Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:13, 9 October 2007

This editor has full permission to remove, without replying, any comments he feels are likely to inflame dispute. If you have a problem with this editor, you are invited to bring that concern to the attention of the administrators noticeboard or a member of the arbitration community, but please bear in mind that we have a zero-tolerance approach to harassment.

Source: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-March/066949.html

Source: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046440.html

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=prev&oldid=133164991

Enough of this bullshit

I am tired of explaining, ad nauseum, to a specific group of people why WP:BLP is important. If you disagree with explicit emails drafted by Jimmy Wales, please take it up with him on your own. Burntsauce 21:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks

I hope to agree with you more often. Perhaps we can figure out some working guidelines that we share. Actually, we probably do share many, because I am sure we agree on most articles, the great many we do not dispute. Even on AfD, I'd say with you that most of the articles should be either deleted outright or merged. And I'm sure you'd say with me that most of the existing articles should stay, but that almost all of them need considerable improvement. Why don't you look at my delete log, and see what I speedy, and perhaps we can talk. DGG (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I am disappointed that you did not follow up this offer to discuss--as you know, I think the best solution to most WP problems is compromise. I continue to be willing to discuss general or specific matters with you -- or anyone-- on or off wiki. I dislike reverting people whose work I respect--and I respect yours. Today's problem could perhaps have been prevented. DGG (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For your efforts to improve Misplaced Pages by nominating for AFD articles about trivial fads. If they can be documented to be truly notable, then the AFD process can get refs added. Goldfish swallowing is the recent example. See also Panty raid. I just spent the morning at a library and found several books which will allow some needed improvements to the goldfish swallowing article. One from 2002 says in a substantial article "Swallowing goldfish became a wildly popular fad" in 1939 and "has become synonymous with foolish and short lived fads."(Bowling, beatniks and bell-bottoms", Thomson-Gale, 2002) Other books on fads also gave it full page coverage. It is ironic that numerous references agreee it was foolish and short lived, but it has had frequent mention for almost 70 years as an icon of pre-WW2 college life in the U.S. If a silly fad has substantial coverage in multiple reliable and indeendent sources, an AFD nom may elicit the efforts of editors to document that fact more than just tagging the article as unreferenced, although that is not the official purpose of AFD. Thanks for your courtesy and professionalism. P.S. you might find Phonebooth stuffing an interesting read: it is like the other two fads, but without the references, and also might be referenceable. Misplaced Pages is not for things made up in school one day unless they satisfied WP:N. Edison 17:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#NEWS

So...what is the right way to read WP:NOT#NEWS? Or do you just disagree with it? Dybryd 18:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I'm undecided on what my approach toward WP:NOT#NEWS is, but its a great thinking experiment. I find that many of the line items in WP:NOT directly contradict what Misplaced Pages actually is. Burntsauce 19:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice play on words in the edit summary ;-) I found it funny :-D Scarian 21:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Grieg piano concerto, et al

"Popculturectomy"? I like it! (A hell of a lot more is called for here.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 22:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Google tells me there are just 13,900 more articles to be amended. Burntsauce 22:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it wrong that I am actively refreshing your contributions page for my own enjoyment? :) --Dreaded Walrus 22:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this with haruspex! Pop culture trivia lists make my head hurt too, but I usually don't have the guts to excise them. Maybe I will more. Mlouns 22:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"popculturectomy"

I love you. Can you attack the rest of the cruft on my watchlist, too? - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Re: Kettle Foods--Yay! Keep on going forth boldly! Katr67 01:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I honestly think this should be a Wikiproject. Trivia and pop culture references clog and saturate articles until the actual point of the article is submerged. Go forth and be of good cheer; the work you do is valued. Cheers, Pig 02:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm writing to suggest more clearly describing your changes in the comment field, i.e. "Removed pop culture section" instead of "popculturectomy," and providing the reason(s) for the removal, such as "This trivia is unimportant to the topic, and no sources were cited." I understand what you mean by popculturectomy now, but without looking at the actual edit, it's not clear whether you took out one sentence in the lead paragraph or an entire section...I find that when I'm going through the history of an article's edits, a plain English description of the change can be very helpful. If you're pasting the comment field, it might be no more work to leave a detailed description than what you're doing now. The comment you left in the article I was watching was "- popculturectomy (FUCKING RIDICULOUS)", which I think was needlessly vulgar and insulting to contributors who added the information, regardless of the merits of the deletion. Best regards. -Agyle 03:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to second Agyle's comments re edit summaries, BUT I would also like to thank you for your boldness in removing these daft crufty lists of "every time an editor has heard the subject of the article mentioned in an episode of his/her favourite TV show" which clog up articles and lower the standard of the encyclopedia. Where the subject of the article has had a significant and verifiable impact on popular culture, then yes it merits a mention. Obviously, where it's mentioned in passing in an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, it doesn't. Thanks again! CLW 08:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Chris Crocker

A tag has been placed on Chris Crocker, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages per CSD G10.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Misplaced Pages criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. ► DRTïllberġ ◄ 01:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

massive removal of content

Per WP:BOLD, the next step after the bold deletion, is the revert, to be followed by discussion. I am selectively doing just that. I think making these many edits as a time is highly questionable, and I urge you to stop until some of them can be discussed. DGG (talk) 12:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have commented on it at Misplaced Pages talk:Trivia sections. DGG (talk) 13:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I want to emphasise that I am by no means blindly reverting all, but am examining content and reverting those parts which I think are possibly tenable -- unless the amount for a single article is so great that it would be simpler to revert all and then discuss individual items. To the extent I can quickly, items that can be better placed I am placing appropriately. Articles where I think the removal justified I of course leave alone. You did about 100 items at a rate of about 2 per minute. I am probably going to spend most of the day at this--if necessary, I will finish tomorrow. DGG (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm blindly reverting it all. We don't categorically remove sections. This is stated in the guideline. If you feel certain items warrant removal then you need to provide specific rationale. You can't perform a mass-removal like this. The guideline prohibits it. We keep pop culture sections around, tag them as trivia sections if necessary, so that their contents can eventually be integrated into the rest of the article. Equazcion • argue/improves • 13:32, 10/9/2007

Agreed. This user's removal of entire sections of 300 articles within about 90 minutes is a bold experiment in disruptive editing. A WP:POINT violation to say the least. Wikidemo 15:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)