Misplaced Pages

 Skip to the bottom  ⇩  · It is 10:52 AM where this user lives in Alberta.

Role models

File:Tenzin Gyatzo foto 1.jpg		File:Anne Frank stamp.jpg
Non-attachment	Logic	Courage	Class

Talk page archive
The East Indiaman Repulse (1820)
2009–2010 Archive 1 Nov 2009–June 2010 Archive 2 July 2010–October 2010 Archive 3 October 2010–Nov 2010 Archive 4 November 2010 Archive 5 December 2010
2011 Archive 6 January 2011–Feb 2011 Archive 7 Feb 2011–March 2011 Archive 8 March 2011–April 2011 Archive 9 April 2011–May 2011 Archive 10 May 2011–June 2011 Archive 11 June 2011–July 2011 Archive 12 July 2011–August 2011 Archive 13 August 2011–Oct 2011 Archive 14 October 2011–Dec 2011
2012 Archive 15 Jan 2012–Feb 2012 Archive 16 Feb 2012–March 2012 Archive 17 April 2012 Archive 18 May 2012–June 2012 Archive 19 June 2012–July 2012 Archive 20 July 2012 Archive 21 August 2012– Archive 22

GAN for John Cornell

Hi Diannaa. I wonder if you could look over the John Cornell article for any glaring GA faults? The article is my first GAN. Cheers. GFHandel ♬  11:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I have done a bit of copy editing and re-ordered the sections. The urls are all in good health (no dead links), and there's no links to dabs. We will need to know what a "ratbag" is; I am not familiar with this expression. I'm not wild about the use of brackets, but that's a personal preference. Spotchecks on sources reveal no copy vio or too-close paraphrasing. Citations all look to be reliable sources, but I would re-format them all as "cite news"; place the name of the newspaper in the "newspaper" field and the name of the publisher in the "publisher" field. For example, the publisher of the Daily Telegraph (Australia) is News Corporation. Wikilink all these newspapers and the publishers, too, if there's articles to link to. The citatons I checked support the content. The article is a bit short for a GA but it's got a good shot. -- Dianna (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

"ratbag" is a despicable person. --Stfg (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah so desu. From the context I would not get that. It could be linked; -- Dianna (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Dianna. I have implemented your suggestions. I'm still not sure how to layout Notes and References (e.g. I don't know when to combine them as you did for the Bob Hope article). Yes, the article is a bit short, and if that kills GA, then so be it (and I'm just satisfied to have improved it).

Regarding "ratbag": the definition of "despicable person" does not match common usage in Australia. As an example, it's quite common for a parent to say something like "why, you little ratbag!" to their child (after they have wreaked havoc in, say, a shopping centre). In that sense, it is non-offensive and even borders on a term of affection. When used amongst equals it does have a meaning of "trouble-maker", but in a fairly gentle sense. The term is often used in conjunction with a grin (which softens its effect).

GFHandel ♬  21:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Bob Hope uses a combination of books and websites; there's lots of websites, so I did not put them in {{sfn}} templates. For a large and complex article you might consider listing books separately from online sources, like we did at Adolf Hitler. Hitler uses only a few websites, so they have all been placed in {sfn} templates. Kafka has separate sections for books, journal articles, newspaper articles, and websites. It'll vary depending on the subject matter and the types of sources used for the article. John Cornell uses websites exclusively, so a separate section for the sources is not needed. Good luck with your nomination! -- Dianna (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll study your examples. GFHandel ♬  21:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I do have a book I would like to use as a source. It is a (signed!) edition of Dennis Lillee's autobiography; and Cornell is mentioned in a number of places. Here's the Cite Book template I would use:

{{cite book |title=Lillee An Autobiography |last=Lillee |first=Dennis |authorlink=] |year=2003 |publisher=Headline Book Publishing |location=London |isbn={{ISBN-10|0-7553-1231-7}} |edition=1st |page=128 |pages=342 |accessdate=24 August 2012}}

I used page=128 because that's the location that supports the "1976" entry I just made in the article text, however I would eventually like to use information from other pages in the book. I can probably muddle through the use of "cite book" and "sfn" (?), but I would like to ask you to confirm the layout you would recommend for References/Notes/Sources (based on adding one book source to the article).

As always, thanks for your thorough help. GFHandel ♬  23:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's how I would do it: I would place it down below in a "sources" section, which would at this point contain just the one book. The guy will always be notable, and there may be addtional book resources available in the future. Add |ref = harv to the cite book template and omit the page number in the down-below and put the cite in an {sfn} template. -- Dianna (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Like this? GFHandel ♬  23:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I have made some additional edits. I forgot to say: normally we omit the "Publishing" or "Co. Ltd" stuff from the publishing house. So "Headline Book Publishing" becomes "Headline". You don't need the access date; it does not display. There's a new template for explanatory notes, so I have put that in instead of the ref-group-note. Sources go below the footnotes. -- Dianna (talk) 01:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. It's all neat now, and I guess that I have to play the waiting game (re. GAN). GFHandel ♬  02:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Albert Speer & Holocaust Knowledge

Dianna, you commented on the talk page for Speer, "If Sereny doesn't know for sure, after her many years of interviews and research, we likely will never know for sure either." Where did you get that idea? Gitta Sereny believed that Speer definitely knew about the death camps no later than the 10/43 Posen speech by Himmler. Also, Speer biographers, Erich Goldhagen, Dan van der Vat, and Matthias Schmidt all believe Speer was at Posen during Himmler's speech.TL36 (talk) 05:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

What I meant is that she can't prove it for sure. -- Dianna (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Sereny has written, "There is simply no way Speer can have failed to know about Himmler's speech, whether or not he actually sat through it." This indicates surety to me. My actual concern is with the article's introduction being worded as if there was an excellent chance Speer didn't know about the Holocaust. This is contrary to all of his biographers' opinions on the matter.TL36 (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Please post any futher discussion about this article at the article talk page. It's a Featured Article, and I am in no position to make unilateral changes, regardless of my personal beliefs about Speer. -- Dianna (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I first posted a reply to you on the article's talk page but after getting no response, I concluded it had not been seen. It was sort of hidden. Sorry to have bothered you.TL36 (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

59th NFA

Hi. Recently me and Animeshkulkarni pushed 59th National Film Awards for Featured list candidates. PR and FLC comments suggested that article requires copy-editing. Per suggestions, we had requested a copy editing help here but then we never got any reply. I would appreciate if you can take some time out of your busy schedule and take a look at it as reviewers are suggesting FLC withdrawal because of the copy-editing issues. - Vivvt • (Talk) 14:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hello Vivvt. Your request is in the GOCE queue and will be served in due course. We currently have a backlog of around 5½ weeks. We have a target to complete all requests made before the end of August by the end of September, but yours is likely to be done sooner than that. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

@Stfg: Thanks for your reply. - Vivvt • (Talk) 18:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Vivvt. I am no longer taking copy edit requests unless they're in my current field of interest, military history topics and biographies, so it would be unlikely that I would select your particular article. But I will be drawing articles from the Requests Page as part of my activities during our upcoming copy edit drive. With fewer articles in the queue, the chances of yours getting copy edited soon will go up. Good luck in your quest for FL status. -- Dianna (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

@Dianna. That would be good. Thanks. - Vivvt • (Talk) 20:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Amazing Grace

