Misplaced Pages

This discussion belongs on the thread where it was asked originally, but I see now that it has been closed. Neotarf (talk) 06:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there some reason you don't sign your comments on talk pages? Neotarf (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Holiday greetings

عيد مبارك to those who are celebrating the feast of Eid al-Fitr at the end of Ramadan. Neotarf (talk) 09:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Cthulhu can eat my dust

Nicely put! darwinbish 19:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC).

Crawling Chaos meets Biting Bipod. Anyhow, I really liked the way you stood up to SineBot. Someone should have done that ages ago. Neotarf (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

your RFAr post

I'm posting on your talk page instead of responding in a statement at the RFAr because I have not yet had time to write my primary statement. I'm not going to address most of your points in detail until, at least, after I've submitted a statement. However, I found one of your points such a significant misstatement that I would ask for it's immediate correction. The last point in your statement, titled "Deleting history and salting titles", is an absolutely drastic misstatement of what I originally wrote. Please go reread my original post and then correct your statement. You linked to my original post in your RFAr statement, but for convenience, here is another link: . I look forward to your forthcoming prompt correction. Thanks, Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Kevin Gorman. Yes, your statement at WP:TITLE talkpage says "The page history at Men's rights movement doesn't need to be preserved in the main article space (or really at all,) since all it represents is some previous drama." And then, instead of using strikethough, you blank out your statement completely. My understanding is that nothing ever gets deleted at Misplaced Pages, in case there is an objection and a need to restore the information, but I find it particularly alarming that someone involved is trying to do this. As far as salting titles, I'm pretty sure this is an admin function, and AFAIK you are not an admin and couldn't have done this. But all the more reason to have a real RM that is not "members only" to find out what interested parties think should be kept as titles, and to have an admin on hand -- an uninvolved admin -- to make sure these are working links. Let me just say that I don't get any idea that you personally are trying to engage in any deception -- far from it. I have spent some time going through a lot of the page history as well as the external hate sites -- inexcusable stuff -- and while something like this (and some of these images are blocked in my geographical area, so I don't know what they are) makes it look like you might have an interest in LGBT and gender issues, I don't see you as trying to push a particular POV. But someone who does not INTEND to push a particular view, can still do so without being aware of it. This is why your editing group should back off, and not give the impression that you are trying to OWN the article. Yes, protect it from the knuckle-draggers, but open the consensus-building process to those outside your immediate clique, and let some uninvolved people help you with the stuff (like moves) that is potentially controversial. Regards, Neotarf (talk) 12:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I erased my comment because it was inappropriate at that page - as my edit summary said, I moved it to a more appropriate page, that being Mike Cline's talk page.

Read what I actually said again. I never suggested deleting the content of any page. I suggested moving the content to a talk subpage since it didn't need to be preserved in the main article space, which is in fact the preferred way of handling the preservation of content in situations where a histmerge is inappropriate.

I also never suggested salting titles and I have absolutely no clue where on earth you got the idea that I did from. You are right that salting titles is an admin-only function, but I never suggested salting titles, I don't understand why anyone would possibly salt titles, and it would be a trivially easy thing to reverse even if someone did anyway.

Since you linked a global contribution counter and mentioned images, I imagine you are talking about the images that are on the top of my commons edit history. All of my edits in discussions related to those images were either (a) to try ensure that Commons properly respects the wishes of living people with regards to sensitive images on commons (AKA, we follow the WMF board's resolution about images of identifiable people,) or (b) to try to ensure that Commons properly respects the principle of least astonishment as articulated by the WMF board - that is, to make sure that unexpected nudity or sexuality related images don't show up in top level searches on commons. The fact that you would use that set of edits as evidence I have a point of view problem is frankly bewildering. I'm not going to bother responding here to your patently ridiculous accusation that a month long RfC on a public talk page that drew multiple uninvolved editors and drew almost complete consensus of participants - including multiple people who regularly disagree with me about content issues on that page - is somehow a secretive clique.

Go re-read my original post and then go amend your RFAr statement. I think you are still simply drastically misreading what I originally wrote, but if you aren't, then you have made some confusing and drastically bad faith accusations. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello again, Kevin Gorman. I left the Men's rights talk page because of the unproductive and venomous atmosphere there, but I have been courteous to you here, so I don't know why you are now bringing a bunch of false accusations that are the trademark of that clique to my talk page. But let's go over them one by one, shall we?

