Misplaced Pages

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, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88

== Archive List ===

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 -- the learning curve

Threshold (online game)

Hello, I'm writing because you were at one time a significant contributor to Threshold (online game). Some issues have come up regarding the article's contents, and I'm at an impasse with a possibly-COI affected editor. I would greatly appreciate your participation at Talk:Threshold (online game). —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 02:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, then- thanks for disclosing that; the editor in question made at least 4 replies in which he only demanded my backing off because I had previously played the game. TBH, considering the info you'd introduced to that page, I had wondered what your connection was. Incidentally that very website might end up being a good source for corroborating some of the info in the article; it's still mirrored by the Internet Archive. At any rate, thanks for your reply! —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 17:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for keeping an eye on things. As to concern about outing, I'm confident there's sufficient behavioral evidence on-wiki to establish the identity of the editor in question without violating policy- should it become necessary. In any event, it does look like things have died down to the point where we can assume he's either accepting things or preparing a counterstrike. Thanks again! —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 01:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. — neuro 17:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop with the abusive name calling and personal attacks now. Personal attacks are unjustifiable. — neuro 17:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:DUCK does not apply, and does not supersede civility. Your motion is not what I templated for, it was your condescending tone and juvenile name-calling that got me here. Try to act in a more appropriate way. — neuro 17:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, thanks for using my signature as a template for your new one (looks splendid by the way)! Glad to see someone else actually likes it and doesn't think of it as bland... :D — neuro 17:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you please quote verbatim the respective reference? — neuro 18:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

As I say, could you please quote the relevant passage verbatim? — neuro 18:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The quoted passage only quotes someone as saying it, thus it is not an appropriate reference to use for that particular bit. I have readded the {{by whom}} template. Regards, — neuro 19:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Dwight Lauderdale

I appreciate your edits to Dwight Lauderdale, but the material you keep adding to the article is written in an unencyclopedic tone and ventures off into no original research land. Furthermore, the reference you provided is from a report written by a high schooler, which clearly does not meet our reliable source policy. Call it a gut feeling, but I don't think a neutral Misplaced Pages article should have a feel-good ending to it. :-) Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The notability of the publisher does not guarantee the reliability of the author. It might be published by a noteworthy organization, but the article is written by a teenager. Let's consider the article on its merits alone: would you actually use a high school journalism report as a source in a Misplaced Pages article? Hopefully, you would say no, based on thee principal tenet of WP:RS: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." Furthermore, per WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, primary sources (such as interviews) are not considered "reliable for statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion". In that case, we would need secondary sources. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The sentence taken from the source, "Lauderdale considers reaching out to the community, like telling aspiring students about the work it takes to get to where he is and the endurance it takes to get there, to be a big part of his career." falls into the realm of "interpretation, analysis or conclusion". Per policy, primary sources aren't considered reliable for statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion. Also, how does the second sentence add anything to the encyclopedia? It seems like a highly trivial detail, which reads like personal commentary/analysis. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. The policy refers to statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion from the source itself. That's exactly what the sentence is. The author of the paper is not stating fact (Lauderdale was born in XX place), she's offering her own personal commentary in claiming that Lauderdale's community outreach to be a big part of his career. If his service to the community is so profound, you shouldn't have any trouble finding a secondary source to back up the claim. That will satisfy my concerns. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Err, no, you're still not understanding my points. From WP:RS#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, "Primary sources are not considered reliable for statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion (for example, a work of fiction is not a reliable source for an analysis of the characters in the work of fiction)." As I mentioned above, the sentence in question "Lauderdale considers reaching out to the community, like telling aspiring students about the work it takes to get to where he is and the endurance it takes to get there, to be a big part of his career." falls into the realm of "interpretation, analysis or conclusion". The article by Angelique Gayle is by definition a primary source (it's an interview and then some). Including the sentence in the article does not meet policy because the Gayle article is a primary source and the line which you cited from the article is not fact, but opinion/analysis of the writer (if it had been fact, why couldn't she have just quoted Dwight Lauderdale to begin with?). In addition, my point regarding WP:NOT#SOAP was in reference to this line: "Sometimes, it is just for the fun of it, like when he judged a Jamaican Jerk Festival at Markham Park Sunrise, Florida on September 24, 2008." It's quite clearly personal commentary, and it's unencyclopedic. So far, my arguments fit well within policy, and I have yet to find any solid ground in your rebuttals. I'm going to ask others who have edited the article to also participate in this discussion. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I endorse this explanation. Interviews are considered primary sources which are not very useful for writing encyclopedic articles. In addition, the constant ownership of this article, exemplified by reverting other editors, calling them trolls or vandals, and refusing to listen to their comments is getting a little tiresome. BradV 01:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Little context in Dwight Lauderdale/Editnotice

Dwight Lauderdale/Editnotice

Thanks for the heads-up. I was a little unsure about the purpose of the page and took a chance that someone would get back to me if I made a mistake. Thanks again... ttonyb1 (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Dwight Lauderdale/Editnotice

I have deleted Dwight Lauderdale/Editnotice, a page you created. User-created editnotices only work on user pages and user talk pages; editnotices for mainspace articles need to be created in the MediaWiki space and are an admin-only action. Only a very few ultra-high-traffic articles such as Barack Obama have their own editnotices. If you think Dwight Lauderdale needs one, go to WP:EDITNOTICE and follow the instructions there; however, the level of vandalism does not appear to be high enough to warrant it.

Hope this helps! – iridescent 01:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Damiens.rf

Continuing to template a user's page who you disagree with (especially when you template him twice in 24 hours when he hasn't edited in 24 hours), reverting his edits with uncivil comments and referring to his edits as vandalism is tantamount to harassment. Please stop. --Smashville 01:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, you have broken WP:3RR. --Smashville 01:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

KoshVorlon, your warnings are inappropriate. If multiple editors consider your edits to be in violation of policy, I suggest you take it under serious consideration, instead of dismissing it outright. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

KoshVorlon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm currently discussing this issue (The changes in Dwight Lauderdale) with Nishkid64. I will not be able to continue with this block. Also, reverting vandalism is exempt from 3rr

Decline reason:

Edit warring block endorsed. Content disagreements are not vandalism; sourced content can be removed for legitimate reasons such as those described in WP:NOT. No indication of punitive intent of this block. —  Sandstein  17:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You weren't reverting vandalism. As for your discussion with Nishkid - you can discuss anything you want with him here. I would have been more sympathetic if you had stopped reverting and were just discussing the article, but you continued to revert to your preferred version even after starting to discuss it. --B (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah...I don't appreciate my edits being referred to as "vandalism". And I already told him once that referring to edits that are not vandalism as vandalism constitutes a personal attack. --Smashville 16:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Reverting sourced edits as OR IS vandalism, and that's just what happened here

Per WP:VANDAL it constitutes Sneaky Vandalism and Abuse of tags, both on your part and Damiens.rf. (Again, the information was sourced. Sourced info never equals OR) Also, this block is punative and not preventative, thus making this block against policy. — Kosh 17:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)