Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Amalthea (talk | contribs) at 08:20, 19 October 2011 (→WP:NOTNOW?: new section). 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 What do you think of The Signpost? Share your feedback. 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.

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)

The closing admin made a recommendation, as you previously stated, not a prescription. The RfC is different in that it lasts longer than a page move request, which is why I initiated. One of the reasons why I did not participate in the most recent page move request was because I was not even aware of it until it had already passed, unlike some editors that edit heavily on that page. So the purpose of the RfC is to solicit opinion over a longer period of time to allow more editors who are not as frequent editors as you to contribute. Surely you don't think that this is a bad idea? The events in question happened about 2 years ago, not 3, as you misstate. The fact that editors keep raising the issue merely shows that there is no consensus, as the closing admin of the page move said, and so I don't know how you claim to speak for the community, when no consensus on this issue has been forthcoming. I bear no ill will to you, but I also have no idea what you personally would consider to be a good reason to keep the RfC open. I don't know why you would want to prematurely close the RfC. Why not give it 30 days? Why move to close it after less than 1? Does the idea of letting a wider amount of editors opine concern you? Moogwrench (talk) 06:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You bring up interesting points. Let me briefly answer them in the order they were raised:

1. The closing admin, GTBacchus (talk · contribs) is a neutral party who has acted as a mediator, not on issues related to climate change, but on the topic of article titles. His recommendation, therefore, comes from a subject-neutral POV, which is ideal. Your reaction and response tells me you don't recognize it. You started an RfC about article titles and NPOV naming on the wrong talk page. I'm curious what exactly it is going to take to get you to understand your mistake, but it is obvious from the RfC notification you left on AT, that you reversed the process. As GTBacchus made clear, this needs to be discussed in an RfC on the article title talk page, not on the CRU page.
2. You say you were not aware of the previous move request, and you claim that the RfC will bring in outside contributors instead. That doesn't make sense. Here's why: 1) There are currently 260 page watchers, which is more than enough contributors. 2) The RfC and requested move process are virtually identical, in that both are updated and advertised by a bot in centralized locations. And, like RfC's, move requests "are processed by a handful of regular contributors who are familiar with naming conventions, nonbinding precedents, and page moving procedures." You may not know that like move requests, we have RfC regulars who contribute, especially with the new RfC feedback request service, which is subscribed to by regulars on their chosen topic. To summarize: requested moves bring in just as many outside contributors as RfC's, and the page is already watchlisted by 260 editors. Considering that the talk page has somewhere around only ~20 regular contributors, we already have enough eyes on the talk page. So, your argument that an RfC is needed to bring more editors in doesn't appear to be supported by facts.
3. You are correct that the CRU incident occurred two years ago, although it feels like three years to me, as disruption on this topic peaked in 2008 with the creation of hundreds of sock puppets who began disrupting multiple climate change pages. The modus operandi of these accounts was to ask the same questions over and over again on the talk pages and to add the same information to the articles.
4. That fact that editors keep raising the issue has no bearing on consensus. In fact, we've had at least five requested moves, none of which have resulted in a consensus to move to "climategate". To clarify, there never has been a consensus to move the article to "climategate".
5. The burden of proof is on you to show why the RfC should remain open, not on me to show why I think it should be closed. Viriditas (talk) 08:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me go over your responses:

1. Like I said, I wasn't aware of the page move, and I am sure others weren't as well, because of the short time frame. If a person if an irregular editor, and perhaps edits every other week, it would have been possible for them to completely miss the page move, which as I said, lasts only 7 days. The RfC, with its longer time frame, has the potential to give more irregular editors the chance to notice and contribute to such things. Or do you think that only regular watchers of a particular topic/venue should be the ones to opine?
2. I am sorry that the duties of editorship (dealing with SPAs, socks, and the like) frustrate you sometimes. That is no reason to silence what other editors feel to be a legitimate issue. The closing admin to the page move indicated that there were important issues to be addressed. I happpen to disagree with the appropriate venue for discussing them, since I believe that the issue stands less with WP:AT than it does applying WP:AT to the article in question.
3. I never claimed that there was consensus (locally) in the past to move to Climategate. However, likewise there has never been a stable consensus towards keeping the title in its current state. The title has changed over time. The fact that a significant amount of local editors believes that it should be changed to Climategate but have not been able to achieve consensus around that move because of another local group of editors is equally opposed to that name does not mean consensus have been achieved to keep it there indefinitely.
4. Again, I have no idea what kind of "proof" you could require. I have stated my reasoning (longer time frame, no consensus, definite issue to be discussed) and your initial disagreement regarding my placement of the RfC was that it was at the wrong venue. I honestly do not believe that the issue is with WP:AT. I believe WP:AT is sufficiently clear in this case. Other non-neutral names/words in titles of articles of recent historical origin exist and have been accepted by the community. The issue in my mind is with a local application of the community policy/consensus. I want to see if a community consensus exists to apply WP:AT in the way I believe it applies. If the community still arrives at no consensus, then it really does mean that WP:AT needs to be revised, though the potential awkwardness of trying to revise WP:AT in some way to better delineate a difference in using POV titles when we like them and other POV titles when we don't seems difficult when you consider that those contributing will likely be the same heavily invested editors that regularly edit the article in question and others like it. Just out of curiosity, since the admin did suggest a content RfC at WP:AT, saying that it would be "nice" to get these issues resolved, if you were to put an RfC at WP:AT, what would you query? I am interested to see what you would propose, since you think that is absolutely the best venue for dealing with the issue of application of policy to this article's name. Moogwrench (talk) 14:56, 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)