I never suggested deleting the content of any page. I suggested moving the content to a talk subpage

Your exact words were "The page history at Men's rights movement doesn't need to be preserved in the main article space (or really at all,) since all it represents is some previous drama." The bolding is mine, the words were yours.

I also never suggested salting titles and I have absolutely no clue where on earth you got the idea that I did from.

When did I say that? I didn't. I didn't even name you in my statement to ArbCom.

The fact that you would use that set of edits as evidence I have a point of view problem is frankly bewildering.

I didn't. My exact words were "I don't see you as trying to push a particular POV." How does saying someone does NOT have a POV problem say that someone DOES HAVE a point of view problem? I find THAT frankly bewildering.

I'm not going to bother responding here to your patently ridiculous accusation that a month long RfC on a public talk page that drew multiple uninvolved editors and drew almost complete consensus of participants - including multiple people who regularly disagree with me about content issues on that page - is somehow a secretive clique.

Good. And the excuse for not filing the required RM that would have been seen beyond the article's talk page is.....?

you have made some confusing and drastically bad faith accusations

I always find it amusing when someone nags an editor to "assume good faith", because that makes it pretty obvious they have not actually read the policy they are linking to, and have no clue what it says. Let me quote a small portion: "...accusations of bad faith serve no purpose. They also can be inflammatory and hence can aggravate a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually in bad faith and harassment if done repeatedly."

Now, what I suggest, is that you either provide exact quotations and diffs, or retract all your accusations against me, especially the accusation of bad faith. You are not being persecuted by me, and in fact, you never have been.

Neotarf (talk) 07:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Your RFAr post says: "The editing group wants to delete some of the page history, and possibly has done so already." My post, which you partially quote, does not suggest that deleting any page history is a good idea, and it definitely does not suggest that I want to do so. I suggested moving the old history in to a talk subpage, which was what in fact was done. This suggestion is a preferred method to handle page moves with history in situations where histmerges do not make sense. Here is a more full quote from my post that makes it obvious that you are attributing an opinion to me that I have never expressed:

The page history at Men's rights movement doesn't need to be preserved in the main article space (or really at all,) since all it represents is some previous drama. (No content from the history of Men's rights movement is used anywhere else on Misplaced Pages, and it was mostly all copied from Men's rights to begin with.) An appropriate solution would be moving what is currently at Men's rights movement to Talk:Men's rights movement/oldhistory, and then moving what is currently at Men's rights to Men's rights movement.

You are citing a diff of a quote from me to attribute to me (or I guess to this 'editing group') an opinion that is the polar opposite of the opinion I expressed. You also included a comment about 'secretly salting titles,' when the diff you cited contained no mention of salting titles, and when no one else has mentioned salting titles, either. (Titles can't even be 'secretly salted.') Your post combines a falsified opinion and something that just literally didn't happen to allege impropriety on my behalf. I'll leave worrying about enforcement of comments made at RFAr to the arbs and clerks there if they feel it's necessary, but I would still greatly appreciate it if you amended your RFAr statement so that it is truthful. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Gorman, I have quoted your exact words.

The page history at Men's rights movement doesn't need to be preserved in the main article space (or really at all,) since all it represents is some previous drama.:

The history....doesn't need to be preserved....at all.

I see what I see; I read what I read. I have quoted you exactly. I have provided a diff. If the meaning is not what you intended, it is up to YOU to clarify what you meant in your own space. I cannot read your mind. I can only know what you wrote. And I have reproduced that accurately. And I do not believe you should have messed with that move because at the very least, you are INVOLVED and it looks bad.

Now, for the other. Look what I said about salting pages: "I have no idea what titles are needed or how many of them have been secretly salted." Let me repeat that first part. "I have no idea..." Maybe I read it in the previous ANI. How many pages does that run? 8000? Forget that, I'm not going to read them again. Probably it was even before that, in the talk pages. Or maybe somewhere else. But I read it somewhere. If you need it for something, then look for it. I believe it is simpler to just have a discussion about what titles are needed, then make sure they are available, as I already stated.

But I see I am just repeating myself over and over.

Regards,

Neotarf (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

(This section now contains 1900 words.)