Hi,

How can you tell Amazing Grace has been scheduled? I don't see mention of it on the TFA page. Nonspecific 2 column is empty though Nonspecific 1 has an article in the column. Is there a secret way of knowing? MathewTownsend (talk) 22:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I will tell you all teh sekrits!!! Bwa hahahahaa!! Here is the queue for August and September. The next empty date is September 9. Cheers, -- Dianna (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

much thanks! The community is shut out of TFA and I don't know why that should be. After all 99% of the WP community writes the other content, and FAs and TFA wouldn't exist without the encyclopedia that anyone can edit (theoretically), and most do it without seeking prizes and awards. And the FA process wonders why more editors don't review there, when TFA (the grand prize) seems to be a closed circuit which hardly anyone knows about. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Late comment: the community should not be shut out TFA, the list for the current month is no secret but easily accessible from the Main page, and the request page should be better known, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

If you believe that TFA is any kind of a reward then I'm afraid you're very much mistaken. Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but some people are quite interested in getting their articles as TFA. Now that I'm an admin, I'll just full protect my articles whenever they're on the main page. Problem solved. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Then why even have it. The FA writers don't like it, they say (though why do they bother going through the FA process, just to get the "star" which they claim they don't care about?) Usually the readership is low. The topics are very narrow and repetitious. What's the point of having it then? If a few people are interested, then let them have it. I don't think many readers are interested and the blurbs are usually horrible and a turn off. A wall of text. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The topics are repetitious because it's the same few editors taking their stuff to FA. Did you ever read TCO's manifesto, MathewTownsend? Here is a link File:Misplaced Pages’s poor treatment of its most important articles.pdf. It touches on that very subject. It changed the way I edit Misplaced Pages. -- Dianna (talk) 02:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

yes I did. I thought he put a lot of work into it and there were many good ideas and suggestions. I think he meant to be helpful and to open up discussion. Instead I think he was unfairly stomped on for it. Apparently, the FA people took his suggestions as an attack and tried to smash him. They feel FA processes must be preserved "as is" at any cost. Suggestions for improvements aren't allowed. No wonder everyone is afraid to suggest improvements to anything FA. That's my opinion. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken on many counts Matthew, as was TCO. Malleus Fatuorum 02:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) A lot of us still feel pretty smashed up over it, on both sides. Reform at some sectors of the FA system is still needful, in my opinion, and a revamp of the main page is long overdue. We need to drag it kicking and screaming out of the 1990s. I'd be very interested to hear more of your opinion on the manifesto, Malleus. What aspects did you think were incorrect? -- Dianna (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Maybe I am and maybe TCO was. But there should have been a civil discussion and consideration of his ideas and suggestions. Maybe other editors' responses would have been helpful. What's wrong with discussion? Instead TCO was attacked and smashed down. To me, the fact that the FA processes is so defensive and can't tolerate discussion of new ideas shows how fragile it is. That's how I see it. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that a lot of FA contributors have gotten (or had gotten) a feeling of superiority to some extent. Not everyone of course, but there's been an element of that. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's an element of that at all. And as for TCOs observations, he would have done better to have started out on a civil footing, not by accusing FA writers, including myself, of being star collectors. Malleus Fatuorum 03:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Re-reading TCO's presentation there are many points I agree with, but not the page views mean prizes idea, nor the notion that all of the so-called vital articles such as "family" are actually vital at all. I was also reminded that one of the examples he used was information technology, an article I attempted to improve during the ongoing Core Article Contest, until I got bogged down with so much jerrymandering argument about trivia that I gave up on it. Malleus Fatuorum 03:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I saw that! What a pity. The same thing happened to me when I tried to do Nazi Germany for the first contest back in March. If you showed up on an article of interest to me, you would have gotten a very different reception, believe me. -- Dianna (talk) 03:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC) My plan is to out-live the guy, and sneak back and edit it in 20 years. he he. - Dianna (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I may sneak back to IT again one day as well, who knows, but I just became so frustrated with all the bollocks it was better for my blood pressure to walk away. I'm reminded of one more point about the "page views = value" concept though. A couple of years ago Parrot of Doom and I worked an article about a series of child murders that happened here in the UK during the 1960s. It got to FA and bobbled along with maybe an average of 30,000–50,000 page views a month, which isn't bad, but because of press coverage this month it's rocketed to something approaching half a million for August. Part of the reason we did it was because we knew that the press would inevitably become interested in the case again at the very least when the surviving murderer died, and we wanted people to see something decent. So what's "vital", and when? Malleus Fatuorum 04:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

