Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by UncleBubba (talk | contribs) at 12:54, 15 December 2011 (→External Links in Articles: You may be right.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		To UncleBubba Many thanks for your tireless efforts in keeping article clear of spam and other nonsense. Misplaced Pages is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you!--Hu12 (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow—that is so nice to hear. Thank you so much! — UncleBubba  18:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

What

Please comment on Talk:Joint custody

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Joint custody. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Cars don't produce smog?

You deleted a modification I made on the toyota prius page about smog. Your comment was that cars don't produce smog. Technically, they do produce smog forming particals that are activated by sunlight and transformed into smog. For all practical purposes, the produce smog. Would you prefer the wording 'smog forming particals?' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.178.2.64 (talk) 10:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did revert your edit, for several reasons:

• You didn't explain what you were doing by including an Edit Summary (the default "section" summary is nice but doesn't help much). In my experience, a majority of vandalism is presented in the form of anonymous edits with no Edit Summary. While it is by no means required, I recommend you create an account and use it when you edit Misplaced Pages--it may make your life easier.
• You added information that went beyond the text in the cited reference, which is original research and not allowed in this encyclopedia.
• You introduced an error of fact: smog (from smoke and fog) is a meteorological phenomenon caused by the combination of emitted gases and liquid particles in the atmosphere. Smog may be made worse by photochemical reactions brought on by sunlight acting on various compounds (mainly hydrocarbons) in the emissions. Ergo, cars may emit smoke, NO, CO, CO2, particulates, etc., but they do not emit smog.

Please don't take it personally; while researching this reply, I found another factual error that someone sneaked into the article (regarding "toxic emissions" in the lede). It, too, is gone. And it will stay gone unless someone can cite a reliable source that meets Misplaced Pages standards for notability and verifiability.

(There is another error, regarding tax-deductability, that I will correct as soon as I save this page.)

Our purpose here should be to improve the encyclopedia. Anything that does not further that goal does not--in my opinion--belong here.

If I can help you in any way, please let me know. — UncleBubba  15:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't believe I stated anything beyond the sited text. If you click on the link it will take you right to the EPA's green vehicle guide and on that page is my reference to the mention the EPA rating the 2003 model with a 3 out of ten air pollution score. This will be 'improving the encyclopedia.' If someone wants to buy a prius so be green they may want to know the 2003 model is not the year to go with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.178.2.64 (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I don't agree. If they want that information, there are literally hundreds of sites to which they can go. Misplaced Pages is not an automobile review site, nor is it Consumer Reports. If you can find justification for your assertion in the WP:MOS or other official guidelines, you might get me to change my mind, though. — UncleBubba  00:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Akhenaten

Please look at my comments at Talk:Akhenaten. A. Parrot (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This erroneous "China" assertion

My point is that by introducing "China" in the first sentence without any context, the intro is actually perpetuating the antipodean misconception to people who are aware of it. Whereas to people who aren't aware of it (i.e. non-Americans), the mention of China is completely bizarre, and likely to lead the reader to ask "What's so special about China that it attracts nuclear reactors?" – Smyth\ 11:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Art Pope

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Art Pope. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

IRC-Galleria

Re: this edit: IRC-Galleria is a valid "see also" link. Please do your research before making such edits in the future. Mythpage88 (talk) 09:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I do not believe it is. The only thing even remotely IRC-related about the IRC-Galleria site is its name. It is a web site "created as a photo gallery for IRC users". Should we also list all other photo gallery web sites here? Should we list Facebook and G+, too? I think not. If you want to discuss it, please come to the article Talk page and do so. If you continue to use Misplaced Pages for promotion, I will be the least of your worries. Please don't put unrelated information into technical articles. — UncleBubba  02:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of promotion? If so, I see we just threw good faith out the window! Mythpage88 (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I am accusing you of nothing. The link to the social networking site does not belong in the IRC article because they are unrelated. Only you know the true reason you want the link there, but I don't think it is for the purpose of improving the article. — UncleBubba  03:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

