Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:04, 27 February 2018

Welcome!

Hello, Elektricity, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Misplaced Pages
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Misplaced Pages Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Misplaced Pages. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! —KuyaBriBri 14:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Deprodding of Amir Abdur Rehman Cheema

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Amir Abdur Rehman Cheema, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, proposed deletion is disallowed on articles that have previously been de-prodded, even by the page's creator, or which have previously been listed on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{proposed deletion}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. Thanks! —KuyaBriBri 14:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Khurshid Ahmad (scholar) has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Khurshid Ahmad (scholar) was changed by Elektricity (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.92327 on 2017-11-12T07:32:28+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Khurshid Ahmad (scholar)

Ahmad is cited as the father of modern... is supported by the citation. Jim1138 (talk) 07:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138 (talk) I looked at the source and it says "a Father of modern...", not "The father". The source is not that reliable either, for a claim like this, I though a better source was needed. Elektricity (talk) 07:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

You're correct. My apology. I restored your edit. I see you also removed a lot of other junk! Thanks for the chat! Jim1138 (talk) 08:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138 (talk) Nps, Tak!

Farhat Hashmi

Hello my friend. I'm really sorry that I seem sometimes to undo or modify your edits on this particular page. I see you as a very good editor and I can see that you have the same goal as me: to keep the page accurate, neutral, well-referenced and helpful. Please don't take my edits personally. I'm actually trying to help. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@ George Custer's Sabre (talk) On the contrary, I like your editing, it helps with the errors I make, like the incorrect thesis citation. I appreciate your taking the time to look through my edits and correcting them. I am now moving on to Roger Koppel. Although I will watchlist Farhat Hashmi and add a little bit now and then if I find any sources. Elektricity (talk) 06:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh great. Thank you very kindly. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Human rights in India.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Misplaced Pages, you may be blocked from editing. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Stop wikihounding my contribution history by using brainless rationales on edit summaries. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, how are you. We seem to be engaged in a content dispute. I would like to keep the intersex rights page, while you want to remove the information and copy it to another page, then redirect the page. Also you want to remove intersex rights from the human rights in India page. Would you like to discuss? And please don't be rude, I know this is the internet and forum trolling is common, but lets keep it civil please! Can you give any reason as to why the mention of intersex should be removed? Elektricity (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Just like you redirected Times Higher Education–QS World University Rankings to QS World University Rankings just now, though you redirected a far older article and the main article is already too big. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Raymond3023 (talk) but we are talking about your redirect. What reasons do you have of redirecting? And why are you removing information from the Human rights page? Please address both issues. My reason for redirection can be discussed in a separate paragraph if you wish to do so. Elektricity (talk) 06:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Hijra is synonym or another word for "intersex". See and then the page provided same sentences that are already mentioned on Hijra (South Asia), that's why a redirect was only choice. Raymond3023 (talk) 06:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@ Raymond3023 (talk) I don't agree. I think a separate article should be created. PErhaps we can ask other editors to give thier opinion? I am sure there are forums for that! Elektricity (talk) 06:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Not my problem if you don't agree with reliable sources. Before I consider taking you to WP:ANI for your on-going wikihounding, you need to stop it right here. Unless someone else is interested in taking up the discussion or removing the redirect, we will see. But so far you don't have to create drama. Raymond3023 (talk) 06:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@ Raymond3023 (talk) Perhaps you should take the matter to the ANI forum? Maybe the editors there will be able to give thier input. Please open up a discussion and I will give my input, or should I open up a discussion and you give your input? Elektricity (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion is over now. Spend your energy somewhere else. Raymond3023 (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@ Raymond3023 (talk) ok. I'll just open that ANI thread to get input from other editors. There appears to be a lot fo activity on that forum. Please give your input there. Elektricity (talk) 06:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

See WP:BOOMERANG first. Raymond3023 (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Richard H. Griffiths

For shits and giggles, look at this version if you haven't already. The fluff to non-notability ratio was higher here than I've seen in a long time. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies (talk) LORD ALMIGHTY! Ctrl+A -->Del. problem solved. :D Elektricity (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Did you get an email from Griffiths? Drmies (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Drmies (talk) nope, I did not have that displeasure today. Elektricity (talk) 02:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

EU Business School

Hi Elektricity, You left me a message on my talk page. To review some history, kindly see the EU Business School talk page. Do not assume that there is edit warring when there is none. Reverted edition was not mine. The original article version had appropriately sourced content on relevant accreditations that were removed. User Lingveno was advised to refer any major and/or wholesale changes to the talk page to seek consensus as you would have seen from my comments. As this is a highly controversial article, I would suggest you do the same. Any new sections and/or changes can be added, but appropriately sourced and cited contents especially on accreditations (as this is an educational institution) must not be removed. I trust this explains the situation and your cooperation in this would be appreciated. Audit Guy (talk) 08:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Your revert

Please explain your note, and your revert. You are mistaken. On two counts. It is most certainly not a BLP violation. And as to refs -- they are not required in the lede. If they are in the text below. Where you can find an ample number of theme. Kindly revert yourself, or let's involve an admin to communicate with you on these issues. Or perhaps the learned editor, User:Centpacrr. --2604:2000:E016:A700:48AD:F0AC:6ECD:35D6 (talk) 04:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@User:Centpacrr I will self revert. Elektricity (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Babur (cruise missile).

