Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Spinningspark (talk | contribs) at 07:41, 10 September 2014 (→Hello: Your edits were massively POV and unsurprisingly were reverted). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

My archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Protection of William Shatner‎

The protection you applied to William Shatner‎ will not stop the user from readding the BLP material as he is autoconfirmed. GB fan 15:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I just realised that myself and fully protected the article while you were writing. SpinningSpark 15:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Based on the latest comments by Petershatner do you think removing the protection would be appropriate? GB fan 17:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It's probably ok, but I'm inclined to let it run till tomorrow at least to give him a chance to calm down and take it all in. I really don't want to have to block him and leaving the article protected removes the temptation. SpinningSpark 17:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Its OK either way, I am involved so it is up to you, just thought it might be a good idea. GB fan 19:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Help Desk - Youtube Thread

Hi Spinningspark, the user actually did say what article it was, just above your comment - Psychopathy in the workplace. Just thought you might want to re-word your reply. Regards, CaptRik (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you help with something?

I mean that literally - I noticed that you've done a lot of work on Nothing, and (perhaps despite this), I was wondering if you could help build an article on the rather abstract concept of Something. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help, are you working on something somewhere? My work on nothing was a kind of penance for a bad mistake I made early on involving that article (it nearly derailed my RFA). It was really a one-off, but I guess I could do something useful with something. Most of my contribution to nothing was based on Bertrand Russell's A History of Western Philosophy. Doing that again will, of course, weight the article to Western thinkers (something still apparent in the nothing article). We also need to watch out that Russell's sometimes idiosyncratic views do not poke through unattributed. But ff that's the kind of help you want, just let me know. SpinningSpark 09:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Revert

If you need it, I can give billions of reference about this. Please revert your revert and I will be happy to write a page about materials if necessary. Thanks. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood what dab pages are for, see MOS:DAB. They should never contain encyclopaedic information and thus never require references. Their only purpose is to direct the reader to the article they are looking for. As such, only the bare minimum of text necessary to distinguish the required article is needed on the page.

By all means write an article, but before doing so the disambiguation page should be moved to material (disambiguation). When you have an article ready you will need to place {{Db-move}} on the page to get an admin to delete it so a move can take place. SpinningSpark 14:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. For the moment, I changed again the definition at the top because to say that a material is a single substance is wrong. For example the steel is a material formed mainly by two substances (carbon and iron). I will create the page "Material" as soon as possible. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

So steel is not a substance by your thinking? SpinningSpark 08:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding referencing...

Hello,

I have completed a short assignment and have used your information on Stethoscopes as research material. Thank you.

May I have your surname and first initial for correct APA v6.0 referencing style? I wish to credit you properly.

I will understand if you don't wish to do this and I wanted to first ask before simply using the article name as the reference.

Kind regards,

Dan Gamble Mambogambo (talk) 05:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mambogambo: Hi Dan, you need to be aware that it is a breach of etiquette on this site to ask editors to reveal their real-life identities. Please see Citing Misplaced Pages for the correct forms to cite Misplaced Pages articles. SpinningSpark 08:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Hello SpinningSpark, I'm writing to you because you originally responded to a help desk query I had earlier. This is related but not entirely the same issue, but it is regarding the same article. I can't help but feel that certain experienced editors are being very combative as to my edits regarding a controversial article. My edits, which I feel are legitimate, are being reverted multiple times. I feel that some parts of my edits are definitely positive instead of controversial, but the whole edits are being reverted. When I discuss my edits at the talk page, I can't help but feel that these editors are ignoring a significant amount of my arguments. However, they band together to quote WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE and WP:CONSENSUS. Unfortunately, even for this controversial article, almost nobody apparently cares enough about the subject to comment about these issues; I posted queries on three message boards and only one editor responded. The few regular editors of the article, are often against me. In that case, I'll never achieve their idea of consensus. I'm really not sure how to proceed. I'm sure you'll be able to find out which article I'm talking about, but I'm not sure if you should intervene on that talk page yet. I was hoping to discuss my actions with you here, if possible, instead of you contacting the other editors. Thank you very much for your time. starship.paint ~ regal 14:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not really possible to give an opinion without seeing the discussion in question, but in general, if nobody agrees with you, then you might want to consider the possibility that you are wrong. As an aside, posting "queries on three message boards" will probably be viewed as forum shopping and asking me as well just makes that worse. One way of getting more editors involved to help reach a consensus is to open a Request for comment. SpinningSpark 15:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, here's the link. Talk:Justin Bieber, see the last two discussions (last is more important) and the corresponding edits leading to discussion at Justin Bieber. RE: Forum shopping -> I posted on 3 message boards almost simultaneously linking and directing them to contribute the Bieber talk page discussion, so I don't think that's guilty?

As an aside I've previously contributed to an RfC on Bieber before. Many people weighed in and a majority of them did not object to a majority of content I added. The RfC was closed as "no consensus to not include", but I found that some content was removed anyway after the RfC due to no "consensus to include". Another editor virtually declined to participate in the RfC, yet was displeased with the results and went ahead after the RfC to remove even more content. Therefore I've lost quite a bit of faith in (not the actual RfC process) but the "post-RfC" follow-up. starship.paint ~ regal 23:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm really not very inclined to get involved in this, but a 15-point RfC and you expected it to come to a firm conclusion? Try something a little more specific next time. SpinningSpark 23:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Let's not talk about the RfC stuff, there's clearly too much history. Would you be willing to instead focus on the most recent edits to the article instead? From the "stable" state of SNUGGUM's edit to the present state? That's less than 10 edits. Then the only relevant talk page discussion is Talk:Justin Bieber#Toronto assault. Thank you. starship.paint ~ regal 04:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

As I say, I am not going to get involved in this, and looking at those edits I don't think there is any need for outside help, only rational editor discussion is needed. There is certainly no call for administrator action; I don't see any evidence that you are being bullied. If you insist on having my opinion, your insertion of the sentence "this charge was dropped on September 8 when evidence could not prove Bieber was the assailant" was the cause of the latest round of reversions. That is massively POV, implying as it does that Misplaced Pages thinks Bieber really did carry out the assault, just that it couldn't be proved in court. That is completely unacceptable and was quite rightly reverted. Other minor issues may have got caught up in that but removing negative POV in BLP articles must be a priority for us and the article did finally settle down to a version with the same information in a more neutral form. SpinningSpark 07:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)