How does "If you continue to use Misplaced Pages for promotion, I will be the least of your worries. Please don't put unrelated information into technical articles." assume any good faith? It's a thinly veiled threat, at best. Mythpage88 (talk) 03:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I feel—very strongly—that all editors here should be working to improve the encyclopedia. I will assume good faith in dealing with people, but I will not compromise that overarching goal. Since you've not done anything to defend your IRC-Galleria link (other than malign me), I find myself wondering if you have an ulterior motive, either to promote the Galleria page or to improve its link stats. — UncleBubba  04:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I have defended myself by responding to your blatant assumption of bad faith. I shouldn't have to defend myself against accusations of blatant promotion, when my edit history clearly shows that I have no such interest in anything of the sort. Please stop biting, it's unbecoming. Mythpage88 (talk) 04:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I did look at your history (all three months of it); I still don't see the justification for this link. What I have seen is you using various Misplaced Pages "magic buzzwords" to attack me: "Oh dear, he reverted my edit. I'll accuse him of not assuming good faith. That'll fix him." Followed by, "Oh, dear, that didn't work, so I'll try a 'biting' accusation, and I'll make it 'blatant', for good measure."

I didn't see you arguing in favor of your link other than saying "it's valid". And discussion is what it's all about here. — UncleBubba  05:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Isn't "vandalism" a "magic buzzword"? Oh, and looking at your talk page archive, this isn't the first time you've bitten others. Whatever happened to WP:DICK? Mythpage88 (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't bite newcomers, but I do try to help support the quality of the encyclopedia. You're trying to use more ad hominem, which is a fallacious technique. I'm still waiting for you to present a convincing argument in favor of including the link, or have you given up on that in favor of continuing to attack me? — UncleBubba  05:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

"I don't bite newcomers." Do you have a convincing argument behind this statement? Or have you given up on that in favor of continuing to bite me? Mythpage88 (talk) 05:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Similarly, you have yet to justify calling my edit "vandalism". Mythpage88 (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think you could defend your insertion of the link into the IRC article, and these attempts at deflection and distraction seem to prove my conjecture valid. Please grind your axe elsewhere; it's not going to work here. — UncleBubba  05:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Burden of proof lies on you. How was it vandalism? Mythpage88 (talk) 06:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no "burden of proof", as I did not call what you did "vandalism". I called it "apparently promotion", which it is.

But you're still avoiding the argument you apparently feel you cannot win: How do you justify including the social-networking site in the IRC article? — UncleBubba  06:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't lie. You identified the edits as vandalism in multiple edit summaries. Mythpage88 (talk) 06:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's easy to make baseless accusations, but proving them is another thing entirely. I have not called your edits vandalism, so who is the liar? — UncleBubba  07:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

No response? I didn't think so. — UncleBubba  14:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

StarWind Software Page

Dear Sir,

I appreciate your feedback about you working in business and never hearing about StarWind. Well, it was a day when nobody heard about Microsoft and IBM. Also storage industry is quite isolated. In case you can do me a favor could you please tell me why DataCore Software page with TWO links and written entirely by their staff is NOT SPAM and what we currently have (please take a look @ our page as I've added TONS of external links) IS? I appreciate your feedback in any case.

Staff had did a lot of mistakes in the past but they had be punished for doing this (content was removed). Do you think you can judge for past all the time?

Thank you very much for cooperation!

AK47

213.238.8.10 (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Network Bridge page

I don't think the edit you reverted was vandalism, I think it was lack of references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surge12 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but whenever anyone removes four sections/seven paragraphs of technically coherent text—including its source references—from an article without one word of discussion or explanation (or even a single Edit Summary), a rational person would feel justified labeling it "vandalism", and that's exactly what I did. Were you the editor from IP 111.68.103.26? If so, please go to the article's Talk page and discuss your proposed revisions. — UncleBubba  23:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Christian Science

I am hardly trying to promote Moody's book. As a start, the reference to it has been there for a very long time. Its importance to the topic is that it marks the time(1975) at which the public in general became aware of Near-Death Experiences. The point of the paragraph concerned is to show that Christian Scientists have been aware of them for much, much longer: a fact of encyclopedic interest. You suggest, incorrectly, that the other reference does not support this. The only purpose the other reference has, is to confirm that the publication of Moody's book was indeed the stage at which public interest in NDEs began: a widely accepted fact. I can certainly find any number more references to support that, if you like.

