Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:35, 19 June 2010

Misplaced Pages ads	file info – #46

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Sorry to anyone waiting for a response or assistance from me over the last couple of weeks. I am currently very busy with Wikimedia Australia work and am not available for the immediate future. You are still welcome to leave messages here and I will attend to them on my return, but if you require administrative assistance, you would likely get a faster response by finding an available administrator via the List of Admins or by requesting assistance on the Administrators Noticeboards or one of the dedicated noticeboards listed at the top of that page. Sarah 04:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

regex question

Hi, Sarah. I notice you have abusefilter privileges. Mind if ask you a regex question (connected with Misplaced Pages:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos)? -- Rrburke (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Greetings, I have the abuse filter manager rights but I don't actually edit the abuse filter so I'm not a good person to ask. I only turned the rights on so that I could access and read the abuse filter after reading an RFA where stuff about edits to the abuse filter were raised and I wanted to check them for myself. But I've never actually edited it before. Soap (talk · contribs) and Stifle (talk · contribs) both seem fairly active on it; you could try asking one of them. And John Vandenberg could probably help, too, as he's very clever with that type of thing. Cheers, Sarah 04:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks. -- Rrburke (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 14 June 2010

• News and notes: Pending changes goes live, first state-funded Misplaced Pages project concludes, brief news

• In the news: Hoaxes in France and at university, Misplaced Pages used in Indian court, Is Misplaced Pages a cult?, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Cite Question

Must all cites mention the specific name of the subject within the article? For example, I have no articles from 1980 that mention me and Legi/Slate, although I have two cites that show it was subsequently sold to the The Wshiington Post by the partners as I asserted. Those two cites have been disallowed. My contention is that they at least "prove up" about legi/Slate itself in light on no better articles. One editor says it is Wikipedi policy that the subject MUST be listed specifically in the cite. Is that accurate? My fear is that the Legi/Slate section will be removed by future editors saying it has no cites. (Meanwhile I will redouble my own efforts to find a suitable cite). Thanks. Dmartinaus (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the editor could link to the exact policy wording, as I'm not aware of it. We use whatever information from reliable sources is necessary to provide the article material which readers will find helpful. Sydney Newman is a featured article which appeared within the last few days on the main page. It describes Newman's involvement with the TV series Doctor Who. In reference #23 it then provides further information on Doctor Who from a source which makes no mention of Newman himself. Doubtless you will find support here from Nineteen Nightmares, who is the main contributor to Valley Entertainment Monthly. You will note that of the few references which can be checked online, references #5 and #10 make no mention of Valley Entertainment Monthly, the subject of the article. Ty 01:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Given these examples I would like to see the two Legi/Slate references added back into the Donald G. Martin page. They are both EXCELLENT references to Legi/Slate. (Disclosure: This is Don Martin, subject of the article). Dmartinaus (talk) 02:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No need, I added 2 refs that show Martin and Legi/Slate from the 1980's. One published by TX Lege Council. GregJackP (talk) 03:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you. I've been looking for references all day. Somewhere around here in the attic I have a box of old Legis/Slate materials. Dmartinaus (talk) 04:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Don, there's no rule I'm aware of that a reference must specifically name the article subject in order to be used. But it all depends on what the references are and what they're being used to cite. The reference needs to support the information they're being used to cite, but there's not an arbitrary rule that every reference has to mention the article subject or get chucked. It was a public holiday here on Monday so I've just had a holiday weekend and haven't had a chance to catch up on all of the above yet so please bear with me. Sarah 03:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. As you know by now Nightmares filed an Afd as well, which apparently was rejected. I know I promised you to keep cool, and I am. But I did make a mostly calm and hopefully articulate point-by-point rebuttal to his rather outlandish statements to justify the Afd. It is on the Talk:Donald G. Martin talk page. The afd was on my personal Dmartinaus talk page for some reason, but I finally found it. It seems to me that ALL of these discussions should be taking place on the main article talk page for everyone's benefit, and not on your talk page, or mine, or Nightmares. Thanks for taking a look. Dmartinaus (talk) 03:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to add to my previous comment though, there's two issues here - one is the issue of verifiability and ensuring the article is fully sourced, and the other is notability. To establish notability, we require multiple sources that provide significant coverage about the subject in third party secondary sources that are independent from the subject themselves. For citing material, we can use lesser sources and sources that just support the material they're being used to cite, but we still require multiple sources that provide significant coverage about the subject in order to sustain a claim of notability and qualify for an article. No, I didn't know that a new AFD was started. I'm sorry I didn't get here sooner as 19Nightmares asked me above if they should do so and I just replied that it's too soon after the last one, not realising they'd already gone ahead. I agree that it *may* end up having to go back to AFD, for several reasons including the fact it was closed as borderline and it has turned out that there were several COI people participating with undeclared COIs, but four days after the last one closed is way too fast. And yes, I concur that the discussions should be centralised on the article's talk page and not spread out across user talk pages. I don't mind people using my page if it helps them resolve things but it's generally much better keeping discussions about article content on the article's talk page. Sarah 04:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. 1) Re the following: "To establish notability, we require multiple sources that provide significant coverage about the subject in third party secondary sources that are independent from the subject themselves." The article originally had multiple citations for various notability items, but these were largely removed by NN over time as being "duplicative" and he said don't worry, most articles don't have that many references anyway. Some were removed when they were even the only ref remaining (Texas Government Newsletter ref was removed entirely, for example). 95% of the reference citations are to third=party articles and such and not to anything sourced by me or my own bio, website or such. I have additional excellent third-party independent references on several major "milestone" items in the article.

