Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Phantomsteve (talk | contribs) at 21:13, 13 November 2009 (reverted removal - I do not consider this vandalism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page - it will be on my watchlist anyway, so I will see your response If you leave me a message: I will answer on this talk page - please let me know if you need a talkback to let you know that I've answered. This will ensure that conversations remain together! Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

Archive 1: Pre-2009 Archive 2: June — September 2009 Archive 3: September — November 2009 Archive 4: November 2009 —

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Thank-you Steve.

Just a note to say thanks for the time you've put into keeping me focused on Misplaced Pages ideals and on developing some of the articles I started. Kernel.package (talk) 00:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You're too kind! If I recall, our common articles were Wabigama and some of the fouding members! I remember we had a disagreement about the notability of the club! However, I rmember helping find information about a couple of the founders (and I'm glad that those article are still present!). As I said at the time, I don't aim to get articles deleted - if reliable sources (even if it's just a couple of them!) are all I look for - and I quite enjoy finding them. As I said before, if you ever have any questions, please feel free to contact me - I'll do my best to help out, or direct you to where people more knowledgeable than me can be found! Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

hi i didnt do dat wrong revisions in Kanpur article. thnx for undo.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Urprakhar (talk • contribs) 08:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment! I know that it wasn't you - it was a vandal. I sometimes do "vandal patrol", and the page is one which came up! Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

newbie and editing :)

Thank you for answering so quickly, I will give it a go now, hopefully i did it correctly. cheers Juliette Rose (talk) 08:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You are very welcome! One of the things I like doing on Misplaced Pages is giving advice and help - I hope you got sorted OK! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at your contributions, I see that you managed to get your edit to work on the Karen Kay (TV personality) article - well done! If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask! Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

75.141.100.115 user talk page will be deleted.

That user talk page will be deleted because there is no longer a user in the future. I will have to put Strike-through text on the user talk page called 75.141.100.115. 12.239.22.131 (talk) 05:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: both of these IPs (12.239.22.131 (talk) and 75.141.100.115 (talk)) are blocked for 1 month, with their user pages blanked. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

IRC Cloaking Request

My nick is Phantomsteve (no surprise there, eh?)! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Moving an article

Hello Phantomsteve. Very clear they were! Lumenlitt (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

completing my note

Phatntomsteve. Its getting late here and mistakes happen. I meant to thank you for your instructions which helped a lot. Lumenlitt (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries! I'm glad I could help! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 23:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 9 November 2009

• Fundraiser: Controversial "Misplaced Pages Forever" fundraiser to start 10 November

• New pages experiment: Wikipedians test the water at new page patrol

• German controversy: German Misplaced Pages under fire from inclusionists

• Multimedia usability: Multimedia usability meeting concludes in Paris

• Election report: Arbitration Committee candidate nominations open 10 November

• Book review: Review of Connected Minds, Emerging Cultures: Cybercultures in Online Learning

• News and notes: Ant images, public outreach, and more

• In the news: Beefeater vandalism, interview, and more

• Sister projects: Meta-wiki interview

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

William A. Dembski article

Please refer to the talk page of the specified article and look to the second half, where most complaints as to the biased nature in which the article was created and is kept are stored. Some are years old. I do not appreciate being directed to an opinion grave. I have read the criteria for speedy deletion, as I also have WP:NOTPERFECT. WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 08:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

At least 3 admins do not believe that this is an attack page. Although admins are not perfect, that does not mean that they are always wrong!

Yes, some of the discussion points on the article's page are up to 2-1/2 years old. However, many of those points appear to have been addressed. Again, I highly recommend that you leave a message on the talk page giving specifics about why you feel that this article is an attack page. What exactly do you feel is inaccurate? Can you provide reliable sources showing this to be the case? If you re-insert a speedy deletion tag, you are running the risk of being blocked - you have been made aware that you should not do this, and your replies indicate that you have seen the messages about this.

Again, I strongly suggest that you discuss this on the article's talk page. It is very rare that an article that is this old (more than 6 years old) requires deleting in its entirety - it is certainly possible that specific words/sentences/sections might need removing or improving. However, this is a discussion for the talk page of the article, rather than unilateral action.

You said that you have read the criteria for speedy deletion - I do not see where in the article it disparages or threatens Dembski, which are the words used in the Speedy Deletion policy. However, for a speedy deletion to be required, all (or the vast majority of) the article needs to be disparaging or threatening Dembski. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you like me to quote for you the alleged bias? By the way of your comments, you seem to have not noticed that I had already posted comments to the aforementioned talk page. Also, I knew the risk of posting all that I did. I will take such risks if warranted. WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 08:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I did see your 2 comments on the talk page (left just over 2 hours ago) - and to be honest, I do not know enough about this subject to comment on it - and I have no desire to use the limited time I have available at the moment to look into it. I would suggest that you leave more than a couple of hours for people to comment! As the editors on Misplaced Pages are from all over the world, I would leave it at least 24 hours before deciding that no one is paying attention. Also, I noticed that in the "Perakh quote/piecemeal treatment of writings" section, you did get a reply (from dave souza), who indicated that your opinion was against that shown in reliable third-party sources. I would again suggest that you take this up on the talk page - respond to dave souze (I realise that their reply was only made about 20 mins ago, so you may not have seen it yet); wait for a response to your comment at the "Peer review, Nature, and UD" section. As I say, I do not know this subject well enough to be able to comment, and as I have to go out soon, I do not have time (or if I'm honest, the inclination) to look into this in the detail which would be required.