It is highly likely that users who look up Christian Science have heard more about near-death experiences than they have about Christian Science. The sole aim of the entry is to establish the nexus between the two, and so to open up the topic more effectively to the enquirer.

I believe that my response to you is both courteous and correct. I therefore have respectfully yet again reversed your edit. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 07:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The point here is pretty simple: To be included in Misplaced Pages, material must be notable (see WP:N), verifiable (see WP:V), and reliably sourced (see WP:RS). This doesn't mean you have to know it's true so much as you must reference reliable sources that say it's true.

Your assertions that "it marks the time (1975) at which the public in general became aware" and that it is a "a widely accepted fact" must be supported. If you are only interested in mentioning Christian Scientists have known of NDEs for a long time, that's one thing. Claims that Moody coined the term and that NDEs were unknown to the general public prior to that are pretty sweeping and must be supported with hard, reliable sources. And it MUST be discussed if there is any doubt among the interested editors.

Please stop reverted edits. The way Misplaced Pages works is: Someone changes something. Someone disagrees and reverts it. The original editor goes to the Talk page to discuss it. If consensus is reached, the new material is reinserted into the article; if no consensus is reached, it stays on the Talk page.

I have no special interest in the article or the book, but I do have an interest in making the encyclopedia better. Unsourced material, no matter how "true" or "well known" is not allowed. — UncleBubba  08:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so in Wiki's own article on NDEs where it states: "Popular interest in near-death experiences was initially sparked by Raymond Moody's 1975 book Life After Life and the founding of the International Association for Near-Death Studies (IANDS) in 1981.". Do we say that the NDE article also committs the same fault, or are we satisfied that there the editors got it right? If so, then the same references would indicate the reinstatement of the assertion in question.Michael J. Mullany (talk) 08:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

my question is why is this reference important to the article on Christian Science. It doesn't clarify a major point of Christian Science doctrine. Many other faiths acknowledge NDE's well before Christian Science supposedly does. Do we need to list all of them as well? To me an encyclopaedic article should be to the point with a minimum of ancillary information. Am I wrong? Digitalican (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No, you are absolutely right. Your opinion also follows WP policy closely, as I understand it. — UncleBubba  15:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree that the main stream of western religions other than CS did acknowledge NDEs prior to 1975. MB Eddy's reference to them was written the best part of a century earlier. I would have thought that the sentence under dispute relates the CS view to something that many readers will have heard of: NDEs, and so places the CS view in world context.Michael J. Mullany (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Censorship

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Censorship. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC).

= = = =

Dear UncleBubba,

I want to bring to your attention your (merited, but not entirely) deletion of work by my Misplaced Pages student, Thegannon. One focus of our class is trying to augment female and ethnic diversity among contributors in Misplaced Pages. Some new contributors are easily discouraged, particularly if they have not grown up in circumstances that support a sense of entitlement and expertise. I'm going to encourage Thegannon to re-word work on women in wrestling and make it workable and useful for Misplaced Pages. Thank you kindly, and in advance for your patience with newcomers to the process, and any supportive effort you may be willing to lend to a beginner. KSRolph (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

While patrolling recent changes, I ran across Thegannon's edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wrestling&diff=prev&oldid=461544414), which inserted apparently-coherent text into the article.

I was about to move on when I noticed the edit was unexplained (i.e. had no edit summary), so I looked a little deeper and saw many statements of fact and syntheses of factual data. Usually, this indicates original research, which isn't allowed. That pretty much sealed the edit's fate and I reverted it.

I believe my action in this matter was entirely justified.

Having said that, I think what you're doing with the students is absolutely wonderful! I will, of course, help you any way I can.

