Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Burntsauce (talk | contribs) at 15:42, 30 October 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This editor has full permission to remove, without replying, any comments he feels are likely to inflame dispute. If you have a problem with this editor, you are invited to bring that concern to the attention of the administrators noticeboard or a member of the arbitration community, but please bear in mind that we have a zero-tolerance approach to harassment.

Source: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-March/066949.html

Source: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046440.html

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=prev&oldid=133164991

Enough of this bullshit

I am tired of explaining, ad nauseum, to a specific group of people why WP:BLP is important. If you disagree with explicit emails drafted by Jimmy Wales, please take it up with him on your own. Burntsauce 21:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks

I hope to agree with you more often. Perhaps we can figure out some working guidelines that we share. Actually, we probably do share many, because I am sure we agree on most articles, the great many we do not dispute. Even on AfD, I'd say with you that most of the articles should be either deleted outright or merged. And I'm sure you'd say with me that most of the existing articles should stay, but that almost all of them need considerable improvement. Why don't you look at my delete log, and see what I speedy, and perhaps we can talk. DGG (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I am disappointed that you did not follow up this offer to discuss--as you know, I think the best solution to most WP problems is compromise. I continue to be willing to discuss general or specific matters with you -- or anyone-- on or off wiki. I dislike reverting people whose work I respect--and I respect yours. Today's problem could perhaps have been prevented. DGG (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For your efforts to improve Misplaced Pages by nominating for AFD articles about trivial fads. If they can be documented to be truly notable, then the AFD process can get refs added. Goldfish swallowing is the recent example. See also Panty raid. I just spent the morning at a library and found several books which will allow some needed improvements to the goldfish swallowing article. One from 2002 says in a substantial article "Swallowing goldfish became a wildly popular fad" in 1939 and "has become synonymous with foolish and short lived fads."(Bowling, beatniks and bell-bottoms", Thomson-Gale, 2002) Other books on fads also gave it full page coverage. It is ironic that numerous references agreee it was foolish and short lived, but it has had frequent mention for almost 70 years as an icon of pre-WW2 college life in the U.S. If a silly fad has substantial coverage in multiple reliable and indeendent sources, an AFD nom may elicit the efforts of editors to document that fact more than just tagging the article as unreferenced, although that is not the official purpose of AFD. Thanks for your courtesy and professionalism. P.S. you might find Phonebooth stuffing an interesting read: it is like the other two fads, but without the references, and also might be referenceable. Misplaced Pages is not for things made up in school one day unless they satisfied WP:N. Edison 17:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#NEWS

So...what is the right way to read WP:NOT#NEWS? Or do you just disagree with it? Dybryd 18:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I'm undecided on what my approach toward WP:NOT#NEWS is, but its a great thinking experiment. I find that many of the line items in WP:NOT directly contradict what Misplaced Pages actually is. Burntsauce 19:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes. Lots and lots of policies, like this one, totally fail to describe what Misplaced Pages actually is. Misplaced Pages actually is uncivil. Misplaced Pages actually is a POV battleground. Misplaced Pages actually is very shabbily sourced. The fact that reality does not match policy in these areas is not a point against the relevant policies!

I see the inclusion of indiscriminate stories on every latest tabloid scandal in just the same way.

Dybryd 23:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice play on words in the edit summary ;-) I found it funny :-D Scarian 21:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Grieg piano concerto, et al

"Popculturectomy"? I like it! (A hell of a lot more is called for here.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 22:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Google tells me there are just 13,900 more articles to be amended. Burntsauce 22:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it wrong that I am actively refreshing your contributions page for my own enjoyment? :) --Dreaded Walrus 22:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this with haruspex! Pop culture trivia lists make my head hurt too, but I usually don't have the guts to excise them. Maybe I will more. Mlouns 22:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"popculturectomy"

I love you. Can you attack the rest of the cruft on my watchlist, too? - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Re: Kettle Foods--Yay! Keep on going forth boldly! Katr67 01:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I honestly think this should be a Wikiproject. Trivia and pop culture references clog and saturate articles until the actual point of the article is submerged. Go forth and be of good cheer; the work you do is valued. Cheers, Pig 02:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm writing to suggest more clearly describing your changes in the comment field, i.e. "Removed pop culture section" instead of "popculturectomy," and providing the reason(s) for the removal, such as "This trivia is unimportant to the topic, and no sources were cited." I understand what you mean by popculturectomy now, but without looking at the actual edit, it's not clear whether you took out one sentence in the lead paragraph or an entire section...I find that when I'm going through the history of an article's edits, a plain English description of the change can be very helpful. If you're pasting the comment field, it might be no more work to leave a detailed description than what you're doing now. The comment you left in the article I was watching was "- popculturectomy (FUCKING RIDICULOUS)", which I think was needlessly vulgar and insulting to contributors who added the information, regardless of the merits of the deletion. Best regards. -Agyle 03:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to second Agyle's comments re edit summaries, BUT I would also like to thank you for your boldness in removing these daft crufty lists of "every time an editor has heard the subject of the article mentioned in an episode of his/her favourite TV show" which clog up articles and lower the standard of the encyclopedia. Where the subject of the article has had a significant and verifiable impact on popular culture, then yes it merits a mention. Obviously, where it's mentioned in passing in an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, it doesn't. Thanks again! CLW 08:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

