Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:15, 23 October 2013

Lesser Cartographies, you are invited to the Teahouse

Flags in infoboxes

Hi - I note you have removed a few flags in infoboxes. Please read WP:MILMOS#FLAGS which makes it clear that "when dealing with biographical infobox templates, the most common practice is to use flag icons to indicate allegiance or branch of service, but not place of birth or death." Thanks in anticipation. Dormskirk (talk) 22:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly note. At least I can console myself with the fact that this has confused more experienced users than myself. I'll probably propose a change to WP:INFOBOXFLAG that points to WP:MILMOS#FLAGS and then go back and do some reverting. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. You might also want to take a look at the discussion at User talk:ProudIrishAspie which is where I got the idea that removing flags from biographies was a Good Thing. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:ICONDECORATION also adds: "Avoid adding icons that provide neither additional information (what the icon looks like itself is not additional information unless the icon is the subject of the article) to the article subject nor navigational or layout cues that aid the reader. Icons should serve a purpose other than solely decoration". Between the three guidelines there is a pretty clear message - all three argue against national flags in biogs. LC, you wrote on PIA's page "WP:MILMOS#FLAGS appears to trump WP:INFOBOXFLAG." In fact both argue the same thing. Span (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:MILMOS#FLAGS:

"When dealing with biographical infobox templates, the most common practice is to use flag icons to indicate allegiance or branch of service, but not place of birth or death. However, there remains considerable disagreement regarding the appropriateness of flags in such cases, so editors should not regard this as a universal rule."

I was treating WP:INFOBOXFLAG as a universal rule when it came to MIL biographies; MILMOS says it's not a universal rule. I'll let the folks who have spent more time editing MIL articles than I have fight this one out. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kingpin (automotive part), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Barrow (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Message

Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

AfC:Death of Joe Pullen

Thanks. I'm trying not to step on toes today (I'm too tired). Just did a check for "Joe Pullum" to find that. However, I think it was Hamer using that name since the name is also used by a blues musician who did perform in the area. Overall, I think we're almost done here. LionMans Account (talk) 03:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Could you give it a check. I think I'm close to being finished with it, but might need a once-over before putting it up for review or just moving it. Thanks. LionMans Account (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Support (mobile framework)

The article was previously taken to AFD, so you can't prod it. I'll re-AFD it for you. Ten Pound Hammer • 18:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep, you're right. Thanks for taking care of that for me. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 10:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Notability

Hi. Thanks for taking a look at the edits to Tweetmyjobs. Just added 3rd party sources to all of the edits that were made - feel free to give the article a look to verify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colelave (talk • contribs) 01:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks good; I've removed the notability tag on the article. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Infinit and kin

Hello, it seems you are trying to clean out Infinit (technology) which seems to me far too detailed and promotional, so agree it does not belong. I noticed there is also an article Infinit (company) on the company promoting this for the past two years. Not sure if it is more than "two kids and an app", but I did try to rescue it a bit and make one somewhat decent article. Seems like there is a long history here. Take a look at Infinit, which started out as a similar uncited promotion back in 2008 by single-purpose account Special:Contributions/Mycure. Monsieur Quintard supposedly graduated from Université Pierre & Marie Curie and the user mycure on Github belongs a Julien Quintard. That 2008 article was proposed as a speedy delete, but the tag was removed by User:Ginkgo100. Then in July 2012 another single-purpose account Special:Contributions/Pwperl added more, still with no citations. In May 2013 User:Tassedethe did a proposal for deletion. Pwperl added some more, and then an anonymous user blanked the content and made it a disambig page to the two separate articles (which removed the prod tag). A couple weeks later (May 18) Mycure stuffed about the same content into the "technology" page, and on May 27 made the company page in another burst of edits within a day. My proposal was to attempt to rescue the company article, delete the other two (never really cited well), and move back to Infinit which would require an admin. Or is it worth saving? Thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi W Nowicki. Thanks for the impressive amount of legwork there! While I'm comfortable reviewing articles based on peer-reviewed scientific literature, I don't have any particular expertise or experience working with corporate articles. That said, I like your idea to move Infinit (company) to Infinit; I assume that should wait until Infinit (technology) is deleted, yes?