WP:TITLE

You wrote, on my talk page, the following message:

"Sorry to revert so abruptly without leaving anything but an edit summary, but here is the corresponding commentary on the talk page you may want to familiarize yourself with before becoming further involved. The original Request for Comment starts here with a proposal to demote the title policy to mere advice. It is a proposal to change "Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made." to "Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should seek broad consensus before any change is made. Listing at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves or holding a request for comment is advisable." This was in response to this: action at WP:ANI This is followed by sections containing 7 or 8 proposals for changing the wording, some rapid fluctuation in policy text, quickly reverted, then this notice , a reminder that "Editing this policy without discussion to obtain consensus may subject you to discretionary sanction. Please see the notice at the top of this page." Then a section about too many people editing the proposal at once , after which, a small number of trusted regulars were left to hammer out the details. See also about the Arbcom action (where I was busy until after dawn here) in the latest section. Hope this brings you up to speed. Regards."

Here is my answer, which I posted by mistake on Noetica's page:

Thank you for the explanations, but as I already wrote in the talk page I do not want to invest my time in this discussion, although I am still convinced that my edits were useful and by no means questionable. Paolo.dL (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for answering you on Noetica's page. It was a mistake. Your names begin in a similar way (Noet - Neot). Paolo.dL (talk) 07:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, that explains it. If it helps any, "neo" means "new". See Etymology Online: So my pen name means "new eye", after an editor I used to work with who would ask for someone to proofread something by saying "new eyes, new eyes".

I do look at your edits from time to time and I never see anything to be concerned about. In this case though, as one editor put it, "undiscussed edits during consensus building is disruptive. I'm hoping we can keep the edits on the talk page until we've reached agreement." There were several edits before yours that were reverted as well; if I hadn't done it, someone else most certainly would have. I am staying away from that page as well -- for the moment, at least. Neotarf (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. The etymology of your nickname is useful, and the reason why you chose it is brilliant and funny at the same time! :-) Don't worry, I won't ever confuse you with Noetica anymore. I studied the etimology of both names immediately after my mistake and now I can clearly see the difference. Paolo.dL (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability, Original research and synthesis

I'm responding here because it seems more appropriate than at ArbCom. You are, I believe, mistaken in your post there, as the edits where indeed problematic. Let me try to explain, taking the refugee edit as an example. . Noetica added: "In Australian immigration policy a distinction is regularly made between women and children (often treated erroneously as equivalent to "family groups") and single men. The details are subject to current debate and legislation in the Australian Parliament. But for example in one famous recent case, the Minister for Immigration, Senator Amanda Vanstone, determined as follows concerning Papuan asylum seekers (all forty-three of whom have since been accorded status as refugees): "The single men on the boat would be sent to an immigration detention centre, but families would not be split up and would be housed in facilities in the community." The discriminatory treatment of single women (routinely assumed to be members of some family) and single men evident in such a practice is rarely examined in the Australian media."

There is one reference given, from a reliable source, the Sydney Morning Herald. However, the reference doesn't support much of the paragraph. There is nothing in the article about distinction between women/children and men being made regularly in Australian immigration policy, there is nothing about a current debate and legislation in parliament, there is nothing about 43 of them having been accorded refugee status, and the quote cited to Vanstone does not appear, but is given rather in the newspaper's voice. The statement about discriminatory treatment and that it is rarely examined in the Australian media has no citation after it all, and is not in the SMH article.

So there you go. Yes, there was a citation, but most of the content was actually unverifiable OR. Added to which is the WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE problem of including it in the article about men's rights in the first place. It is not enough for an individual editor to decide that such and such an issue is a men's rights issue or a example of discrimination. WP needs reliable sources making that point; there was no mention of discrimination and/or men's rights in the SMH article, and when I searched for reliable sources about men's rights and refugee issues to properly source and cite the material, there was none to be found, and so the section had to be removed. --Slp1 (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you leave a note on his talk page? I would have used a Citation needed or better yet, looked for the information myself, since tagging is sometimes seen as unfriendly. The newspaper piece does say the men will be housed separately because they are single, but the families will be together. Not surprising, I have seen it before in Asia, even single men excluded from shopping centers unless accompanied by a female family member. Also, the info did come from an Australian. Most people do follow the local news where they live, even if they can't put their finger on a particular article on short notice. If you leave it, someone else can always fill in the information. The encyclopedia is never finished. If it is deleted, no one will know where to look for more info. The exception is with WP:BLP, where you can't leave potentially actionable or harmful information online.