massive removal of trivia

Per WP:BOLD, the next step after the bold deletion, is the revert, to be followed by discussion. I am selectively doing just that. I think making these many edits as a time is highly questionable, and I urge you to stop until some of them can be discussed. DGG (talk) 12:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have commented on it at Misplaced Pages talk:Trivia sections. DGG (talk) 13:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I want to emphasise that I am by no means blindly reverting all, but am examining content and reverting those parts which I think are possibly tenable -- unless the amount for a single article is so great that it would be simpler to revert all and then discuss individual items. To the extent I can quickly, items that can be better placed I am placing appropriately. Articles where I think the removal justified I of course leave alone. You did about 100 items at a rate of about 2 per minute. I am probably going to spend most of the day at this--if necessary, I will finish tomorrow. DGG (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm blindly reverting it all. We don't categorically remove sections. This is stated in the guideline. If you feel certain items warrant removal then you need to provide specific rationale. You can't perform a mass-removal like this. The guideline prohibits it. We keep pop culture sections around, tag them as trivia sections if necessary, so that their contents can eventually be integrated into the rest of the article. Equazcion • argue/improves • 13:32, 10/9/2007

You just blindly restored unsourced trivia to 120-odd articles??? Burntsauce 17:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If anyone wants to discuss with me why I did this, I would be happy to re-explain myself. Or you can just go read our content policies. Either way. Burntsauce 17:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Warning - disruptive editing

As you must know, your removal of 300+ popular culture sections in 90 minutes is controversial, with some seriously arguing it constitutes vandalism. At the very least it is disruptive, non-consensus, and a WP:POINT violation. You have just done the entire batch after being warned.

Please stop this immediately, and do not delete any of these sections once they get restored again.

I will be asking that you be immediately blocked for disruptive editing while we sort this out. Wikidemo 17:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Your are welcome to ask anyone you'd like to block me, but I'm not even going to cite WP:BOLD here. I'm removing large swaths of unsourced trivia from encyclopedic articles. This is an improvement, not vandalism. Get your head checked, yo. Burntsauce 17:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"Get your head checked" is not an appropriate response, nor is ignoring serious warnings about disruptive editing. I'm reporting you at AN/I. Wikidemo 17:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You're too late. I'm already there. And if you do believe this unsourced junk improves Misplaced Pages, you really do need to get something checked. Burntsauce 17:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Civility warning #2 - do not tell me to get anything checked. Wikidemo 17:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a note that I support you (Burntsauce) in this endeavor. You go! +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Support or not, Burntsauce, your responses to people are really very uncivil. Please see WP:CIVIL. Thanks. Equazcion • argue/improves • 17:54, 10/9/2007

Please stop

I'm going to ask that you refrain from continuing the deletions until the WP:ANI discussion is sorted out. Thanks.--Isotope23 17:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and have stopped. Burntsauce 17:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Popculturectomy

I believe that Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Popculturectomy has an opening for Grand Imperial Poobah. You may wish to consider running. The sooner WMF starts Wikitriva, the better; then we can just transwiki all the crap somewhere else. Thanks for the hard work, ➪HiDrNick! 20:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

Just a friendly heads-up: You haven't been added as a party, but your actions are being discussed at WP:RFAR#Alkivar —Random832 13:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really interested but thank you for the friendly heads up. Burntsauce 16:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Since your interaction is part of the scope that the ArbCom will be looked at, I will list you as a party. (Which just means that you'd actually get notified about the case acceptance/closure) - Penwhale | 20:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Random Smile!

WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

-WarthogDemon 20:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem

You caught one, but not the other. I've done that myself.  :) Corvus cornix 22:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Melsaran

I noticed that you added the block indef. tag on his user talk but do you mind if I have it redirected to his user page to save the history? If this request is innapropiate, should the archive pages he had all be tagged as well? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing filed in Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Melsaran. Should it be tagged with {{db-catempty}}? Also Melsaran requested something on his talk page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Littlemoss High School

Hi, I have substantially expanded the article and I wonder if you would revisit your recommendation at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Littlemoss High School, please? TerriersFan 00:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Commons painting used as a source? Re: Dunin

"Why is there a link to Wikimedia Commons, cited as a source no less, for the red link to Captain Zbigniew Dunin-Wonsowicz?" Thanks for pointing that out. I don't know why that reference is there. I'll remove the source reference. Mindraker 11:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I am so pleased

Someone is using my fundraising image! Woopah! :D Neil ☎ 11:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Rodryg Dunin

An article that you have been involved in editing, Rodryg Dunin, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rodryg Dunin (2nd Nomination). Thank you. Mindraker 11:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Never mind about all this I can see now that it was moved from (2nd Nomination) to (3rd nomination). I think that I recently voted to keep this one since there is actual notability associated with the person. Burntsauce 17:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of marine parks with Orcas

Would you please take a look at my comment on this AfD? I think that you screwed up the template when creating the deletion discussion, and it may have caused some confusion among the folks that !voted. Thanks, Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I did it, but I sure botched it up good. I'm guessing I copied the afd2 template from the wrong tab or the copy paste just didn't take effect (which sometimes happens) and then I pasted old template information without noticing from the clipboard. Thanks to whoever fixed that for me. Burntsauce 15:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)