You're smart to take the long view like that, and to keep the needs of the reader in mind. There's seasonal variations on Hitler; it gets way more views in the springtime. That must be when they study WWII at the schools. See, that's the kind of double-whammy that I am focusing on right now; plenty of page views and also an important historical topic. That's very satisfying useful work. Much more fun than copy-editing some pop star's discography. That's how TCO's paper changed the way I edit. -- Dianna (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

If you come across an article on an important historical topic with plenty of page views and no ... then let me know. Rather curiously, I see that the IT article hasn't been edited at all since I abandoned it to its fate, so I think the motivations are very clear. Malleus Fatuorum 05:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably that's because his dates of birth and death were both in the spring, as well as Germany's surrender. —Torchiest _edits 05:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a form of trolling, a very annoying form of trolling. It wastes your time, the editing time of a valuable contributor, time that could be better spent elsewhere, doing something productive. That's why lots of times I don't worry about looking like a chicken; I just walk away from a fight rather than get sucked in to spending all my time arguing rather than working. I am logging off now. See you tomorrow (whatever that means; it's already tomorrow where you live). -- Dianna (talk) 05:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I didn't notice your comment about copy editing pop discographies earlier. Having recently done that exact thing, I definitely agree about the level of satisfaction, i.e. none. I've been trying to do more "important" work lately myself. —Torchiest _edits 16:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

And even worse, you do a good job of it, and they ask you to do another one! until there's no time left to work on things of interest to yourself. That's why I had to stop taking requests. It was sucking all the fun out of editing. -- Dianna (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Amen to that. Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It's been a while, so I may not be doing him justice, but I felt TCO wasn't terribly receptive to methodological criticism, even apart from the firestorm over categorizing FA writers. Seeing the number of requests in the new Article Feedback thingy for information outside the scope of an encyclopedia makes it clear, to me at least, that any pageview-based ranking is highly suspect. Nor did it acknowledge the structural factors within Misplaced Pages that make it much easier to polish up articles of narrow scope rather than broad ones. Trying to remedy that by fiddling with incentives for authors is like trying to beat your horse until it levitates. The report was interesting, and it did make me think about where an online massively collaborative encyclopedia is best suited to add value, though. Choess (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit of the month

Hi Diannaa, I was wondering, is this only for guild members, or can anyone submit an entry? ~ GabeMc 22:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Gabe! It is open to everybody. -- Dianna (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Faraday

Thanks for semi-protecting the Michael Faraday page. It needed it. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC).

Glad to help. -- Dianna (talk) 04:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The Henchman dispute

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Dispute on Jimmy Henchman page. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

50,000!

		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		Dianna, I award you this barnstar for clocking up 50,000 edits on the English Misplaced Pages. --Stfg (talk) 09:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Popups and the toolserver tool give slightly different counts, but today they both exceed 50K. Congratulations! --Stfg (talk) 09:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! -- Dianna (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you try and Reason with a User?

Hi Fellow editor, this, keeps adding stuff and deleting refrences to various articles. I've tried to engage him on the actual pages but I don't think he/she understands that this is an encyclopedia. He/she keeps adding vast swathes of text from Sikh Holy books. Please could you have a word with that user. Thanks SH 14:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. I hope it helps. -- Dianna (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Page protection at Pink Floyd

That IP is harassing me again. If you have the time, can you please page protect Pink Floyd and my talk page from IPs. Thanks. ~ GabeMc 19:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

User: Bbb23 has semi'd your talk page for a month. I was having a nap! I have protected Pink Floyd for a week. Regards, -- Dianna (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much! ~ GabeMc 20:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)