Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) at 08:56, 17 October 2010 (explaining why I marked it as patrolled). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

Speedy deletion declined: Bacopa Literary Review

Hello ErikHaugen, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Bacopa Literary Review, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to journals. Use PROD instead. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Most of the article is a list of people working in an organization. But yeah, I suppose it is more accurate to say the editorial team is the organization, and the intent was that the subject of the article not be them but "their...creative work." Heh - I assure you I've read wp:a7 a few times by now. ErikHaugen (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's best to take the safer, slower route with this one. Sorry about the robotic-like message; that's a product of the script I use in speedy deletions (also, even many regular new-page patrollers still make many speedy-deletion mistakes). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"I think it's best..." - Absolutely; I was wrong with this tag, obviously the lede takes precedence over "most of the article is about." :) ErikHaugen (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"even many regular new-page patrollers still make many speedy-deletion mistakes" - and how. Speaking of which, if you could spot check a few of my recent ones I would be very grateful. It's a pity I can't see them anymore. ErikHaugen (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Dj Masbury

Significance aside, shouldn't this page at least have been marked as an unreferenced biography when you patrolled it? VQuakr (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Yes. If I'm about to work on an article, I sometimes mark it as patrolled first in order to get it off of this page as a courtesy to other wp:nppers. I realize this commits me to addressing issues relating to wp:BLP among others within a short period of time. ErikHaugen (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

My apologies; for some reason I did not realize how little time had passed since you had marked it patrolled. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Robert Battey

I'm doing a project for school that is due tomorrow and it's very important. I would appreciate if you didn't make any revisions until Friday. Thanks. —Preceding Derek Hamby Derek Hamby (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC) comment added by Dhamby86 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow. No. Can you explain more? You should not be using Misplaced Pages as a reference for school projects, if that is what you are doing? Note that even if I stop, others will probably keep editing. ErikHaugen (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

My professor told me to do someone local and not on wikipedia. So, that's what I am doing or trying to do. I know not to use wikipedia for school. Believe me, I know.

Your assignment involves creating an article on Misplaced Pages and shutting other editors out? Please read the warnings on your page, especially the one about wp:3rr, you are way past 3 reverts. ErikHaugen (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Bento00's talk page.

Jean Victor Gustave

(copyrighted text redacted by ErikHaugen 22:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cegus (talk • contribs) 22:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I tried to salvage Jean Victor Gustave the first time you made it, but it was deleted too fast. If you want to try again, I would put a link to this news article - http://www.tampabay.com/news/humaninterest/article427104.ece?comments=legacy - inside the new wikipedia article. Also, you're going to have to reword this, since all this text you pasted here is copyrighted. Please let me know if I can help. I suspect this subject may not meet the general notability guidelines which are required for inclusion in wikipedia, though. Good luck, and thanks for working on this project! ErikHaugen (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Gunther's black snake

Hi! Do you know if there are any other members of the genus, Bothrolycus? Thanks. Bruinfan12 (talk) 02:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, B. ater is the only one. Zipcodezoo seems to state this affirmatively. ErikHaugen (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Caleb Pennington

Hey, this article is a copy-paste of Bruce Lee. That's why I've tagged it with CSD A10. When you find time, could you please explain why you've changed speedy rationale to hoax. See the history of the page, when I added the tag. Cheers, Vipinhari || talk 16:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Because it is deliberately not true - it was modified to say that Caleb Pennington is the guy that Bruce Lee is. It isn't just a copy or about the same subject(A10), it is a hoax. I had tagged it as a hoax earlier and the author removed my tag. This is vandalism, not an innocent mistake. ErikHaugen (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't tell that this is deliberately true or it is an innocent mistake. I only told that this article (Caleb Pennington) is created by copying the contents of another article (Bruce Lee), and hence CSD A10. Compare both and you'll make out. Cheers, Vipinhari || talk 17:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Compare the text: "Caleb Pennington (Chinese: 李小龍; pinyin: Lǐ Xiăolóng, born Lee Jun-fan ..." with the text from Bruce Lee: "Bruce Lee (Chinese: 李小龍; pinyin: Lǐ Xiăolóng, born Lee Jun-fan" - see, "Bruce Lee" has been substituted for "Caleb Pennington." It's a deliberate hoax. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but the article with a prose size of 6560 words which was copied, he substituted only two words, a name. Vipinhari || talk 18:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It's true, and those words made it vandalism rather than an innocent mistake. This distinction is important, because it appears that this editor has done little with this account other than vandalism. I don't think a block would be appropriate at this point, but if more hoaxes are created then it probably will - but blocking for innocent, good faith, mistakes is much more problematic. A10 would be good if the author had in good faith created a page entitled Bruss LI and put content about Bruce Lee. Then, the appropriate response for us would be to educate and encourage. As it is, the appropriate response is probably wp:AIV if this happens again. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

thank you

thanks Erik for your assistance. I will see what kind of response I get from my "direct to user" request. I don't know if I would be allowed to rebuild the page - I didn't create it. I could start a new one, but wouldn't that just be conflict of interest? (although I can provide lots of sources this time) thanks again! Mrscottfree (talk) 06:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Mrscottfree

You're welcome. Yeah, you would have a "conflict of interest" if you made the article, certainly, if you are Scott Free. I would suggest giving JForget a chance to respond first; sometimes admins can reconsider their wp:AFD closures if new evidence is provided. ErikHaugen (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Made reply on my talk page

Hello. You have a new message at Houseofisaac's talk page. Houseofisaac (talk) 07:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Jameela

Thanks. It looked to me as though disambiguation was necessary, but I must have mistaken it for something else. ACCassidy (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thaumaina

Hi, yes that was a spelling mistake. Too late at night. Thanks for spotting it. I'm just trying to make links between here and Wikispecies, where I make a lot of contributions.ACCassidy (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Accepting revisions

You accepted this revision to Florida, which introduced factually incorrect population figures into the article (the correct numbers appear, with a citation, in the infobox). Please don't accept revisions without verifying their accuracy. Thank you. Horologium (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing is not for catching this kind of problem. Please see Misplaced Pages:Reviewing#Purpose_of_reviewing. ErikHaugen (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Schistomerus

Howdy ErikHaugen,

I have pictures of S. californese that I'd like to up load to the site. I've tried to upload picures before but have never been able to do so. Can you help me through the process?

Theropod (talk) 06:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Great! Do you own the rights to the pictures? I think the best way is to create an account at commons.wikimedia.org, then using http://commons.wikimedia.org/Commons:Upload. Let me know how I can help. ErikHaugen (talk) 06:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I took the pictures. I think that means I own the rights. I'll go about it as you suggested. Thanks!Theropod (talk) 06:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Ha, yeah, that will do it. Let me know if I can help with anything. thanks, ErikHaugen (talk) 06:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-29/Genetic algorithms

I have offered to mediate this. Please indicate your acceptance or lack on the mediation page. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not accept claims about living people that are not properly sourced

Please do not accept claims about living people that are not properly sourced as you did when you accepted this proposed edit: . Thanks! Active Banana ( 17:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe it was inappropriate to accept that edit. If you've read Misplaced Pages:Reviewing#Purpose_of_reviewing and WP:BLP, particularly the part about what "likely to be challenged" means, and still feel that I should not have accepted this, then please help me understand. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

With regards to content about living people, we do not know for certain what may be "contentious" as in any particular situation. It is best practice for any personal information about living people to be held to the criteria of WP:V. Particularly for information that has little encyclopedic value such as someones height and weight. Active Banana ( 17:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Judging encyclopedic value is not really what PC is for. It really is just a quick filter for vandalism, slander/blp, copyvio, etc. wrt wp:V, how to interpret it is what we are discussing, not whether to follow it. Certain facts about people - how many goals did this person score in this game, when was this person born, etc, seem to slip in without sources. Do you feel that each of these items must have an inline source? Please use edit summaries. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Reason number 1 for pending changes is that material must meet WP:BLP; from which the first sentences are: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Misplaced Pages's three core content policies:

• Neutral point of view (NPOV)
• Verifiability (V)
• No original research (NOR)"

of which WP:V is prominently listed. Inertion of birthdates is particularly troublesome for the only marginally famous living people as regards to the potential dangers of identity theft. "Depending on the reason for pending protection" something that seems to be a reasonable number "number of goals scored" may or may not fall under the guidance for "pending", such claims as the number of goals would generally be easy to verify by any sports page, but commentary regarding "outstanding number of goals" WP:NPOV / WP:OR should not be accepted. Active Banana ( 18:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not sure how to rephrase my question. You seem to agree that not every single date or number requires an inline citation, which seems different from what you said before. Do you still feel that I should not have accepted the edit? If not what is the difference between what I accepted and # of goals? ErikHaugen (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Personal information (age, height, religion, "dating") should always, particularly on articles identified as needing protection, be sourced before being accepted. A minor, regularly performed professional duty that can be easily verified in standard sources if someone chooses, may not need to be sourced to be accepted. Active Banana ( 18:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Huh. Well, it would be nice to see this spelled out somewhere - the current articles use the "likely to be challenged" test instead - and there are a lot of blps with "born" dates that do not have inline sources. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Opinion evidence

Hi there! I am in the process of filling in the gaps of opinion evidence. Would you mind giving me some time?Craddocktm (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by giving you some time? ErikHaugen (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I mean....do not delete the empty sections for the time being. Coz I am working on them right now. Just now I experienced an edit conflict coz you deleted the section I was working on. :)Craddocktm (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh ok, beg pardon. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

WebEyeCare

Erik,

I am still working on the page, the one source I cited was from the Chicago Tribune which referenced WebEyeCare. There are other newspapers that also have referenced WebEyeCare that I can add to the list.

Let me know if I need to add additional information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter9877 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It is important to have significant coverage rather than a passing mention. The general notability guideline has more about what will make an article well sourced and establish notability. More articles might help, but if they just mention WebEyeCare in passing like the Chicago Tribune article, they probably won't be considered enough to satisfy those guidelines. ErikHaugen (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Editing entry on Pete Marriott

I received a message from you concerning my entry on Pete Marriott. If the sources are from Mr. Marriott himself, as I am a journalist who has interviewed him, how do I list that? The last time I updated other entries here on Misplaced Pages was in 2009, and I stayed away because it seems the information I added, all verifable, was disputed and removed. If I were to link to my website as a source of information, it's considered spam. Please let me know how to avoid these problems. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johmbolaya (talk • contribs) 05:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you publish the interviews? The page wp:RS talks about what a "reliable source" is, I don't think I have a whole lot of insight beyond that. Pete Marriott currently doesn't have any independent sources, which are always nice to have. I'm not sure what to say about the "spam" issue from last year; if you have any specific questions about them can you point me to the articles or discussion about them or something? Thanks for working on this and let me know if I can help. ErikHaugen (talk) 05:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Page Redirect

Hey Erik, I think that you put a redirect on the Microsoft Whistler Page, Why? Also I am having trouble uploading a screenshot of the Whistler desktop. Help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trimment (talk • contribs) 00:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I put the redirect there because it seemed like it was about what I redirected to, and we already had a pretty detailed article. I don't think we need yet another article on XP in addition to Development of Windows XP and Windows XP itself. Or is this about something else? Please feel free to revert, but I would appreciate it if you left a note on the discussion page explaining why (unless it becomes obvious with your edit, of course) - thanks! Per http://commons.wikimedia.org/Commons:Screenshots, I don't think you can upload a screenshot of it without permission from Microsoft. ErikHaugen (talk) 00:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh. I upploaded the image to the Commons, and can be viewed here: Whistler Build 2296 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trimment (talk • contribs) 00:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Then what are you asking me for help with? And did you read http://commons.wikimedia.org/Commons:Screenshots? ErikHaugen (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I can't figure out how to display it on wikipedia. --Trimment (talk) 01:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You just put this on the page: ], but I wouldn't do it because that image is probably going to get deleted soon. Please read http://commons.wikimedia.org/Commons:Screenshots. ErikHaugen (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm - just noticed this: http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Windows_XP_SP3.png - you might want to emulate this. (Also consider .png, please). ErikHaugen (talk) 01:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trimment (talk • contribs) 01:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Commonwealth Games Village 2010

Hi there, you may wish to consider my comment at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Commonwealth Games Village 2010. Thanks, ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 14:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Article timing

Please give editors who are creating good faith articles time to actually edit the articles. If you add tags to an article, that an editor is actively creating (meaning your tags are added within two minutes or less of their last edit), you might interfere with the editing of the article. This is a way of making newcomers feel their contributions are welcome: not interfering with their contributions as they are trying to make them. I've seen new pages, there is plenty of hopeless, good faith articles can sit around a bit longer, an hour or so after the last edit. This editor has a small contribution history, and is trying to create encyclopedic articles. --KMLP (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I certainly don't want to scare anyone off, so I appreciate it. Are you talking in particular about the {{Cite web}} template that I added? ErikHaugen (talk) 04:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

No, just the timing of the unreferenced tag. You also added a solid category to the article, so I know you're trying to help both the user and the encyclopedia. Can you just wait an hour or so, from their last edit, when dealing with articles by newbie, good faith editors, creating, or trying to create, encyclopedic content? You can usually tell it's worth checking a contributions history by the type of article created, the topic, the writing. --KMLP (talk) 05:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you moved the web citations, also, which was correct, as it was to the subject of the article. --KMLP (talk) 05:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

NPP Robert W. Carter

While articles should not be tagged with no content or context directly after creation, it should also not be marked as patrolled, without addressing the appropriate issues applicable to the article. An article consisting of "wwe" in its entirety should not have been marked as patrolled without an appropriate issue tag. Give the editor due time to establish content before marking as patrolled, then when appropriate, mark and tag. Thanks. Cindamuse (talk) 08:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Before tagging an article I usually mark it as patrolled so that it does not show up here, as a courtesy to other npps. I realize this commits me, in a sense, to addressing various issues with the article, such as blp - notice the {{BLPUnreferenced}} I put on it shortly thereafter - or various csd issues, etc. "An article consisting of "wwe" in its entirety should not have been marked as patrolled without an appropriate issue tag. Give the editor due time to establish content before marking as patrolled, then when appropriate, mark and tag. Thanks." - I don't know what you mean or what guidelines you're appealing to or what problems I'm causing; if I'm doing something that you feel is problematic please elaborate. Are you hanging out at Special:Log/patrol and double checking npps' work? ErikHaugen (talk) 08:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)