Of more concern to me is that the moderate male voices are getting pushed out of the dialogue. There are a bunch of women editing that article, and I can't help but think that biases the content. Not that everyone shouldn't be able to edit an article like that, whites have always been involved in the civil rights movement, for example, but there seems to be a concerted effort -- conscious or unconscious -- to make men feel unwelcome there.

Neotarf (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't leave a note on his talkpage because it wasn't till he said that he had added that content at Arbcom that I had any clue he had. There is absolutely no point in delving through article histories going back years to find who had added specific content, except in very, very limited circumstances. As I said in my previous post, I did look for the information myself and could not find any verification, most particular for the fact that anybody other than the OP considered Australian refugee practices a men's rights issue. Leaving unverifiable original research in an article is not the way to improve this encyclopedia. Articles would be full of enormous quantities of junk if editors followed the advice you offer.

I am extremely concerned by your suggestion that the gender of editors is in any way significant at that article. I've seen you make another deeply worrying remark of a similar nature elsewhere. Seeking to discredit editors and their contributions based on personal characteristics is very close to being a personal attack. The point is, do editors, of whatever gender, make good, policy compliant edits or not. At that article many excellent editors (some of whom happen to be male, and some female) have been involved. --Slp1 (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

That is not advice that "I" offer. It's on the "citation needed" essay I linked earlier. I have looked up the policy page as well: WP:BURDEN

Can you imagine women being driven away from contributing to articles on feminism? Can you see Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. driven away from writing about civil rights?

Both Noetica and I — presupposed to be male in the ARbCom discussion — have been driven away from the Men's rights talk page by a climate of hostility and disruptive editing. I struggle to understand why. And I do not see the Project benefiting from that.

Regards,

Neotarf (talk) 00:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Slp1, you might well be "very concerned" about aspects of the turmoil you have participated in. Join the club! On evidence so far, I cannot think it would be productive for me to engage with you in sustained dialogue, so I will keep this brief. Please document your very many changes to that page more lucidly in edit summaries. I have revealed at the ArbCom page (soon to be wound up) what an ordeal it is to track things when editors fail in that way. You could have left a tag calling for more citations, if you were (rather selectively?) worried that the detailed and pertinent material I had contributed needed them. If such a tag were left in place for a reasonable time, I would have found it and I could easily have supplied all that was needed. One last thing: when you are deeply involved in the development of a page, and when you have a firm commitment on the proper naming and proper content for that page, DO declare all that when you make submissions before ArbCom, OK? I am deeply concerned that you did not.

♥

Noetica 00:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Another course of action might be to rewrite the text of the article to more accurately reflect the information in the source. If you merely delete the whole thing, including the reliable source that you believe is inaccurately interpreted, that is in itself a non-neutral act.

You may find this discussion illuminating: Misplaced Pages is a work in progress. It wanders a bit, here is the money quote:

Somehow, we have taken what was originally blatant, and always a given – that the encyclopedia is incomplete and lacks consistent quality – and turned it into a problem. Like the inherent drawbacks of the wiki system, this problem cannot be solved without fundamentally altering the nature of the project. If we focus too strongly on how good the existing encyclopedia is, rather than on improving it, the project will become bogged down and the overall rate of improvement will slow.... Remember that Misplaced Pages is a work in progress. Don't waste time measuring that progress, make the progress happen.

An article is built bit by bit. One editor may not have time to do extensive research, but only to add a couple of refs. This may not bring the article to Featured Article status, or even make it "notable", but it is a step in the right direction, and may even help some user who is looking for information. If you merely delete or revert someone who is just doing their part, you reverse the course of the article, and cause disruption.

Neotarf (talk) 11:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

A friendly notice

...just to make sure you are aware. Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- KillerChihuahua 16:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

What, no WikiLove kittens? Neotarf (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You'd be surprised how often we have good faith editors at AE who complain that they never got a notice the page they were editing was under sanctions. This in spite of being part of the case, or discussing the case, etc. Same with probationary pages. This is well meant; if you are aware you can avoid sanctions. It is merely a notice, no judgment on any edits of yours. KillerChihuahua 17:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

1. "Vanstone refuses to return Papuans", Sydney Morning Herald, 26 January 2006; online at http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/vanstone-refuses-to-return-papuans/2006/01/19/1137553712890.html