Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:43, 1 May 2024

The current time in New Zealand is 08:46, 10 January 2025 NZDT

Status: Busy

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.

Charlotte Kretschmann

On Charlotte Kretschmann, you have insisted on keeping the "notability" tag for her article, and cite the AfD pages for Pearl Berg and Elizabeth Francis as reasons for doing so. This is despite the fact that simply being the oldest person in Germany is not the reason justified in general, or even for the edit you reverted of mine, for having her page.

WP:BIO gives clear criteria on whether a person is considered notable or not.

• If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

There are entire articles about Kretschmann spanning multiple years from The Local, Der Spiegel, Bild, and others that show in-depth coverage of her longevity.

• Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.

There is only one primary source in the entire article, and it is a link to her Instagram photo diary, and is only in supplement to 9 secondary in-line citations throughout the rest of the article. I fail to see what argument you have for questioning her notability for Misplaced Pages. EytanMelech (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

" and cite the AfD pages for Pearl Berg and Elizabeth Francis as reasons for doing so". WRONG! I did not mention them at all. There has been a long history of longevity fans creating articles on people who are notable only for being old. Except for most (NOT all) world's oldest person/man/woman articles, the majority of those articles were subsequently deleted for numerous reasons based on policy including WP:NOPAGE, WP:PERMASTUB, WP:BIO1E, WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:TOOSOON. DerbyCountyinNZ 20:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

And a 4 person cabal who spammed AFD Wwew345t (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Stay off my talk page peasant. DerbyCountyinNZ 21:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Friendly Wwew345t (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Lists of state leaders by age

Hello, there.

I was wondering if you would agree to give your personal opinion on my arguments for editing the page. To be honest, I was kind of expecting to hear counterarguments from you as you are the one who raised an objection by asking for consensus.

Thanks in advance. Cordially.--Johnn Francis (talk) 05:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Not vandalism

Hi there. Browsing through the edit history of a rather chaotic page I noticed this revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hari_Hari&diff=prev&oldid=1128245079 Believe it or not, the edit you reverted wasn't vandalism... Williams' dictionary does actually give the meaning "Paphirus largillierti and Dosinia subrosea, bivalve molluscs" - i.e. clams - to harihari, hahari. It's almost certainly not where the Post Office got the name from, though (at the time Harihari was named, the Post Office were busy reverse engineering names in te reo Māori for post offices). Daveosaurus (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. It does seem I bit harsh. Perhaps it's because the same edit was done previously by an IP (without explanation) and using the same source as already used in the paragraph would have been such an obvious conflict that it would have been highly unlikely that whoever used the source originally would have failed to mention "clam" as a translation rather than "ambulance", especially when is actually more likely. Apparently not unlikely after all! DerbyCountyinNZ 04:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Quite understandable. That page is a bit of a train wreck... I tried to tidy it up a bit yesterday and left a short talk page note but it really needs a Wet Coast expert to give it a thorough going-over. Daveosaurus (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Central Burma

You have placed a cleanup tag on this articla, with the edit summary that thae article is full of Full of "WP:EDITORIAL and/or WP:COPYVIO". Please indicate where there is copyright violation (and wich source is plagiarized) and editorialising. HLGallon (talk) 10:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea if there is copyvio or not as most of it is so poorly written from an encyclopedic perspective. It is full of WP:EDITORIAL. If none of it is a copyvio then it needs to be rewritten in the proper encyclopedic tone. DerbyCountyinNZ 10:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:MOS Plot Summary guidelines

Greetings, User DerbyCountyinNZ. The natural impulse is to applaud your desire to improve film plots, but evidently you are unfamiliar with the WP:MOS Plot Summary guidelines (here). They limit plot summaries to 400-700 words. Please adjust your edits to plot summaries accordingly. Thank you. 2601:196:180:DC0:4DD6:CB1C:77E5:8408 (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I generally don't waste my time communicating with editors who can't be bothered creating a user name, but I'll make an exception. No, wasn't aware of the word limit. However the plots I've attempted to fix were all either too short, inaccurate, awfully written (e.g. containing WP:EDITORIAL or read like a film review), copy IMDB or contain cast name when there is already a cast list. So returning them to their previous state rather than trimming them doesn't sound like co-operative editing to me. DerbyCountyinNZ 20:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

That's your POV...and obviously (from the last two items on this talk page alone) you find POV issues quite readily. The reality is that the new summaries were grossly over a clearly delineated limit. Since you wrote them, if you would like to trim them down and resubmit them, that would be fine. But trying to shift that burden is not cricket.2601:196:180:DC0:39CF:858C:C7AD:6E5 (talk) 11:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

And BTW, belay your arrogance towards unregistered users. The ethos of the encyclopedia is that everyone may contribute, and everyone is equally respected and accepted...until they prove otherwise. Registering is s choice, and has its trade-offs, indeed quite stacked to advantage. But it is no immunity to treating unregistered users without respect. I have made somewhere close to 75,000 edits as one to this encyclopedia since some time after 2005. Unfortunately, technology has changed in that time and every single day I am issued a new digital identity by some server or other (and lose all record of the previous day's activity, where once it would stay the same for the duration of a device). Regardless, it's how one acts here that matters, not what identity they edit under. 2601:196:180:DC0:39CF:858C:C7AD:6E5 (talk) 11:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Last, don't get me wrong. I very much appreciate what you were trying to do, and have great appreciation for a well-crafted movie plot (and indeed am tolerant of reasonable spillover above the WP:MOS guidelines, and resent MOS nazis that misconceive "guideline" and "mandate" and go around trimming any single word over 700 off as if it were a divine mission). But 250 and 300 words (on everyday movies) is way beyond that. And strongly suggested you were just as unaware of the plot guidelines as I was when I went through the identical thing (with a similar bristling). Since you wrote the overlong plots, and indeed seem to have both skill and enthusiasm for writing, it seemed worth the effort to give you the first opportunity to trim your revisions down to a reasonable length that suited you. 2601:196:180:DC0:39CF:858C:C7AD:6E5 (talk) 11:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Subject closed. DerbyCountyinNZ 21:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)