Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:46, 20 June 2008

24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

thankyou

for sorting out my ip block :-) forgetful (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help. Feel free to drop me a message if you have any questions. - auburnpilot talk 02:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Question at RfA

Hiya, Auburn, please see my "question for Auburn" in the history at Ali'i's RfA, I want to make sure I understand what you're asking. If I understand right, your position is similar to the position Ryan and others often express, and I want to understand the implications for RfA's in general and a possible future RfA for me. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I agree completely. Wanted to make sure I understood. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

More Holloway

Is it possible that User:Jonaaron is also editing under the IP 24.16.98.233?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No doubt about it. See this edit. - auburnpilot's sock 17:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Facelets

Hi there, I was about to add more info to the article called 'Facelets' but I notice that you have deleted it.

The Facelets technology adds a bunch of bells & whistles to a development environment used by Java programmers. It's not entirely clear at first glance what it's for, and I thought a concise description on Misplaced Pages would be helpful. More information at https://facelets.dev.java.net/nonav/docs/dev/docbook.html

Can I ask you to undelete the article?

Adambuckley (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The entirety of the article read "Facelets is a templating framework for JavaServer Faces". - auburnpilot talk 02:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for fixing the move back on the University of Alabama article. Not being an admin (and not especially wanting to be one), I couldn't do it the right way. When you get the chance, the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Montgomery Academy and Altamont School articles need the same treatment. This one editor took it upon himself to move these articles to new titles with "The" in front of the name, on the premise that the word "the" was in the formal titles of these schools. He's right, but it goes against WP style. Nothing sinister, I think - he was acting in good faith. Hope all is well on the Plains. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

All done. If you need some pages moved in the future, feel free to drop me a note. You can of course place requests on Misplaced Pages:Requested moves, but it can take awhile. - auburnpilot talk 20:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! As my pastor would say, "You're doing the Lord's work." (He wouldn't appreciate it that you're an Auburn fan, though — he's a diehard Bammer.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd go as far as the Lord's work, but I did spend my freshmen year at Bama, so he may just tolerate me. ;-) - auburnpilot talk 16:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

UE

As I mentioned before, he has not backed up his statements. He just came in and said there was a edit war going on and protected it. There had never been an edit war! All we had been asking was for everyone who posted the tag and protected the article to back up their statements and provide reasoning behind what they did, and if they could not, then the tag and protection should and would be removed. None of them have. That is my argument! Brothejr (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Your argument has nothing to do with improper protection, and in no way makes pschemp an involved editor. That is the bottom line. - auburnpilot talk 16:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is a quote from his talk page after I asked him about the protection and also pointed out that PLW had not proven his argument with ref's to back his POV statements up:

1. It doesn't matter when refs are produced. 2. What rest of the editors? Clegs agrees with him, you and Siecer don't. Looks like 2 and 2. 3. The main reference in the article (which is pitifully unreferenced), does not even qualify as a reliable source. It's a noticeboard for goodness sake. There is no fact checking going on there, and lots of opinion. "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." 4. Articles on Misplaced Pages can be as in depth as they need to be. 5. If the laws in different parts of the world are different, then you need a section that addresses that. 6. There's a difference between undue weight and NO weight. I'm not sure you really understand that guideline.

My question would be, if he is a impartial 3rd party, why would he make those statements, when they are not relevant to the discussion? We had never discussed the (bad) ref's in the article or how it was structured. We had been discussing how PLW had come in, posted the POV tage, then said this on the talk page: "The potential illegality of the activities described in this article has not been given its due coverage, in my opinion. The fact that motion sensors have been installed (uncited fact in the article) strongly hints that urban administrations are not appreciative of urban exploration activities, and that they cause costs to the tax payer, since incidents may have to be investigated by the appropriate authorities. None of this is discussed in the article, which just adds to the existing problems with uncited content." I and Gary Wander had asked him to provide some ref's that said Urban Exploring was illegal and a drain on tax payers. If he had, we would have quickly moved to add them in the article and rewrite as needed. We gave PLW over a week to provide ref's to back up his statements and POV tag and would have given him much longer if he had asked. Yet, he kept on making POV statements and told us that we were "idiots" for not seeing the same thing as he did. PLW even went so far to say this after we asked him to the 'umteenth' time to provide ref's: "You don't seem to understand how POV challenges work. They don't end by you declaring that an article that you have written is NPOV. You have to make it so." He never planned on adding ref's. He expected that he could post the POV tag and leave it to us to fix the problems he saw. After listening to this for a bit, I came to the conclusion that there had never been a POV problem in the first place and removed the tag. PLW quickly reverted and said that we had not fixed the POV issue. Siecer saw the same thing I did and reverted. While that could be construed as a revert war, we asked him to back his statements up, which PLW never wanted to do. (Though when he did provide ref's, they were about trespassing and not one said Urban Exploring was illegal or a drain on the tax payers.)

Now as I, Seicer, and Gary Wander had said, Urban Exploring is a world wide hobby. UE in itself is not illegal. Yet, some activities people do while Urban Exploring may be considered illegal depending on the area and country. The article as was written was just an overview of the subject. It did not delve into the various laws of the land.

Finally, if pschemp was just protecting the article against an edit war, then why did he not simply state that instead of making those six points. My contention was that he was planning on more then just stopping the edit war and was using that as an excuse to protect the page and force the editors to edit the way he would like.

I know that the article could be written better with better ref's, but that is not what is in contention right now, nor should it be the reason for keeping the page protected.

Thank you for taking the time to listen to me.  :) Brothejr (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not reading all of that. Please condense if you want me to comment further. - auburnpilot talk 17:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)