Big Brother 2011 accusation

I edited material I had contributed myself to update it, not vandalise so it would be appreciated that you do not accuse me of vandalsim, perhaps after contact with others trying to remove material they wish to delete. It was not vandalism, it was an update to that I had written myself. A contributor from UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 07:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see my comment on your page. Moogwrench (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Reversal of deletions: Solid Edge

Hello ! I see you've reverted my deletions on this article. Yet I see them as necessary as they are essentially advertisement and unverified claims, like "claimed to speed up process up to 100 times". Most so-called "references" are from the software company itself, which gives it no real substance. Also, many so-called "reviews" in the CAD industry are very superficial. See for instance http://www.deelip.com/?p=3758 Using them as references is ludicrous at best. I didn't deface the substance of the article but removed the parts that made it an ad. It's sad to see that Misplaced Pages serves as a commercial place for marketing managers. We have to fight this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.236.2.163 (talk) 08:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying but it would be wise if you talk about exactly what you feel makes those contributions spam/advertisement. Also, realize that External links have a different policy as well than just straight out references within the article (I am refering to some of your previous edits). Also, remember to use descriptive edit summaries that explain what you are doing, otherwise it just looks like you are randomly blanking sections if you don't put anything in your summary, like with this edit. Moogwrench (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I failed to describe more clearly my edits. I thought they were quite obvious. The references I've removed are either self serving references to websites/videos made by the company itself, i.e pure marketing, or by so-called third party reviews that are untrustable (this can be questioned, I agree), or obsolete links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.236.2.163 (talk) 08:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Some coal balls falafel for you!

Thanks! →Στc. 05:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

hi there, I am Vincent and I hail from South Africa. I thought of it a nice idea to establish intelectual conversations with people across the world, I hope me and you could share knowledge about everyday events. By the way I'm a 19 year old, Black Male student. As i function (talk) 11:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for American School Hygiene Association

On 3 October 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article American School Hygiene Association, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt became honorary president of the American School Hygiene Association, a Progressive Era organization dedicated to school children's health? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/American School Hygiene Association.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) 00:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tagging

When you're looking at new pages, it's generally recommended that you not tag articles for A7 deletion so quickly. You tagged Game of Nerds only 3 minutes after it was created. Now, I did go ahead and delete the page, as it was clear to me (after a little online research) that no amount of work would make the article pass A7, but it's better to give new articles a few hours in case the article creator is still in the middle of the creation process and is intending to add more info that would be a credible claim of significance or importance. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, especially from a WP:BITE perspective, but at the same time, I think a few hours is too long to wait to tag something, perhaps an hour would okay... if the case is indeterminate. Each page has to be evaluated on a case by case basis, if something looks like it has potential, sure... why not give it time, eh? But if we are talking about some dinky free online flash game, why are we going to waste a lot of time dealing with something like that? It was readily apparent that it wasn't going to pass A7 from the get go. Moogwrench (talk) 06:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

What if the "dinky free online flash game" won some sort of award for "Best new online game of 2010?" What if it became so popular that it were talked about in regular newspapers or tech journals? I agreed that in that case, that article wasn't going to pass, but that was only after I went searching around online for other sources. I guess to me, it's that there's really no harm in keeping things up for an hour or two. However, there is a counter argument based on "trying to catch the editor while they're still here"; I've raised a discussion about this (not this specific deletion, but about whether we should codify more specific "rules" about timing) at WT:NPP. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

re: your message

Hi Moogwrench, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 02:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTNOW?

Hi,
please have a look at Misplaced Pages:When not to link to WP:NOTNOW -- the WP:NOTNOW essay is intended for very new editors starting an RfA, not for an editor with 4000+ edits over 2.5 years like Ankitbhatt.
Cheers, Amalthea 08:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)