Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:05, 17 October 2014

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Hi, and welcome to my User Talk page! For new discussions, please add your comments at the very bottom and use a section heading (e.g., by using the "+" tab, or, depending on your settings, the "new section" tab at the top of this page). I will respond on this page unless specifically requested otherwise. I dislike talk-back templates and fragmented discussions. If I post on your page you may assume that I will watch it for a response. If you post here I will assume the same (and that you lost interest if you stop following the discussion).

IF YOU CAME HERE BECAUSE I DELETED AN ARTICLE THAT YOU CREATED OR WORKED ON: Please see WP:REFUND first. Thanks.

Misplaced Pages is no place for humour. Everything is very serious here and we are all terrifically important.

User:Nomian/Bangladesh–Slovakia relations

Hello, I have significantly expanded the draft and I think it meets the notability guidelines, can you please have a look? Nomian (talk) 10:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think that the added sourcing would respond to the concerns raised in the AfD. Please do not again move this to article space saying "administrator approved" without having explicit approval of an admin (either myself or any other admin). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Dear Randykitty, before moving that article into mainspace, I consulted with The Bushranger, he said it looked alright to him. Isn't it an explicit approval? Nomian (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• I was unaware of that. You had posted here and I did not get around to this immediately, so I assumed that you had taken my silence as agreement. Let me talk with Bushranger first. --Randykitty (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Actually when you didn't reply I thought I have to consult with another admin so I posted there, anyway sorry for the misunderstanding. Nomian (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Would have been helpful to mention that here, but no harm done, don't worry about it. --Randykitty (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Dear Randykitty, sorry to disturb, I just want to know what was the discussion between you and Bushranger, I can't see the thread there. Will it be restored? Thanks in advance. Nomian (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Dear Randikitty, sorry for the trouble, Bushranger has replied to the thread in his talk page he said, IMHO, it should be good enough, so can we have this restored? Nomian (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

article has now been restored the 2nd time, adding one source to the deleted version is in my opinion not a substantial improvement. LibStar (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Shamelessly stole

Hi Randykitty, I shamelessly stole your very handy "admin bar". I hope that was ok. If not, I'll remove it. :) Oz\ 14:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Don't worry, I stole it myself (from Drmies, I think, but I've stolen so much, I hardly remember what I got where... :-)

• Hehe, nothing's changed steal-wise. ;) Oz\ 10:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For the prompt and correct closure of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Martijn Jeurissen. gidonb (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ZTE Communications, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antenna. 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) 08:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Kidnapping in Islamism

Earlier today I added a small section of formal statements and newspaper reports in which ISIS and Boko Haram offer formal justifications based on their peculiar (radical) interpretations of Sha'aria justifying the kidnapping of non-Muslim women for purposes of use as concubines or sex slaves. I was in the process of adding a small section containing legal (Sha'aria) justifications published by Isis and Boko Haram asserting the right to capture non-combatant civilians and use them as political chits, or as a means or raising funds form ransom, or for sale as slaves, or to condemn them to death - all justified by their peculiar, minority interpretations of the Quran. When I punched "save" I discovered that you had deleted the article. I would - when I found time - have added academic treatments of the justifications but forward by radical Islamist ideologues, political leaders, military leaders, and clerics justifying kidnapping and advocating its use as a political and military strategy. And more academic and journalist analysis of What differentiates Islamist kidnappings from kidnappings by other terrorist groups is that it is 1.) it is justified by groups with pretensions to state-level authority (Boko Haram, ISIS, Hamas) 2.) it is endorsed by some Islamist clerics 3.) Islamist groups in the Philippines and the Maghreb have kidnapped hostages and threatened to kill them unless the governments of their home countries (France, Germany) withdraw support for the coalition bombing and training mainstream Muslim forces to fight ISIS. This is very different from focal terrorist groups self-funding with ransom payments. (this material has been in the article for days) These are extraordinary behaviors. Such behaviors connote a interlinked ideology justifying and employing kidnapping by gorups that reflect and converse about shared goals and methods. They have made the phenomenon of Islamist kidnapping a topic in major newspapers and in policy journals. I believe that the article merits reinstatement.ShulMaven (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Also, I wonder why the article why you did not consider redirecting the article to a section in Islamic terrorism.ShulMaven (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Given how contentious the AfD was, I am not surprised that some people are unhappy with my close (and would have been unhappy with any other close, too :-). I carefully considered all arguments. You participated in the debate 7 days ago. The AfD was closed 3 days after the normal closing deadline (1 week). So there was plenty of time to put forward your above arguments in the debate and/or to implement any improvements to the article. If you think the article should be reinstated, you should take this to deletion review, although I would think that the best possible outcome you could get there (given the large participation in the AfD) would be a "no consensus", which at DRV defaults to an endorsement of the close. Nevertheless, you can try. --Randykitty (talk) 10:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Quarterly Review of Film and Video

I saw you reverted my edit. The cited page is a page full of text, but if you look at the page, the journal is listed 15 lines up from the bottom . I would appreciate it if you revert your reversion. Michitaro (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

To clarify Michitaro's edit, QRFV is listed under its original name, Quarterly Review of Film Studies, in this article. - Wheeler Winston Dixon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.200.117 (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it is listed under both: the original title is listed 17 lines from the bottom, the new title 15 lines from the bottom. Michitaro (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Found it, don't know why I didn't see it earlier. I have restored the ref, but placed it a bit higher in the article with a slight reword. Thanks for your note here. --Randykitty (talk) 12:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It was a jumbled list of journal titles and easy to miss. Michitaro (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Digital Dark Ages

Dear Randykitty: I'd like to propose an expansion of this article - http://en.wikipedia.org/Digital_dark_age - using, if you wish, the sources found in my blog post here, or other sources you may find. My post on this is here: http://blog.unl.edu/dixon/2014/10/15/history-cultural-memory-and-the-digital-dark-age/ - briefly, "Misplaced Pages defines the term "Digital Dark Age" as "a possible future situation where it will be difficult or impossible to read historical electronic documents and multimedia, because they have been in an obsolete and obscure file format. But I would argue that this is only a very, very small part of the problem. A more pressing concern, it would seem to me, for books, films and music, is that the works of the past created in analog fashion won't survive in the future because they're not deemed to be commercial enough." If you wish to do this, great - I leave it to others to think about, and perhaps act upon. Thanks! - Wheeler Winston Dixon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.200.117 (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Hi, I'm not really sure why you posted this here (I've never edited that article as far as I know). Feel free to expand the article (Misplaced Pages can be edited by anyone...), as long as you keep in mind that we're not allowed to add original research or synthesis. Everything we write needs to be verifiable in so-called reliable sources. --Randykitty (talk) 08:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Advances in Anthropology

You may have seen this, but if not, at Anatole Klyosov I've had a bit of a tussle over putting the recent problems with the journal in his article. Hopefully that's settled, but you might want to put it on your watchlist. Dougweller (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• No, I hadn't seen that, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Not really a very good bio, that one... Although I assume that the Academy memberships meet WP:ACADEMIC. Seems like a fringe scientist to me... I'll keep it watchlisted. --Randykitty (talk) 08:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you around?

Are you around right now to talk about this DRV?--v/r - TP 21:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• So, I see you're not around so I'll lay out some thoughts I had:
  • You could just restore the edit history. Sure, you are technically on solid ground and you are not required to. But, it doesn't harm the encyclopedia to have a redirect with edit history behind it and it would be an easy way to solve the drama. The advantages of appeasing the people upset over this far outweigh the nonexistent disadvantages.
  • You could restore the page and then userify it or move it to WP:Draft namespace. Then leave a redirect at the article space link. The draft or userfied page could still have a redirect on it.
  • Perhaps Cunard would be happy with receiving an emailed copy of the page.
• What are your thoughts? I personally like #2 best.--v/r - TP 22:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Hi, sorry was a bit busy earlier. Thanks for closing that DRV. This is the first time, I think, I've seen a DRV land at ANI... Whether or not I am on solid ground is not very important to me, I have no real stake in this (which is why I just !voted "neutral" in the DRV). My only point was that there was (at least to me) a clear consensus to delete in the AfD. I can't shake the thought that if I hadn't tried to accommodate everybody by also adding a redirect, that this would not have gone to AfD at all... Anyway, I love your solution #2. Very smart! That satisfies the AfD consensus and at the same time gives the dissenters what they'd like, too. I'll do this in a few minutes. Please check what I did, because undeleting and moving things between different namespaces sometimes challenge me... :-) Thanks for your help and advice! --Randykitty (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, also please take a look at the discussion on the talk page. Cunard isn't too keen on the #2 idea but I think that is the best solution and an appropriate use of draft space. I think attribution could be easily dealt with through copying the page history and/or directing attribution at the draft namespace. Either way, it leaves the content available to a future editor who wishes to develop the page once more information is available.--v/r - TP 17:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• OMG, I hadn't seen that the whole discussion spilled over on your talk. No, I don't agree to #1, but have no objection to #4 and having another admin lose it. Apart from that, my close was not "redirect" (and my reading of the AfD discussion still does not justify such a decision). The close was "delete". Because I thought that "VideoPad" could possibly be a likely search term (and redirects being cheap), I added a redirect as a courtesy. I actually often do that because I feel that this is helpful, but feel that in this case this was completely misinterpreted (and over-analyzed) to mean something else. Personally, I think AfD policy is clear enough. If a discussion ends in a consensus to "redirect", the history stays. If the consensus is delete, it goes. After that, there is no problem with creating a redirect, but that's more or less a separate thing. I feel Cunard is exaggerating and it looks like the only thing that is going to satisfy them will be their preferred solution, nothing more or less. In any case, I have said what I have to say about this. If you think relisting could be helpful, go ahead, but personally I think this matter should be closed now. --Randykitty (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• Randykitty, if you had closed this as "delete", I would not have done anything differently. I still would have approached you to ask to you restore the history. Had you declined to do so, I would have asked the DRV community to restore the history. I hope that this experience does not incline you against adding a redirect as a courtesy in the future.

  I cannot understand why it is forbidden to host the history under the redirect while it is okay to host it indefinitely at Draft:VideoPad. Your objection appears to be rooted in the fact that four editors supported deletion at the AfD.

  I recommended #4 to address your concern that restoring the history under the redirect would be overriding consensus. A relist would help achieve consensus on the question "does the encyclopedia benefit from retaining the history under the redirect". No one at the AfD but I explicitly addressed whether the redirect's history should be preserved. This gives editors the opportunity to do so.

  This is a good test case for any future RfC on the matter, so I continue to recommend #4 even though you have implemented #2.

  If the consensus at the relisted AfD is against me (the encyclopedia does not benefit from retaining the history under the redirect), I of course will accept the result. Cunard (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

ECS Journal of Solid State Science and Technology

added a link pointing to Solid state

ECS Solid State Letters

added a link pointing to Solid state

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)