Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Viriditas (talk | contribs) at 05:48, 21 September 2011 (→CRU RfC: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Volume 20Issue 1824 December 2024 Mister rf – cc-by-sa-4.0News and notesResponsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform"What the VLOP – findings of an outside auditor for "responsibilization" of Misplaced Pages. Plus, new EU Commissioners for tech policy, WLE 2024 winners, and a few other bits of news from the Misplaced Pages world. Harrison Keely – CC4.0Op-edBeeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everythingA personal essay. Gerda Arendt – CC0OpinionGraham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subjectExplanations for what led to it and what it was like to undergo it. Bijay Chaurasia – CC BY-SA 4.0In the mediaDelhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF casePlus, the dangers of editing, Morrissey's page gets marred, COVID coverage critique, Kimchi consultation, kids' connectivity curtailed, centenarian Claudia, Christmas cramming, and more. Mihály Munkácsy – PDFrom the archivesWhere to draw the line in reporting?Who's news? Andrea Claire L. Adajar – CC BY-SA 4.0Recent research"Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over qualityAnd other new research findings. Schmidt Litho. Co./Boston Public Library – PDHumourBacklash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifiesGood faith edits REVERTED and accounts BLOCKED. Tucker Corp./Alden Jewell – PDGalleryA feast of holidays and carolsPeace on earth, goodwill to all! Spesh531 – CC0 1.0Traffic reportWas a long and dark DecemberWicked war, martial law, killing, death and an Indian movie with a new chess champ! Single-page edition ← Previous issue Get the latest headlines on your user page – just add {{Signpost-subscription}}. Home About Archives Newsroom Subscribe Suggestions

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Speedy deletion declined: Current Issues in Education

Hello Moogwrench. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Current Issues in Education, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: academic journals not covered under A&. Thank you. Danger (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info regarding speedy delete decline. I wasn't too sure because it said it was student-run and I didn't know if it was of sufficient caliber for retention. Again, thanks for the helpful notice here. Moogwrench (talk) 06:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Analytical Measurement Calibration & Safety (AMCS)

Hello Moogwrench. Thanks for patrolling new pages - it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know however, regarding Analytical Measurement Calibration & Safety (AMCS), that tagging articles for speedy deletion moments after creation as lacking context (CSD A1) or content (CSD A3), and articles being created through Article Wizard, is too fast. It's best to wait at least 10 - 15 minutes for more content to be added, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), and copyright violations (G12) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. Salvio 12:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Bob Beckwith

Hello! Your submission of Bob Beckwith at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: DYK? for Bob Beckwith

Replied at the hook page. Passing, but I'd still upgrade the references. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Check on plagiarism added, my bad. Why the code is broken, that I am not sure. If you find out, let me know... could ask at WT:DYK, I guess. I am not overly concerned with that, because DYK admins still need to move the DYK (I cannot), so might as well have them fixing the code. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. Subst'ed :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Bob Beckwith

On 11 September 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bob Beckwith, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Bob Beckwith, the firefighter accompanying President George W. Bush at Ground Zero (pictured), had been retired for 7 years and bluffed his way into the rescue site using old gear? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bob Beckwith.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 08:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hello Moogwrench! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jeff Szusterman

Per consensus at the mass AfD, I have relisted every entry individually. -- Blanchardb -- timed 18:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Suburban Commandos

The article was for a tag team stable, not a "club" and all of the references were listed. Instead of fixing it, you just deleted it. You are disrespectful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwrestling11 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

CSD Tag- Chunky Man

Just so you know, your speedy deletion tag of Chunky Man was changed from A7 to G10, since it is an attack page (it's entirely negative and only attacks its target). Be sure to tag attack pages as G10, as that makes them priorities for speedy deletion for admins and also blanks the page, so other editors can't see the negative content. --Slon02 (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as soon as I put it on there I realized that G10 would be better and tried to change it, but another editor scooped me and got it on there first. Thanks! Moogwrench (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: MerchantMaster.Biz

Thank You

for responding so quickly. I guess that would be a problem.

I thank you for your speedy deletion....LOL and speedy response! LOL I will determinately have to fix this....

Thanks again!--Mrbuckley916 (talk) 01:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. If you come across independent sources that are reliable (like respectable computer magazines or trade journals or the like) that show significant coverage of your site, that would go a long way towards having it included in Misplaced Pages. Moogwrench (talk) 07:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You are the man

That's what friends are for. Respect with honors go to Moogwrench--Mrbuckley916 (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

That is what we are here for! :) FYI, in case you hadn't noticed, Peridon had responded to you on their page. Moogwrench (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

CRU RfC

The August 2011 CRU requested move was closed by GTBacchus with the recommendation that "anyone wishing to continue" should "pursue a content RFC... at WP:AT." Please close the CRU RfC and take your concerns to Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I created a notice at Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles regarding this RfC instead. Thank you for your advice. Moogwrench (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any reasonable objection to a proposal to close your RfC by consensus? You were politely asked to take your concerns to WP:AT, so I don't see the purpose of the current RfC. Viriditas (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the outcome of the RfC is fairly intimately inter-twined with any issue as WP:AT. I expressed my reasoning for the RfC (which comes at the heels of the recent page move request), that it was to solicit more input. I think a week is far too short a time and the page move request the inappropriate vehicle to adequately gauge community consensus on the thorny issues surrounding the use non-neutral common names or non-neutral words in descriptive titles, but that this RfC has the potential to reinforce a supposed lack of consensus at the community level, at which it really would be appropriate to take it to WP:AT and/or WP:NPOV. Their does seem to be consensus for the using of non-neutral words in titles for other recent history items, such as 2009 Honduran coup d'etat, and so I really want to gauge a wider-range (given more time) of editor input on this issue. I appreciate the politeness of your request, and humbly ask you not to take offense if I continue the RfC. Respectfully, Moogwrench (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The appropriate forum for an RfC about article titles is AT not CRU. The closing admin of the August requested move made this clear. I don't see how your RfC is different from the previous discussion, nor has consensus changed between then and now. The current discussion shows a rough consensus for closure. It is considered disruptive to continue asking the same question, over and over for almost three years, in the hopes of obtaining a different answer. The community has spoken, and unless you have a very good reason for keeping this RfC open, I will move to close it. Viriditas (talk) 05:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

RFC link

Hi Moogwrench. I saw your post at WT:AT. The link you provided, presumably intended to take readers to the RFC, is to the article page, not the talk page where the RFC is. Probably the most targeted link you could provide is: Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy#Request for Comment regarding Name/Title (and you could always pipe the link in any way you chose). I did not change it, of course, because of the very strong prohibition on editing other people's posts. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)