I looked at your edits on Infinit (company) and you've already found all of the citations I was going to suggest. I'm not sure there's much more to say there, but after your work I think the article is well worth keeping.

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan to me. No hurry but best to not fall through the cracks. In the meanwhile, I also noticed Opaak, Kaneton, Kastor (kernel) and Kayou from the same article spammers. Sigh. Not sure these are worth a merge or just four deletions? Know it might not be your field; I have been almost full-time cleaning up these vanity software articles since I retired a couple months ago.... W Nowicki (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Ouch. I'm doing due diligence now, but I should be able to prod all of those within the next hour if you don't get to them first. (Yes, these are very much in my field.) Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Done (and endorsed the ones you got to first). Thanks for pointing those out! Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I was thinking about trying to keep Opaak and merge the others, but there is not much to merge, so probably just making a clean break is fine. Also it seems there are a bunch of other things named Opaak, so Google searches are misleading. In particular, http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2307664 seems to be another one. So if software is your area, there are still quite a few very promotional but mostly unsourced articles on European projects that were created circa 2008 to 2010. It seems there was an organized effort to spam Misplaced Pages with articles promoting such projects (perhaps similar to the current wave of "two kids and an app" companies), although we tend to delete or merge them from time to time as we run across them. Most talk about "The Grid" for example, which was a popular buzzword (including the caps) during that time period, generally now replaced by "The Cloud". For example, see GUSE P-GRADE Portal SZTAKI Desktop Grid OMII-UK BPEL4People DIET GridRPC etc. Most of these soud like make-work projects for grad students that might not have been used by anyone else, but hard to tell. W Nowicki (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

This is right up my alley; feel free to send over any of these projects you're not sure about. As to Opaak, rest assured that it wasn't a close call. Should be able to take a look at these within the next 36 hours. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Real life has intervened. I've started digging through the literature on these, but I won't have a decision before the weekend. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• GridRPC is definitely notable (overview paper has 295 cites).
• DIET is also notable (overview paper has 194 cites).
• BPEL4People is a little iffy as the primary paper is an IBM white paper, but with 114 cites I'd probably give it a pass.
• OMII-UK is not obviously notable; will need to spend some more time with this one.
• SZTAKI Desktop Grid. This one is going to be a judgment call. There are a few papers out there, but none with more than 40 cites. I'll defer judgment on this one for the moment as well.
• P-GRADE Portal. Definitely notable: primary paper has 170 cites.
• GUSE is probably not notable, but I'm not ready to pull the trigger on it yet.

Using google scholar might be a little tricky if you're not an academic. My rule of thumb is that if a topic has a primary paper with >100 cites and several secondary papers, or the primary paper has >200 cites, the topic is almost certainly notable. The tricky bit is making sure the article lines up with a paper: I just sent Robotic clusters to AfD because while there were four solid citations to the peer-reviewed literature, only one of them had anything to do with robotic clusters.

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nepal Dalit Sangh (Prajatantrik) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Committee of Nepal Dalit Sangh Formed)]{{dead link | date=August 2013}}<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Vikas Kedia

You PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

MUSH (e-mail client)

Hello Lesser Cartographies,

I've added additional links to the AFD page, showing Usenet discussions going back to 1989 on the comp.mail.mush newsgroup. I hope that clears up the reliability question of mush's existance. Slaurel (talk) 03:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed suggestions. I chose the page in question because I was surprised that it didn't already have an article, and because I find Misplaced Pages is a very good place to find the most authoritative reference sites for most software packages. I definitely plan to add more of the unique content about mush over time, but thought that getting the page started might give it a chance to collect improvements from others, since there's a lower barrier to edits than to page creation. I especially appreciate the pointers to DYK and NSOFT, as I hadn't seen those before. The Google Books suggestion is a good one too. I'll get the dead trees and obtain those references. Slaurel (talk) 03:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

First book has arrived - albeit the least interesting of the 3 I think. Working on the request for Userfication tonight, and I'll edit it there until ready for review. Slaurel (talk) 04:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello LC - I believe both other books have arrived at The UPS Store, but I haven't gone over to pick them up yet. The Userified page is here: User:Slaurel/MUSH_(e-mail_client) I thought I'd added the first reference, but it was a rush right before a trip and seems to have been lost. Will re-do. I will do the others once the books are in hand. Slaurel (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I've added citations to the Userified page User:Slaurel/MUSH_(e-mail_client), perhaps excessively so, as backlash to the deletion. I'm not happy with the content yet, but Notability shouldn't be an issue any more. The Z-Mail handbook references Mush or Mush features in Z-Mail on nearly every page, but I haven't put in more than a key handful of those. I'd welcome your opinion on the latest edits. Slaurel (talk) 05:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the detailed review. I've addressed some of the points here, and will continue with the rest later. Btw - is there a guideline for trimming down these talk page discussions? At the discretion of the page owner, or some kind of mutual agreement? I don't need to clutter your page with all of the MUSH article history forever....Slaurel (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The talk page length doesn't bother me, and yes, it's completely at the user's discretion. Once it gets long enough I'll archive it. However, I have the article on my watchlist, so you can make specific comments on that talk page. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

For advice. Well taken. It comes from needing to be so careful about neutral language in articles; perhaps I tend to let go too much in the discussions. Certainly not worth alienating anyone. W Nowicki (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the advice in the spirit in which it was intended. You're a good editor and this was to prod you along your path to becoming a great one. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

RE: On being an effective editor

Thank you very much, Lesser Cartographies, for the wise and lengthy advice that you gave me, which I'll be more than glad to heed, and in fact I have often wondered how to improve the rating of the Harp Twins article from Start-Class. I know I have much to learn. However, could you please edit the article in a way that will protect the discography section? That's my only concern. In fact, if you look at the page history carefully, you will see that I had not contributed in a significant manner to that article since May. This entire ordeal began when an anonymous user changed the format of the references section, which was then done again by Duffbeerforme, which prompted me to do a ton of research to increase notability, to protect the article from what I perceived was an attack, especially since Duffbeerforme desperately tried in vain to have the page deleted several months ago.

So, I really don't mind leaving the article alone for even more than two months, but please help me. With your experience I'm sure you can fix the page in such a way that the discography section will be protected in very few minutes. That way I'll have peace of mind at last.

Thanks again for your extreme kindness and guidance, and please reply on my talk page. Best wishes... Dontreader (talk) 08:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm so grateful for all your help, Lesser Cartographies, on the Reliable Sources discussion board, on my talk page (all the guidance and advice), and for editing the Harp Twins page (and for including it on your watchlist). I feel so much better now, and thanks for letting me know that you are willing to help if there are disagreements between editors in the future. You've been super kind and generous. I thought I would not donate to Misplaced Pages again, but you've made me change my mind. I'll follow the steps you gave me. It might take more than two months but I really am determined to learn as much as I can. All the best, and thanks again! Dontreader (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Hey, great work on breaking the reference.com loop! Ijon (talk) 23:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Toshiba ad

Thanks so much for the ongoing improvement of the Camille and Kennerly Kitt page. I'm sorry to hear about the dead link since it showed the Toshiba tablet commercial with the Harp Twins being featured rather prominently. Thanks again for your help. Dontreader (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not my intention to edit the article but if Duffbeerforme was sincere when he stated that he was there to improve it, then I wish he had replaced the link related to the release date of Politics of Love; he has done nothing to improve the article; he only criticizes it. I see in him the same hostile spirit that he showed during the discussion for deletion. However, if you want me to completely stay away from the page, and not even add a link, then please tell me, and I will completely trust in you. Thanks again for all your help. Dontreader (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Dontreader, you've learned all you're going to learn from editing Camille and Kennerly Kitt. If your goal is to become a more effective editor, take that article off of your watchlist and start working on other articles and participating in other discussions. It's perfectly reasonable for you to be obsessing over Duff's behavior—you've only interacted with a handful of editors and he's made quite the impression. Once you've interacted with a few hundred editors over several dozen articles you're going to have a very different perspective. That perspective may still be that Duff acted like a WP:DICK; that's fine. But having success at other articles means you're going to be a lot more confident that you know what you're doing, and the next time you run into a storm of criticism you take from it what's useful and shrug off the rest.

Watching the Kitt article just delays that day.

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I got the message very clearly. I'm just struggling to find time to do what you've recommended since I'm currently overwhelmed with unforeseeable problems, but I'll sort things out as soon as possible. Thanks again very much. Dontreader (talk) 09:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Camille and Kennerly Kitt may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• http://www.blacktinomovie.com | series= | title=blacktino (directed by Aaron Burns | date=2011}}</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Some edits on Harp Twins page

Hello Lesser Cartographies,

I very much appreciate the time and effort you have put into editing the Camille and Kennerly Kitt article; however, I have just noticed that you have taken out my references to their coverage on a nationwide Spanish TV channel and two nationwide Russian TV channels, asserting that the articles that accompany the videos (broadcasts) are too short. In my opinion, the fact that the Harp Twins were featured on TV on foreign nationwide channels is very notable, and that's why I included that information in their Misplaced Pages article. I never claimed that the short articles accompanying the broadcasts were reliable or verifiable sources of useful information; instead, I believe those websites are important to keep because they prove that the Harp Twins were on multiple TV channels which showed some of their work as musicians. As you know, it's one thing when a website merely shows one or several YouTube videos of theirs, with a short article, as is the case with La Repubblica, which you took out as well, but it's a different matter when the video with a short article happens to be material that was aired to potentially tens of millions of homes.

I fail to understand why you don't see the notability (having reliable sources to prove it) of being featured on nationwide TV channels, regardless of the length of the articles that accompany those broadcast videos. By taking out those references, I think the notability of the Harp Twins has been weakened, and it will be harder for me to defend the article against another predictable proposal for deletion coming from someone whom I will not mention. Other than that issue, I certainly think the article looks much more professional now, and I'm very grateful for the help. Thanks in advance... Dontreader (talk) 09:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words.

I notice you haven't contributed to any articles or participated in any conversations at WP:AFD, WP:AFC or the WP:TEAHOUSE. So let me summarize what you would have learned there regarding your question.

1. Notability is binary. That's a fancy computer-science way of saying that once you've established the minimum threshold of notability, the article is notable. Knowing where that line is requires a bit of experience, but in my judgement the Harp Twins article has cleared this low bar. Arguing for additional cites to increase notability will not be particularly persuasive if the article is already notable.

2. Television appearances do not establish, nor do they contribute to notability. The gold standard for reliable sources is material that other (independent) sources have published regarding the topic. These sources give us something on which we can hang and article. A performance doesn't give us that kind of information (although a review of a performance would; I haven't been able to find any, though). If other sources aren't writing about the performances (beyond a simple notice that they occurred), then we shouldn't write about them either.

3. Articles on musical groups don't (usually) mention individual performances. That's simply not appropriate for an encyclopedia article, unless the performance is notable in its own right.

The article is going to be much stronger if we can get it down to a couple of paragraphs.

Hope that helps,

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Lesser Cartographies,

Yes indeed; that helps a lot, and again I thank you for your generosity. I hope this doesn't sound too idiotic but I actually did edit one page about Ignoring All Rules, very recently, which had an increasingly common grammatical mistake. Anyway, I have not forgotten about the places you told me to visit and learn from. I'm not trying to deceive you or seem like a liar about my intentions. I had been virtually absent from Misplaced Pages for a long time due to serious personal complications (without intending to sound dramatic), and the problem that arose on the Camille and Kennerly Kitt page with another user whom I remembered from the deletion discussion forced me to come back here and spend tons of time when in reality I was in no position to do that. If you look back at my first stage as a Wikipedian I was quite a bit involved in articles concerning demonology, and I think I made at least one very important contribution. I have always wanted to improve the encyclopedia and I will continue to do so (after following the steps you gave me) as soon as I get some things under control. What you said regarding the notability of the Harp Twins article is very comforting since I had the impression that it could be nominated countless times for deletion. I look forward to getting my act together and learning how to become a much better editor. Thanks again for your continued kindness. Dontreader (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

I very much appreciate the references ChaseAm (talk) 11:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Qore Page?

I am just now seeing that the page on the Qore Programming Language was slated for deletion. Please let me know what I can do to reverse this decision and make the article suitable for safe keeping.

I am happy to address any concerns, but I am not sure what they are.

Thank you, estrabd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estrabd (talk • contribs) 23:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Estrabd. The article was deleted because we couldn't find enough evidence of the topic's notability. If you can dig up three or four independent (i.e. not written by the developers) reliable sources (i.e. not blogs) that discuss the topic at length, then recreating the article shouldn't be difficult. The software-specific notability guidelines are at WP:NSOFT. If you want access to the original text, take a look at WP:REFUND. Ping me if you have any questions.

Thanks!

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 10:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you - does a presentation given at a programming user's group at least count as one?

http://houston.pm.org/talks/2011talks/1109Talk/index.html#quore

I'll try to dig up some more, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estrabd (talk • contribs) 19:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

In a word, no. That's most likely going to be a WP:PRIMARY source, and while that can be used in an article it does not help in establishing notability. An article in a magazine or the peer-reviewed literature would be great, so long as it wasn't written by the authors of the language themselves. Let me know if you have any more questions; I'd love to see an article on this language, but as best I can tell the sources just aren't there yet. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for working with me on this. Brett

By the way, unless you're editing an article, it's helpful to append four tildes (like this: ~~~~) after your contribution. That puts your user name, your talk page and timestamp in automatically. Thanks! Lesser Cartographies (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

More problems on the Harp Twins page

Hello, Lesser Cartographies. First of all, please notice that I have dedicated a substantial amount of time (by my standards) to either improving or trying to improve several articles, as suggested by the administrator BrownHairedGirl, including a vigorous attempt to reach consensus on the talk page of the Nontrinitarian article here: Talk:Nontrinitarianism#nontrinitarianism or non-Trinitarianism.3F. Also, soon I will begin to take the steps you suggested. However, in the meantime, more problems have arisen on the Camille and Kennerly Kitt article, and I believe it would be unwise for me to interact with that editor in any way, shape or form, so I'm asking once again for your help. An effort is being made to reduce the Harp Twins to a mere blog phenomenon, as was done by the same editor in the discussion when the article was proposed for deletion.

Please look at this edit: quoting Mallika Rao, the editor changed the word "said" to "blogged". Is that necessary? Is that supposed to be regarded as a good-faith edit? An effort to improve the article? Here's what the Huffington Post says about Mallika Rao:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mallika-rao/

So, exactly what could the good-faith purpose be of changing the word "said" to "blogged"?

Also, concerning the other edit, although Bailey Johnson does write for The Feed Blog (exclusively or not, I do not know), does that take away the fact that this person is a CBS News contributor? Or at least a CBS News online version contributor? Must that person be called "The Feed blogger"? Here's the source:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504784_162-57392577-10391705/beautiful-harp-cover-of-the-cranberries-zombie/

From that article you can say that it was in The Feed section of CBS News, but it clearly remains a CBS News article, and therefore Bailey Johnson is a CBS News contributor. Besides, after some last-minute research, I have found that Bailey Johnson is not solely a The Feed Blog writer. Here's an article from Crimesider (also from CBS News online):

http://www.cbsnews.com/crimesider/?contributor=10470143

And this isn't from The Feed Blog either:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8300-504763_162-10391704.html?contributor=10470143

Therefore, is it accurate to reduce Bailey Johnson to "The Feed blogger"?

I must stress that in each case the article begins with (CBS), and the source is http://www.cbsnews.com/ Bailey Johnson is a CBS News contributor. That cannot be disputed, unless you want to call Johnson a CBS News online version contributor, or a cbsnews.com contributor, but Cbsnews.com redirects you to CBS News on Misplaced Pages.

Please help me. And truly, this should not be happening. Dontreader (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Good morning, Dontreader.

Since the last time you've graced my talk page, you've made 31 edits to around 7 different articles. Compare that to 71 edits you've made to Camille and Kennerly Kitt and Talk:Camille and Kennerly Kitt, 14 at the AfD discussion, and 8 on my talk page.

As of a few minutes ago, your edits to the Kitt pages are 93/322≈29% of your[REDACTED] experience (and that's not counting the edits you made on other editors' talk pages discussing the Kitt article). Because that percentage is so high, and because you've had a limited number of interations with other editors (and other styles of editing) across a range of other articles, you don't yet have a good model for how User:Duffbeerforme's edits are going to be perceived by the wider community.

Here's my best guess as to how a random experienced editor would evaluate Duff's edits. First, they're minor and, at least on their face, correct. Second, "blogged" is more specific than "said" and gives the reader more information, and "Feed blogger" likewise (arguably) better characterizes the source. Duff's intentions may have been wholly malicious, but WP:AGF means that if it's reasonable to construe edits as having been made in good faith, we should do so.

It's ok to disagree with a good-faith edit, but: I've yet to find a[REDACTED] article that I couldn't improve in some small way. A good editor prioritizes. By reverting an edit, you're making a claim that not only does your reversion improve the article, but also that the improvement is significant enough to justify taking the time to explain your rationale and potentially enter into an extended discussion.

When 29% of your edits have concerned one article, it's perfectly natural for you to think that any change to the article is significant (and warrants 600 words across my and User:bgwhite's talk pages). Once your Kitt contributions are closer to 1% of your total, and once you've hung out for a while at the WP:TEAHOUSE and WP:ANI, your perspective will be closer to that of the wider community: Duff's edits are well within what is accepted, and unless they're factually wrong they should stand without further discussion.

I see that over at User:bgwhite's page you've asked that Duff be banned from the article. That request reflects poorly on you.

I respect your passion, and I appreciate you coming to me instead of returning to the article. I want you to be able to channel your passion into making this a much better encyclopedia. So I'll ask you again: take the Kitt page off your watchlist, don't look at it, don't think about it, and go make a thousand edits over a couple hundred articles. Then come back and we'll talk about how to improve the Kitt article.

Very sincerely,

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, Lesser Cartographies,

Thanks for your observations and advice. I think a very elemental fact has to be established here before I continue, which is that the Misplaced Pages world, with all of its rules, is just a tiny fraction of the real world. In the Misplaced Pages world you can systematically use your vast experience to tell me that I'm wrong in some sense or another; however, in the real world, in general, I have been a very successful person, and when it comes specifically to debating issues based on logical thinking, I'm a very tough opponent. What I pointed out to you last night had very little to do with the Misplaced Pages world and its rules.

One example is that you claimed that "blogged" is more specific than "said" and gives the reader more information. That issue is hardly within the Misplaced Pages realm, so I'm not at a disadvantage this time. If "said" is inappropriate because it's an article, a suitable word could be "wrote" or "expressed", for example. Since the Huffington Post is already being mentioned, if you believe it's a mere blog (which is highly disputable), then to say that she "blogged" is redundant. You can certainly "write" or "express" something in a blog if you believe that the Huffington Post is nothing more than a blog (for the sake of argument), and perhaps you believe that her description as "contributor" (versus "blogger") to the Huffington Post is a mistake made by the Huffington Post (for the sake of argument), but that does not change the facts I wrote in this paragraph.

Likewise, to replace the word "credited" with "called" is an edit that you cannot claim is "more specific" and "gives the reader more information". You did not use those words for that edit since you did not address that edit at all, but it's simply a stupid edit. That is true in the real world, and has nothing to do with the Misplaced Pages world. You cannot cite a Misplaced Pages rule to prove that I'm wrong. No one can. It's a stupid edit. Period.

The same goes for "CBS News contributor" versus "The Feed blogger". The rules pertinent to this case are the same inside the Misplaced Pages world and in the broader real world. Johnson is not merely a The Feed blogger. I established that Johnson writes for CBS News online on a variety of topics, some of which belong to The Feed Blog, and others which do not. The article was written as a CBS News article, and there is nothing wrong with calling Bailey Johnson a CBS News contributor. If there really is an urgent need to clarify (which there is not, since no one is being mislead), one could specify that Johnson is a CBS News contributor who wrote those comments in The Feed Blog.

So, I must emphasize that my concerns regarding these edits have virtually nothing to do with the Misplaced Pages world and its many rules. Therefore, you cannot assert that you are right and that I'm wrong based on Misplaced Pages rules. One of the very first things I did on Misplaced Pages was notice that an article said, "Some of the attacks leveled against Peck are...", so I looked at the source that was provided, and it was just one person's views, so I informed the administrator Doug Weller, and he told me to go ahead and name that person in the article as the person making the attacks, which I did, and no one could revert it. That's because it was strictly a matter of logical thinking, even though I knew nothing at all about Misplaced Pages.

Furthermore, you stated that my request to have Duff banned from editing only that article reflects poorly on me. Well, you might be entirely right since that petition certainly belongs to the Misplaced Pages world; however, as a very experienced Wikipedian, can you name ONE other person who feverishly tried to have an article deleted, and then came back SEVERAL MONTHS later (not immediately) suddenly claiming that he wanted to "improve" it? But who resorted to reverts instead of trying to reach consensus on the talk page (you don't me to tell you that reverts can cause edit wars), AND who targeted another main contributor, to the point that he made him leave Misplaced Pages? If you cannot come up with a similar example, then who looks bad here? And how much of a loss is it to not be able to edit ONE page out of many thousands? Especially given the facts I have stated?

And look, regardless of what my ENTIRE edit history has been on Misplaced Pages, you give me absolutely zero credit for the efforts I have made over the past few weeks to improve the encyclopedia (and in a civil manner, I must add, inviting people to discuss important changes on the talk pages, for example). I am a better writer than most editors, and I have the potential to further improve Misplaced Pages, and more substantially than I have so far, but you are imposing a heavy burden on me. A thousand edits over a couple hundred articles before we can improve the Harp Twins article? Maybe you are in a very privileged situation but I have bills to pay, including enormous bills for my mother's care. You have to take into consideration that we all have different lifestyles. Your intentions are noble; I understand them, but you cannot force me to change my lifestyle and starve to death. I am at my limit with the time I dedicate to Misplaced Pages; in fact, I'm beyond my limit. I can visit the tea house and comply with your other requests if they are not very time consuming, but if I am expected to spend hundreds of hours here before I can have the Camille and Kennerly article corrected, I will most certainly leave Misplaced Pages entirely just like Robcamstone did, all because of one user.

Thanks for your time. Dontreader (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I too have limited time to dedicate to wikipedia, and I think we've reached the point of diminishing returns here. I wish you the best in your editing. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Trivial adulation

Your username is evocative of a concept quotidian yet fantastic. I like it. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I was aiming for Borges, but my partner assures me I landed somewhere between Thomas Friedman and the kind of terribly earnest essays that used to populate The Atlantic Monthly. Best, Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Assuming good faith

I believe that certain actions make the assumption of good faith absurd. For example, when the Camille and Kennerly Kitt page was nominated for deletion (by the way, the "contributor" that proposed the deletion has vanished since then), and someone promotes in a militant fashion the deletion of the page during the discussion, it's because he is convinced that there is NO WAY to improve the article to a point where it could meet Misplaced Pages standards. Or am I wrong? Therefore, when he comes back half a year later to allegedly improve the article, that's a clear contradiction. Or am I wrong? That was when I no longer assumed good faith on his part. As I said recently, if you can recall one contributor who fought hard to delete a page and then came back to improve it, and was actually helpful, please let me know, and I will reconsider my reasoning. Dontreader (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Dontreader: You don't assume good faith until receiving sufficient provocation to stop. You assume good faith to convince others that you're the adult in the room. When you continue to assume good faith even after being provoked multiple times, admins figure out that you're not the problem.

There are legions of blocked editors who were Right(tm) and had the impeccable logical arguments to prove it. They aren't missed. What we're looking for are effective editors who can figure out how to work with people they disagree with and know how to avoid people they can't work with. (Some of us have also figured out how to provoke editors we don't like into getting themselves kicked out.)

To answer your specific questions: being right isn't going to prevent you from getting blocked. You need to decide if you want to be right or if you want to be effective.

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm against your proposal

If Bgwhite sees any need for changes to the article, I will discuss them with him, not with you. What you are suggesting is to make drastic unnecessary changes to the page, at the request of you-know-who (which was my concern when he showed up with a revert a few weeks ago, several months after the AfD discussion). You have already wiped out many well-crafted sentences and paragraphs that took me a long time to compose. You've done enough to that article. Since you said your time is also limited for Misplaced Pages, please focus on other articles. Your plan will only cause serious trouble. Dontreader (talk) 03:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)