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Misplaced Pages, you may be blocked from editing. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

January 2018 reverts

Please explain how your reverts of these four edits serve any purpose other than to disrupt progress toward improving an article. My edits were constructive and appropriately placed, and were performed to rectify a valid orphan tag on a new article. (Edit: I forgot to sign this edit, apologies) JGehlbach (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@ JGehlbach thank you for contacting me. My edit summaries which say "undue" are referring to the policy at WP:UNDUE. As the subject matter you added does not meet that standard, I removed it. A simple analogy is that the article about earth does not talk about the flat earth theory even though all flat earthers talk about is the planet earth. I will be more careful to link the policy for other editors in the future, my apologies for any misunderstanding that may have been caused. Elektricity (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. With respect, I find your analogy inapplicable to this matter. Specifically, by affected article:

• Ghost hunting: Skepticism toward claims of the paranormal is hardly a minority or fringe viewpoint. Even if it were, the fact that Biddle once came down solidly on the credulous side of this question but later changed his views would seem to make his inclusion in this article uncontroversial.
• Sharon A. Hill, Benjamin Radford, and Joe Nickell: Biddle lists the writings of these three people as major factors in his reconsideration of his own views. Had Biddle remained credulous about the paranormal, mentioning him in any of these articles outside the Criticism section might run afoul of WP:UNDUE. The fact that he did change his views negates your invocation of that principle.

(Edit: Omitted signature, again; apologies, again.) JGehlbach (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@JGehlbach it is Biddle who is not notable enough to be included in these articles. Ghost hunting=Earth, Biddle=flat earthers Elektricity (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the continued discourse. I'm trying to borrow your perspective, but I haven't managed to get past the fact that WP:UNDUE is primarily about limiting the weight given to minority viewpoints. If anything, Biddle's viewpoint is the mainstream viewpoint with ghost hunting (or credulity towards it) being the minority one. The fact that Biddle once held, but has now disavowed, that minority viewpoint makes him more notable (not less) in the context of any conversation about ghost hunting, as well as in articles about these notable authors whose work is significantly concerned with taking a skeptical view toward ghost hunting. Your use of the Earth / Flat-earther analogy is appreciated (there's a good reason why it's the canonical example used in the WP:UNDUE definition), but I think it breaks down in this case. I respectfully ask to set the anaolgy aside to avoid rabbit-holing this dialogue. If I've overlooked another, subtler aspect of WP:UNDUE in my line of argument, I invite you to educate me on it. JGehlbach (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@JGehlbach biddles personal viewpoint is not what is minority. It is biddle himself. For example, hundreds of people have commented that they read the bible and bible inspires them. Many of those hundreds have wikipedia articles, but we cannot include all of them in the bible article. Same is the case with Biddle. He is not that popular that we should include his views in the ghost hunting article. Elektricity (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I see your point as narrowly concerns the Ghost hunting article. However, that article's Skepticism section was well established long before my edit, and already included views of many people who never were credulous toward ghost hunting. As I've already said repeatedly in the course of this exchange, Biddle's history of conversion from credulity to skepticism only bolsters the case for his inclusion in Ghost hunting. Moving on to your revert to Sharon A. Hill, Benjamin Radford, and Joe Nickell, your "Biddle himself is the minority" line of argument applies not at all to those articles. JGehlbach (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Hagennos (talk) 03:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your good faith, but please try a different approafch

I appreciate your attempts to find compromises and I believe you are acting in good faith, but the way you go about it is not helpful-- both sides have complained to you, Expectant of Light has about his doubts about your suitability to mediate, so has zzz about your , and now I am being straightforward and saying I would prefer a different approach as well. Reverting seven times in one day as you did on January 9th (the day that the page was locked for edit warring) is not helpful: ]]]]]]]. Neither is acting like an appointed mediator when you're... not. As I said, please don't interpret this as a lecture or an attack, I'm just letting you know that I don't find it helpful either, and I think you're acting in good faith, so I suggest you take a different approach. --Calthinus (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Calthinus sure ofc, I have stopped editing till the article is stable. Given that the two editors in question are polar opposites in thier POV it is almost impossible to find a compromise, so I leave it in the hands of the community and give only my own opinion. on the TP. Elektricity (talk) 03:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Joseph Christopher Vitalis

Hello Elektricity,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Joseph Christopher Vitalis for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

RePRODing of Mark Powell (politician)

Strictly speaking, your earlier removal of the PROD from Mark Powell (politician) makes it now ineligible for PROD. I'm satisfied to let this stand, however, since I was otherwise going to take it to AfD. — jmcgnh 04:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC) @User:jmcgnh Thanks for the heads up, I did not realize my mistake early on and wanted to add to the article, but I soon found out that the Powell who is mentioned in the news is someone else, should have checked thoroughly earlier. Elektricity (talk) 06:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Copyrights

Your addition to Tourism in India has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Misplaced Pages without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Misplaced Pages. For legal reasons, Misplaced Pages cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. MapSGV (talk) 07:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Copied from The Guardian source, rest of the content is opinion piece that doesn't deserves place in entire content for being WP:UNDUE. Where did we said on Tourism in Pakistan has challenges of terrorism and other crimes? Keep your agenda driven disruption out. — MapSGV (talk) 08:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@MapSGV I will remove the copy vio and the opinion piece. I tend to nip the evil in the bud to no personal attacks from the start or you get reported, no hard feelings, but I don't allow things to escalate before reporting. Policy is at WP:NPA. Elektricity (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)