to doing everyday. I'd like to thank you in advance for responding to my query with positive feedback. --Poeticbent talk 17:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I am unsure of what guidance you are looking for here. If you have been harassed/stalked/trolled, you could try posting at the administrators' noticeboard for further assistance. --Aarktica 22:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I’m not sure what kind of guidance I myself was looking for around here. Even though POV warriors like Jotel fall under the definition of trolls, generally speaking, checking on other editors and reverting their edits is not illegal. Most importantly though, User:Jotel has already achieved his objective which was to fail my FA nomination. I decided that I would leave it at that for the time, and take a well deserved brake. Thanks. --Poeticbent talk

Alternative technologies paragraph on Binary Economics

Could I please have some help arbitrating on:

Binary_economics#Uses_of_Central_Bank-issued_Interest-free_Loans

regarding the paragraph on 'alternative' technoligies, some of which violate the laws of physics as mainstream science accepts them. There's a whole lot on the talk page at the bottom.

88.108.136.7 15:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If you'd like some basic dispute resolution, go to the mediation cabal. EA is about helping with problems some are facing, but there are many dispute resolution "professionals", if you will, to help in this area. J-ſtan!_Contribs 20:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Help me post a new article

I have written a new article as "User: Jeffhoffman1" on the topic of Sharan Merriam one of the most prolific writers in Adult Education. How do I get it to post. That doesn't seem to be an option anywhere on the page I have created. I believe that I have followed all instructions. Obviously I'm doing something wrong. Jeff Hoffman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffhoffman1 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that no one has welcomed you yet. I guess you must have been one of those that slip through. Creating new articles is a very easy process (a little too easy, actually). See Help:Starting a new page. But first things first. Before creating a new page, you should familiarise yourself with some of the basics, like notability, verifiability, No original research, etc. together with some of the other links that will shortly be on your talk page. I am a bit concerned to see article content on your user page; that is not what it is for and quite a lot of new editors post content inappropriately like this. Some of them use it as a form of spam, though I can appreciate that you are not doing this. Please be sure to move it to a sub-page (something like User:Jeffhoffman1/Drafts for example) or keep it offline. Most of the editors who create articles do so offline or in sub-pages and only upload them when they reach the required standard. Post here again if you need further assistance. Adrian M. H. 11:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

jann haworth

Dear Editors, I posted a page on this artist yesterday which seems to have been deleted. As to her notability, please note that she was a leading member of the British Pop Art Movement in the Sixties, co-designed the Beatles Sgt Pepper Album cover, has been referred to in over 6 reference books on modern art, and has had 11 one person shows, with forthcoming shows in Paris, Rome, Salt Lake and Philadelphia. Her work is represented in 6 public collections and she has published several books on art for kids. There are 12 references to her in Misplaced Pages articles already. In light of these verifiable facts I trust you will restore the page. Richard Severy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Severy (talk • contribs) 15:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no say in the matter. As requested in the header instructions, can you provide the exact title of the article, please? I first want to see the deletion log before I advise you in any detail. Adrian M. H. 15:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages help forums