However I do know that there is no reason to delete the entire article! As I have previously said, if there are specific sections that can be improved, that is one thing - wholesale deletion is not a viable option, I would venture to suggest!

Continue to discuss it, allow people the chance to respond - and go from there. As this is an article about an American, I would expect that most of the editors with the relevant knowledge will be in America - and as it is the early hours of the morning over there, they are unlikely to have seen your comments yet!

As far as I am concerned, I have said everything that I am going to say about this article. However, if you have any other questions (about editing other articles, Misplaced Pages's policies, etc), please feel free to contact me again. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I am in Hartford, Connecticut, the United States of America. I have read every article that you have prompted me to read, incidentally, before you did prompt such. Also, there has been discussion concerning exactly what I am concerned about. The article has already been put for speedy deletion by other contributors. The speedy deletion flag was put down by other contributors. The article is consistantly biased and only speaks of controversy regarding the man's beliefs and prose. If that is not bias in your opinion, then I need to, ironically, provoke you with WP:NOTPERFECT. I am not speaking to the innaccuracy of the article. I am speaking to the bias of the sources, the obviously absurd unreliability of the sources, and the consistancy of the article it self. The article is about the man, not about how his life's work is controversial to groups of peoples. A section regarding a study or book of his should not only be concerning it's opposition. By ignoring these bias, you are very much WP:NOTPERFECT. WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 09:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I am also very much not an admin! I am not ignoring bias - I do not know anything about this person, his life or his work. To be able to comment in a reasoned way, I would need to spend time looking into it - and to be honest, I have more important things (to me) to do, than spend hours looking into this subject. My advice to you would be to address (on the talk page) the specific sources. Explain why you consider them to be biased, something along the lines of "The book Fred Blogs by John Smith is biased/unreliable because...", "The article Am I Biased? written by Mark Jones in the September 2009 issue of "Issues in Bias Monthly" shows bias/is unreliable because...". Please note that I am not being flippant here! If you can provide specific examples with reliable, independent sources backing up your arguments, then you are more likely to get reasoned responses - people can respond to specific allegations of bias. Use reliable sources to back up your contentions of bias/unreliability - can you find independent sources to back up what you are saying?

As to whether the focus of the article is correct or not, I would leave that to people with more knowledge on the subject - which may or may not include you, I don't know! All I do know is that I am not one of those people! My gut instinct is that showing that a person is considered controversial by other people is a valid part of an article about a person. Sometimes it is in a specific "critical response" or "criticisms" section, sometimes it is not - but the mention of any controversy is part of a balanced coverage, I would have thought. If some people feel (and there are independent, reliable sources) that there are criticisms to be made, these should be mentioned in the article.

If you have any questions on other articles, please feel free to leave them! I will not comment any further on this particular article, as I think I have made my position quite clear - please do not take it as rudeness on my part! However, any other articles you want to discuss, or advice about editing, I am quite happy to respond to. Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Over seventy and five percent of the one hundred and twenty-one cited sources are in direct opposition to the man, including those that are used for the early history of his career. I have already made two simple edits in the first two paragraphs, removing blatant bias. That is to ignore the fact that many of those sources are biased by nature. WP:VALID mandates that there must be equal weight given to both sides of any arguement, those sources cited must be credible, there must be sources cited, etc.. I did not give specific examples before. You do ask why? There are so many! The whole article is biased. You are responding under the assumption that the administrators were justified by their flippant decisions regarding my speedy deletion flag. I really believe that the issue is that they themselves are biased, they are flippant, they are ignorant, they are lazy, and they are too scared to consider serious deletion or major deletion of such an old article!WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 10:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

An answer

Another answer, sort of

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops!

Sorry; I was trying to notify a spammer and hit the wrong link. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

My bad - I should have SUBST'd my template, as it uses headings! I've corrected the template so that if I don't SUBST it, there's an error. Otherwise, if some clicks on edit, it edits the template, not the user page! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your recent RfA

Note: Sebwite copied this from their talk page.

I just wanted to let you know that although I opposed your RfA at this time, this does not mean that I think you should forget about it forever!

Although I was concerned over your answers to two of the questions (as I said in my oppose) please take this as a learning experience. I see no reason why you should not become an admin the the future - I just believe that at the moment you are not quite ready for it!

Keep up the excellent work on Misplaced Pages. Hopefully you will consider re-applying for adminship in the future. During the time until you do, read up on the policies about deletion and about alternate accounts!

Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I do indeed plan to try again in the near future. I am not jumping into immediately; first comes the post-mortem. In any case, I never expected to get it on my first try. Had I gotten it, I would have been really shocked. Sebwite (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

COPY RIGHT

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/d-find-number?csbdesign=3017175

THIS IS NOT VANDALISM THIS IS MY Intellectual property RIGHT THIS BADGE IS COPYRIGHT IP UK Patent Office Reg No 3017175

THIS IS NOT MOD OR CROWN THIS IS MINE YOU WANT TO MAKE HISTORY