2) Because NN so severely questioned verifiability of the articles (because the Business Journal and Statesman are paid archive sites) I created the web page to provide full text of ALL of the articles. So they should be completely verifiable now. Should I now also provide a list of other articles for re-consideration and re-placement back to the page? I could make a list of the titles only for now and post them on the web site for editors to consider if they are useful. I don't want to get back on everyone's nerves in a battle with NN, and I think I should try staying off the Talk Pages for awhile, but I am happy to take the time (off the talk page) to provide multiple credible, independent notability citations. Dmartinaus (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification re the advisability of having "multiple" secondary third party sources. Someone had removed all but a single reference for most items. So in addition to the recent webpage I created with "full text" of all referenced articles, I added a second page with additional secondary third party published sources (doing just a few quick on-line searches for articles) that can be used if anyone wants to do so. They are available at www.wikipedia-article-verification.webs.com (or just click below). Don Martin Dmartinaus (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Donald G. Martin

Sarah, the "nothing" references are appearing again like daisies in Spring for this article, carfully hidden amidst the many, many others. Now we have these two that suddently popped up, both about a legislature book that the link itself says was prepared by the legislature itself. Was Donald G. Martin in the Texas Legislature? How can he claim this as a reference? No mention.

• Texas State Directory (Austin, TX: Texas Pub. Co.) 24. 1981. OCLC 7209574.
• Texas Legislative Manual (Texas Legislative Council). 1983. OCLC 145401727

I believe they are listed as numbers three and four, but c'mon. Here we go again. YOu can't keep up with the horsepucky on this one. Arghh!!!! Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

• Sarah, I feel the need to comment on this, even though the point is moot as the Martin article is now gone. Both of the references were found in WorldCat. Both of the directories contain entries for lobbyists, media, and other assorted entities that legislators and their staff would be interested in, not just elected officials or state employees. Both directories listed Legis/Slate with Don Martin as a principal. The refs included the OCLC numbers and links, meaning that they could be verified. The Texas Legislative Council is a state support organization for the Texas Legislature. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI, both Ty and I requested that Balloonman reconsider the AfD closure for reasons outlined on his talkpage and he started a DRV on the issue. I didn't know if you'd be interested. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 06:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I was going to make the same request just now when I saw your comment that the DRV had already been started. Minor4th (talk) 06:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

-Sigh- That is most unfortunate. Sarah 14:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not following you on that. Are you in favor of deletion? Regards, GregJackP (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Sarah, why is my comment unfortunate? I know that you endorse the closure and delete, but I would like to know if your comment indicates that i offended you in some way. Thanks. Minor4th (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that wasn't directed specifically at you, and no, you haven't offended me - not at all! It was just a general comment about the idea of DRV and more time being wasted arguing about someone I don't think is notable. If it does get restored, it will be going straight back to AFD and I'll be voting delete this time unless I start seeing the kind of significant coverage required by the policies and guidelines, rather than simply articles reflecting his pr work - articles quoting him as a spokesperson, quoting press releases, articles about projects he's involved with which mention him or his firm in passing etc. All the sources I've seen (and I've spent hours on Factiva looking for material) have just been the type of articles you'd expect to see come up for any working pr person. So I just don't see notability here and I think it's a real shame seeing so many good people being played and manipulated and having their time wasted and the project being abused by puppets (sock or meat, whatever) for outside agendas and interests. 8| Sarah 01:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Sarah, I'm cross-posting this here from the DRV discussion because I am a little concerned over your interpretation of my earlier comments as being insulting.

Sarah, my comments above were not meant to be insulting, I was just trying to explain how it came across to me. My impression of your comments was that the AfD !vote was tainted by the socks - as it clearly was - but then that once the socks were removed, we discard the reasoning of the other, presumably reliable, editors? It would be just as easy for any of us to feel insulted by the implication that our arguments were not valid or otherwise "strong" enough, but I have made a choice to WP:AGF and believe that you have a different opinion, not that you are belittling us or our arguments. I agree that mere mention of a PR specialist's name is not sufficient for notability, just as I believe that the single book on postcards does not confer notability, but that is not the only thing here. There are references for his involvement in Legi/Slate and the Texas Government Newsletter, in the TDSL/WMI lawsuit (the later had numerous refs explicitly discussing Martin and his role), etc. Reasonable people can disagree without taking it personally. As I stated, my comments were not meant to be insulting, but to point out a stance that appeared to me to be inconsistant. At no point did I impugn anyone's integrity, nor do I believe that any of the admins involved are just pulling things out of thin air - but we are all human and subject to error, mistakes, emotion, and inadvertant mis-interpretations. I just think that Misplaced Pages would be better served to relist, and don't see a point to one's statement that the other side does not have a clear understanding of either the AfD or DRV process just because they are making a different argument. Perhaps S Marshall's idea of listing this on the BLP noticeboard will help by getting some fresh eyes to look at this - I know it worked when SheffieldSteel came in to look at the lawsuit section.

Regards, GregJackP (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD nom for Valley Entertainment Monthly

Sarah, not sure it means much, but the timing of the AfD of this article is oddly suspicious since it was my first attempt at adding an article to Misplaced Pages and was hard fought to keep, in fact was userfied for a time until I could get all the sources in front of me, which I eventually did and it has 16 legitimate references, including major national publication reviews, but Minor4th has decided that after all that, it should be nominated again. After all the fuss in the first place and the article eventually being kept, why is he again nomming it for AfD? It pretty clear it is a punitive measure in some way related to the Donald G. Martin debacle. I assume he is within his rights but as far as a 'mean spirited' gesture, it doesn't get much worst than that kind of passive aggressive garbage. And it is, unfortunately, why good editors have a tough time staying around and trying to help improve Wiki. It shouldn't be... Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 00:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares