Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ipankonin (talk | contribs) at 09:46, 26 August 2007 (→Ongoing dispute). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:EAR

To make a request for assistance, please click here to post a new section. Please make a brief and neutral description of the issue with which you need help and remember to sign it. Resolved, stale and other old discussions are archived, but if you need to return to an archived discussion, you can start a new section and note the old discussion.

Assistants: Please tag each settled request as {{resolved}}; all other requests should be marked as {{stale}} after ten days of inactivity. A thread can be archived after being tagged for two days.

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 (current)

Primalist's

Hi hope you can help, I'm trying to save the "Primalist's" page from deletion, but finding all the wiki-rules quite confusing...looking for any help possible.

I've re-edited the page to show verifiable and notable sources but, not to sure what to do next - if I have done enough or not to save the page?

I've also opened the discussion page to see if that helps?

Thanks in advance

Cdtargett

(Cdtargett 12:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC))

Do you mean this article? Quite apart from the fact that it should not have an apostrophe (I hate apostrophe abuse) it is not sufficiently notable, it is unreferenced original research, and it is in dire need of a cleanup. You say that you have added references to your sources, yet you have not. I'll give you a while to get it up to scratch re verifiability, notability, reliable sources and original research, but then I'll have to send it to AFD. Please read all those policies and guidelines; they explain clearly what is expected. Adrian M. H. 13:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Check out this page. It explains the deletion process, reasons, and alternatives. Also, deletions can be overturned via a deletion review. So even if it's non-notable at this time, if it becomes notable in the future, we can re-add it. J-stan _Contribs 14:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify for Cdtargett: the AFD was raised by another editor, presumably independent of this discussion. Adrian M. H. 14:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I really can't see why the article needed to go through Afd. It should have been speedied straight away. I've copied the text to a sandbox on art wikia and am just awaiting final sanction on the copy to move it into mainspace there. I personally would have opted for WP:SNOW as soon as it hit Afd. The article is just too cool for school and won't have a place on Misplaced Pages until any of the founders are up for major awards. Mike33 - t@lk 19:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Subject matter: "Royalties" - Outright erasure of all past submissions by Wikidemo without cause

Hi!

For several months now I have been trying ot build up a body of informaton relating to (technology-based) Royalties with a view to help lay understanding of an otherwise complex legal subject.

The material here has been, now an then, edited by others, including Wikidemo, and I have had no reason to challenge the entries or revert.

However, in the last 15 days or so, there has been a major rewrite - and substantial deletion - of my text by the Wikidemo. In this connection, I have engaged in TALK with the Wikidemo but there has been no consensus so far except on the matter of Wiki Style privileges. It now seems apparent that because I was disputing what the Wikidemo had deleted in the article, s/he has overwritten all previous submissions with the same (Wikidemo's) text, although the subject matter differs and the links too have been 'vandalized' to lead to random Misplaced Pages or internet sites. There appears to be no way for anybody to compare the Wikidemo rewrite with what I or others have submitted earlier unless the deleted files are undeleted.

I can understand if there was copyright violation. None was pointed out even during the almost daily discussion over the last few days. There was no question of any copyright being breached. My fears have been heightened by the recent article in the New York Times on corporate edits of Misplaced Pages entries.

These actions in my case seem to be in competele contradiction to Misplaced Pages's widely endorsed and publicly-supported democracy.

This is a field where I have expert knowledge. Somehow personal information that I had submitted in connection with an uploaded diagram, of my own origination, to indicate there was no breach of copyright, has found its way into this Talk page.

Ipsofacto 17:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. First of all Misplaced Pages's not a democracy, see WP:DEMOCRACY, although Misplaced Pages's goal of building well-researched encyclopedias could be considered supportive of democracy. And while Misplaced Pages editing is open to anyone (until they abuse the privilege), that's a two-edged sword, anyone can edit your carefully written prose because they think their version is better. Frankly, I think in general that the changes that Wikidemo has made to the Royalties article are improvements; the previous writing was OK, but in general was too verbose for the average reader.

After looking carefully at the article, recent changes, and your edit history, I don't understand what you're saying about "vandalized" links. Perhaps you could supply a specific example?

I would encourage you to read WP:OWN, take a deep breath, relax, and continue editing and discussing. Also, since Royalties is such a broad topic, it might be appropriate for it to have sub-articles, for details about different kinds of royalties. I could see a complete article dedicated to music-licensing royalties (about which I actually know something, most of which is not in that article, in any version), and another for drug-patent royalties (about which I only know what I read in the newspaper - not much), for example.

Also, keep in mind that all of your older edits are available in the article history. I would encourage you NOT to make a general reversion to an older version, but if there's a particular important bit of writing that you want to recover, it's still there.

Finally, if you and Wikidemo can't work out your issues, there are various informal and formal dispute resolution processes, see WP:DR. Studerby 03:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Tagged for deletion

looking for assistance on improving an article that was tagged to be deleted. I am confused on how to approach and don't want to add more fuel to the fire. Thank you Pvara 99 17:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

None of the articles in your contribs have been subject to any deletion noms. Adrian M. H. 17:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

look under 50+ should I paste my new material here in this area or go to my talk? Pvara 99 17:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no article by that name in your contribs. Adrian M. H. 18:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Pvara 99 18:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Here goes the information from "myTalk" page after I tried to write something on 50+... 50+

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article 50+, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Whpq 14:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Pvara 99 17:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)I have more information to add the 50+/50plus material along with cited material to backup it up.

I left an HTML comment in my last post requesting that you sign correctly and use indents..... The article in question does not exist, so has obviously been deleted. It would have made a lot more sense to post here before the deletion occurred. I suggest you check the deletion log for whatever title you used (50+ I assume) and take it up with the deleting admin if WP:DP was not followed. To be deleted quickly means that t must have been a speedy candidate, rather than a prod candidate (as the nominator chose). Adrian M. H. 18:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Can I just submit a new entry? Pvara 99 18:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No way. Not unless you are prepared and able to bring the article up to the required standard. New entries that appear at previously deleted locations and are not substantially improved and up to standard will be speeedied again and the title may well be "salted" to prevent future creation. If an admin whose opinion I tend to trust decided that it was a G1 candidate, then it can't have been merely marginal, to say the least. Without the extra tools of adminship, I cannot view a copy of the article in order to assess it for myself, but I do a lot of SD noms on new articles and most SD candidates could never reach the required standard. That's the point of SD. Adrian M. H. 18:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Can I paste my entry in this area for you to review and can you tell me if it will pass the standard? Thanks 75.34.226.240 20:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No. That would not be appropriate. Adrian M. H. 21:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a vague recollection of an article by this very name being submitted and quickly deleted as advertising two or three months ago, so this may not be the first go-round. --CliffC 22:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

upload information

respected sir/madam i am trying to put some data and picture relative some villages and tribes, but it is deleted a day after. please help me how can i put some data and pictures. i will be grateful.

kind regards k.a.khattak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalidkhattak (talk • contribs) 18:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

According to your talk page, you have created two unsuitable articles that have been speedied and uploaded an image that has no license information. Are you getting these confused? Either way, whatever images you upload must meet the license criteria and must be correctly tagged and described, otherwise they will be deleted promptly. See the images section of the Help menu and start reading the guidelines there. Adrian M. H. 19:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

MockSwede autoblocked? do not know why or how.

MockSwede 02:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Mockswede is (auto)blocked? by Ryulong(?) I'm trying to figure out what is up with this. I'm looking at AFS program listing and following along to history of this organization and moving to Waldo Pierce (Peirce, alternate spelling), who was a friend of my grandfather's. Saw his name listed and wanted to add that Ernest Hemingway, a very good friend of WP, was also member of WWI AFS volunteer ambulance corp. Don't know why I'd be listed. I have 'adelphia.net' email address and did have AOL internet service in distant past - over three years ago. Any suggestions/directions/explanations would be appreciated. MockSwede 02:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any indication that you MockSwede are blocked. The logs that I can view (I'm not an admin, so there are some things I can't see) don't indicate any blocking. You should be able to make changes to any existing articles. There might be an auto-block on new article creation; if so, make some edits and wait a few days... There's a "new-user" autoblock that prevents creation of new articles for a few days; while your account was created last year, your contribution history is empty, so that might be the cause of the problem. If we can't get it figured out, we can ask Ryulong for an explanation... Studerby 03:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You're not blocked. You would not be able to edit this page under your user account if your were blocked. Blocked editors can only edit their own talk pages. Adrian M. H. 13:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Templates for common layouts?

We use a wiki here at work for the purpose documentation to include things such as shift hand downs. For each day of hand downs we have to copy the same text to the page as our layout which is then edited with our comments. I had attempted to create a template for this since every day uses the same layout but, when editing the page it actually edits the template itself.

My question, is then, is it possible to create a template or something similar which can be utilized to create an identical layout across pages but not be changed when a page is edited?