To prevent problems in the future, I recommend you review the Misplaced Pages "Help for New Editors" articles. At the very least, point out to them the Edit Summary box on the editing screen and teach them to use it for every edit. It doesn't take much time and it shows other Wikipedians the edit respects them, their time and the encyclopedia as a whole.

Teach them also about Misplaced Pages's policies regarding notability, verifiability, and reliable sources, and that these—not truth—are the criteria for inclusion in articles here.

If you teach your students to observe these practices, I believe you will encounter far fewer problems.

If you could see the crap I pull out of these pages on a daily basis, you'd understand my firm approach to spam, vandalism and disruptive editing. (And I'm not even a prolific page patroller; there are folks here that do ten times my volume of cleanup per unit of time invested.)

I am quite encouraged by your project, though, and I hope you carry on with it. Once again, if I can help, please let me know. — UncleBubba  01:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

==

Dear Bubba,

Thank you for your detailed response. I do, of course, all I can to help eighteen to 22 year-old students understand what we want, what we refer to, how multivariate Misplaced Pages culture is to be appreciated and navigated, and so forth. On the other hand, there are more than twenty people's work to monitor, and a couple of my students have suffered from the experience of less than perfect text, followed by deletions. For newcomers, a couple of these, and students can become discouraged. While I understand you are not trying to teach this course, it might be that a few encouraging words to Thegannon could go a long way. One wishes to see all newcomers succeed and move to the next level, independent works and edits. I must also concern myself with less assertive students, those who have not had initial success with their edits.

I appreciate your thoughtful response, and please do tolerate our works. I can imagine your tasks to be difficult, and I too, would be/am on a short fuse with some of the contributions (and deletions) I encounter. In fact, in class, we wonder aloud at the admins in Misplaced Pages who oversee and modify hundreds of items per day.

There is a place for women in wrestling in this page, especially with events being televised nationally and international events held. My view is Thegannon needs to include citations, and perhaps augment statements. I hope you'll agree. KSRolph (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I absolutely agree. The citations are the key to verifiability, and an Edit Summary is a mark of courtesy and professionalism. Together, I believe they will make a tremendous difference.

After that, all they need to do is write well. ;-)

Do you teach about the really strange way WP works, through things like consensus and cooperation? I imagine that would make a helluva lesson, not only for editing, but for life. — UncleBubba  09:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you revised wrong...

Do you use Apple? "Personal" is not the accepted term for us Macintosh users. PC refers to Windows machines, Linux refers to Linux, and Macintosh of course refers to Apple computers.

MaganT2k13 (talk) 05:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to consult a dictionary. "Personal", as an adjective, is defined, "Of, affecting, or belonging to a particular person rather than to anyone else." My MacBook Pro is mine, as is my Linux desktop and my Windows laptop, and they are all Personal Computers. They certainly are not mainframes... I think we should try to avoid being pedantic. — UncleBubba  05:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

External Links in Articles

I've noted your comments on the Starwind Software AfD page and as you seem to have an aversion to people exploiting Misplaced Pages for promotion and advertising I was wondering if you could take a look at Microsoft SQL Server Compare Tools. This article is nothing but a list of external links for people trying to promote their products. If these links were put on most articles they would be immediately reverted as spam. I have suggested changing the links to references and removing anything with no reference at all. I've put in a request for comment but the only response I've had is from an IP user who has a link for his product on it. There are a lot of these articles, I've started cleaning up Comparison of database tools which I think looks better. I would really appreciate any comments you may have on this - I'm so tempted to AfD it.Vrenator 11:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow--what a mess o' links! I need to look at it some more, but I'm wondering if you're right in that an AfD is the best solution. — UncleBubba  12:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris website

Regarding the external link section in the Brahma Kumaris article, http://en.wikipedia.org/Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University#External_links

The contribution I made was reverted back. "The Brahma Kumaris Info" site has an "ad" right beside it. Is that ok place such things after a link?

Thanks

Riveros11 (talk) 12:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)