Thanks for any help you can provide Theillien 13:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, of course. Templates can do almost anything and being able to edit around them is part of the reason for existence. But, without seeing exactly what you are trying to achieve, I can't help you. Adrian M. H. 16:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually. It depends. There's lots of different "wiki" software - it's not a brand name but a generic name, like "blog" - and not all wiki software support templates. In fact, in my experience, the majority do not. If your company is using the Wikimedia software that Misplaced Pages uses, then templates are supported. Studerby 16:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

how can I use a flow chart to link to various pages?

I am relatively new at this wiki thing so bare with me. I would like to have a flow chart in the page that allows the user to click on a figure(box or what ever). Clicking on a figure would take them to a page describing the details of what one should do when doing that step of the process.

thanks Seattlestarship 15:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You make it sound as if you are writing an instruction manual or how-to guide. Adrian M. H. 16:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

how to reply to an editor who felt my changes were vandalism

I made some changes on an article and received a message from an editor (Alexf(t/c)) Alex Feldstein who felt my changes were vandalism. I do not mean to violate Misplaced Pages rules. I felt the description of a person as a gay author was unfair and changed the description to "author". I then moved the comment about him being gay to the end of the description. I believe that describing someone as a gay author is unfairly marginalizing and minimizing. I would like to discuss this with the editor, but I don't know how to send him a message or add a comment to his talk page. Where can I get instructions about how to do this? Jayhowardl 01:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, kudos for working within the dispute resolution guidelines, and taking steps which will help resolve the issue before it escalates. I see that you have already started a dialogue with the editor in question and exhibited a fair amount of civility in your remarks.

That said, I share your sentiment about the importance of expressing a neutral point of view when editing articles. However, I think your edit could use some work. To that end, I urge you to assume good faith and work with the editor in question to improve the article. Hope this helps, --Aarktica 06:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Henri de Bourbon, Duke of Montpensier(->))-2007-08-24T02:28:00.000Z">

I thought I read somewhere in wikipedia where we should use the English spelling of a name e.g., Henry for Henri, etc. so I used Henry of Bourbon, Duke of Montpensier recently, however, an editor User:Stijn Calle claims the correct spelling of the name is Henri de Bourbon, Duke of Montpensier. I am a little confused about wikipedia preference in this matter. Could someone take a look at the edit history of Henri de Bourbon, Duke of Montpensier and advise me before I "goof" again? Daytrivia 02:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC))"> )">

• Go with whatever WP:COMMONNAME suggests. --Aarktica 06:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• The guideline that you read somewhere relates primarily to place names – see Kiev for a good example. WP:MOS-PN does not encourage anglicisation of personal names, otherwise what would Tazio Nuvolari or François Truffaut become? Adrian M. H. 09:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Australian history

Heres my situation. I am a sixth generation Australian, which equates to around 1800. We are of European ancestry. it is common knowledge in our family, with our many years in Australia, that up until the 1920's Australias would often 'hunt' aboriginals as a means of clearing the land. It is something that my grandparents (long deceased) where fastidious in ensuring we knew. The problem with the Aboriginal history of Australia is that it of course was written by white people, and took out all the nasty bits. To add to this political correctness has further disinfected the harsh reality of what happened. So how does one ensure Misplaced Pages gets it right, rather than just repeating the same old assertions? Im told a reliable citation is needed and family history is insufficient. However, this is the exact means by which the bible was passed on before being commited to the page. Additionally, does this mean Misplaced Pages is nothing more than a collection of others peoples work, and represents nothing original? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damien2010 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

In a word, yes. There is a strong aversion to including information gleaned from original research. It is also important that information cited in articles come from verifiable and reliable sources. As such, political correctness has little to do with it. That said, it is also essential that articles retain a neutral point of view, even when reporting unsavory events. --Aarktica 00:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

(I hate edit conflicts) In your last sentence, you sum up exactly what Misplaced Pages and other encyclopædias strive to be: Tertiary information sources. This means what it says, basically; that it is our task to summarise what has been published elsewhere in reliable, independent sources. For "independent", read "secondary" to the subject itself. Original research and original thought are absolutely out, because all content must be verifiable. Of course, there is always a whole lot of crap that does not adhere to these "pillar" policies, but we deal with that as best we can. It is just not enough to believe or know something to be true; we have to provide evidence. Adrian M. H. 00:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Aarktica is correct. We specifically seek never to be original, and only to summarize material already published by reliable sources. If this was indeed a commonly-known event, sources may already exist, and you are of course welcome to add sourced material to an article at any time. If not, perhaps you could speak to scholars or news sources regarding what you know, and see if they'd be willing to look into the matter. I imagine some might be, and then not only are there reports from that source, but you can also use those as sources for material here! However, please do note that, while I am sure this particular part of history is a very significant one to you, the history of Australia is a broad topic, and care must not be taken to give any single event an undue amount of weight in the article. Please note, however, that we cannot accept "common knowledge" as a source—if the knowledge is truly common, sourcing will be trivially easy to find. Seraphimblade 00:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I very much doubt there are no sources available. I took a look at abebooks (online bookseller co-op) for material searching on the keywords australia aborigine genocide and got a number of interesting hits. Look for Genocide and Settler Society: Frontier Violence and Stolen Indigenous Children in Australian History. ISBN 1571814116. Substantial portions are online at Google Books. Or Blood on the Wattle: Massacres and Maltreatment of Australian Aborigines Since 1788 by Bruce Elder, ISBN 0867771011. The point is that even if you don't run across them on the typical bookseller's shelves, at least some of the information is documented and available if you know how to look for it, and ought to be available in libraries even if a book is otherwise unaffordable. There must be others. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Difference of opinion - external links added by and deleted by reseller

I'm wondering if someone would look in on Talk:Antivirus software#External links and comment. I'm having discussions there and on one other talk page with a new editor who is a Symantec reseller who says his site's links are not being treated fairly, and who also seems to be saying that all external links are equal regardless of content, and that our link rules need to be changed. There was a short revert war which he has focused on to my bafflement, but I see the main issue as a conflict of interest on his part as well as a basic misunderstanding of what Misplaced Pages is and how it works. I stupidly said at one point "I don't know much about the software business, but..." and he latched tightly onto that and is questioning my qualifications in the subject area. Now we're just going round and round and spinning our wheels. Thank you. --CliffC 02:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it's kind of sorted itself out, thanks to a comment from a third party, but if it continues to be a problem, let us know here. I will comment then if it becomes necessary. Adrian M. H. 18:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Space Opera Noir and the definition of Citations and Original Sources

I need some assistance in relation to the Space Opera Noir page. I wrote this as a quick little article to help describe a term that I had seen repeatedly used and that I thought could use a definition. I am not an expert on the topic, but had seen the term utilised and so defined it as I could, and sourced it to some of the web related resouces that it appeared in, to show it's use.

Subsequently, a single other user seems to have found it objectionable and has repeated claimed that it represents original research and is unsourced. Someone, presumably him, has tagged it as such.

He may be right, and I would like some advice on whether or not it actually falls into this category. Since no one else really seems to care, I thought someone outside the arugment might be able to give an opinion, and/or some advice on how to improve the article without spending a large amount of time reading articles simple to find examples of its use.

Thank you for your help. --Tle585 18:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, one source certainly is nowhere near enough for more than one reason, but I changed the tag to {{refimprove}} to be accurate. It does read like original research or original thought. The guidelines and policies to which I linked clearly define the need for multiple reliable references with non-trivial mentions of the subject at hand. I prefer to see more offline sources as well, but you have just a website. I know that's convenient when researching an article, but it is not really solid referencing. Adrian M. H. 18:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tle585 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You will have to enlighten me about the meaning behind your last unsigned edit, Tle585. Adrian M. H. 21:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing dispute

I'm having trouble with an editor (User:Nescio) that has been violating WP:POVPUSH on multiple pages. Multiple users have presented their opinion that this is true. He's gone through numerous dispute resolution attempts and has been blocked in the past for revert warring. I currently have a dispute with him on Talk:Iraq Resolution. Is this enough to start an RFC on him? Isaac Pankonin 04:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Is it possible to at least present the facts?

1. I am not involved in POV-pushing. As is common on WP there are differences of opinion between editors. Part of WP:DR is that editors try and discuss their POV and find compromise. To call that POV-pushing seems a deliberate misrepresentation.
2. The fact I prefer inviting people to mediation instead of starting an edit war can hardly be cause for a RFC on my person.
3. As to Isaac Pankonin, we are having a discussion on several interpretations which might need outside input (mediation?) but certainly does not warrant any RFC on my person.
4. As an aside, this comment, taken together with his intimate knowledge of blocked user Zer0faults, a.k.a. NuclearUmpf, may shed some light on this inflamatory and erroneous report.

• Sincerely Nomen Nescio 08:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Why did you post here? I was asking for personal advice. I think it's silly that you think there's some sort of conspiracy out to get you. I've never talked to that user. I only noticed that he posted a source that's apparently relevant to the page we're working on. I'll wait patiently for the answer to my question. Isaac Pankonin 09:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)