Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:53, 18 January 2015

Hanswar32, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Hanswar32! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Misplaced Pages and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Hajatvrc (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the TeahouseThis message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Disputed notability of awards

Please do not add promotional material to Misplaced Pages. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Misplaced Pages is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Caution for adding non-notable purely promotional "awards" to multiple articles about pornstars, awards whose sole purpose is to draw attention to the companies sponsoring them. Thomas.W 08:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I haven't added any promotional material to wikipedia. The awards I added are all properly and independently sourced by notable magazines including AVN which is a leader in the porn industry. This caution is baseless as I'm unaffiliated to any company and gain nothing by sponsoring them. What is the criteria that should be followed in order to identify something as "non-notable purely promotional"? Hanswar32 (talk) 08:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes you have, the "awards" that you are edit-warring to get into multiple biographies about pornographic performers are utterly non-notable and solely intended to draw the attention to the companies who sponsor them (see WP:Notability and WP:Notability (awards); also see WP:Indiscriminate for one of the things Misplaced Pages is not). Warnings have previously been issued to other editors, at least one IP-editor has been blocked, and several articles have been protected to keep the material out (as I'm sure you know...). So stop what you're doing. Thomas.W 08:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

As I’ve previously stated, I have no affiliation to any company let alone porn companies so accusing me of having the sole intention of drawing attention or sponsoring them is an utter lie. With regards to notability, these awards are independent from the performer receiving them and are also covered by independent, non-trivial sources (AVN Magazine) which meet guidelines you’ve provided. With regards to indiscriminate collection of information policy, the encyclopedia value of such awards is subjective and its suitability for inclusion is the real issue being discussed (i.e., notability). I will repeat again that I haven’t added any promotional material to Misplaced Pages and just because you disagree with me over the value of inclusion/notability of such awards doesn’t make your accusation true. It’s one thing to discuss whether such awards meet guidelines of inclusion and another thing to have to defend myself from being a promotional company sponsor. So stop what you’re doing and assume good faith. Hanswar32 (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether the user adding it is affiliated to the company or not, if the awards by their nature and names are purely promotional, and non-notable, repeatedly adding them to multiple articles is promotional spamming. And being covered in AVN-magazine, a magazine by and for the porn business, doesn't automatically make an award notable (see WP:Notability (awards)). So the warning stands. Thomas.W 09:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. I care more about the articles being edited (and the information being unfairly removed) then I do about a baseless warning from an editor who disagrees with me. The issue all boils down to our differing views of what is “purely promotional and non-notable” from which your “warning” originates from. I’ve had a look through WP:Notability (awards) and presented my argument above (which is not limited to it only being sourced by AVN-magazine) for why I believe such awards are notable enough for inclusion. Hanswar32 (talk) 10:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Hanswar32 and welcome to WP. You are obviously a WP:Good faith editor, but could you please stop edit warring over the inclusion of awards in articles? You are jeopardizing these articles and your edits have already led to the semi-protection of many of them. And this is coming from someone who actually agrees with you and is in favor of including these awards in articles. Just stop it please. It's just not worth it. It's an uphill battle that I am not willing to fight. Rebecca1990 (talk) 09:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rebecca1990. I just find it ridiculous (I'm glad you agree with me) that such awards are considered spam or irrelevant when they actually add value to the article by displaying various achievements. The ones jeopardizing these articles are editors who semi-protect and remove such awards, not us who try to make the article better by adding to its value. As far as I'm aware, these awards meet notability guidelines and are recognized and documented by industry leaders such as AVN. Who is to be trusted more? The opinion of anonymous Wikipedians or the independent leader of the industry in question? In any case, thanks for your message and I appreciate your attempt in resolving this dispute. Hanswar32 (talk) 09:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. Only notable awards should ever be added to an article. The easiest way to define "notable" in this case is by checking to see if they have a well-written, long-established Misplaced Pages article about that award. If not, do not ever add it to an article - because THAT is spam. ES&L 12:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Your definition of a "notable" award is what's wrong. CAVR award, NightMoves Adult Entertainment Award, and Golden G-String are 3 such awards which are allowed on all Misplaced Pages articles without dispute and none of them have a "well-written, long-established Misplaced Pages article" about them. Are they now considered spam? If so, how have they been added on every single article for which they have recipients without being removed? Misplaced Pages should never be a source or measuring stick of notability of awards to be included on Misplaced Pages in any case since that's just non-sense. Hanswar32 (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

No - it's not my definition; it's Misplaced Pages's definition. And you personally agreed to the policies and rules when you first created an account. So, live by what you agreed to ... and also live by the agreement that you made that led to your unblocking. Any-reinsertion of a single non-notable award will most definitely result in a new block - and the next may be indefinite ES&L 19:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The fact that it’s Misplaced Pages’s definition and not yours makes the situation even worse. The point I’m making still stands with the 3 examples of awards I provided that each do not have Misplaced Pages articles of their own. Where did I ever say that I intend to break or not live by Misplaced Pages’s policies and rules? All I’m saying is that I disagree with that definition and provided 3 clear examples where this “policy/rule” is being broken without anyone taking action, so why the double-standard? I never contended that inserting non-notable awards will lead to a block, my contention has always been that these awards are legitimate enough according to Misplaced Pages’s standards and practices that occur in reality. Hanswar32 (talk) 10:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

ANI-notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Thomas.W 12:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Moonriddengirl 12:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hanswar32 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand that I have been blocked for edit warring which I shall avoid in the future. Please note that I'm relatively new to Misplaced Pages and still getting familiar with my surroundings. Instead I will seek to resolve disputes through the avenues outlined and provided for me. However it takes two to edit-war and I'm confused as to why I would be blocked alone while User:Thomas.W, the editor whom I'm disputing with (and is just as guilty of edit warring), is not blocked? In light of this, I would appreciate having my block lifted so that I may seek to resolve the dispute through the methods provided and hopefully someone can be kind enough to explain how in an edit war, only one side would be blocked if there is no right or wrong in such circumstances. Thank you. Hanswar32 (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Thank you for indicating your understanding of the policies. Good luck with dispute resolution. Moonriddengirl 15:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to lift your block on your assertion that you will stop, but I want to make sure that you realize that you are not blocked simply for your dispute with User:Thomas.W - you have reverted multiple users across a number of articles, for instance with edits such as this and this. If you confirm your understanding of that and your willingness to talk out the problem rather than simply reverting others, I have no problem with restoring your ability to edit to get on with it. --Moonriddengirl 14:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand. Hanswar32 (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

You should be ready to go. I've unblocked you and checked to be sure that there is no "autoblock" on your account. There should not be. If you encounter any lingering block issues, please just say so, and we'll work it out. Dispute resolution can take patience and time but in the long run is much better for Misplaced Pages. Good luck with it! --Moonriddengirl 15:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Please allow me to politely add to MRG's comments: we also have a concept of WP:NOTTHEM - in the future, your unblock must only focus on your behaviour. As noted, you cannot compare apples to oranges - your block was related to more than just your behavior on the article - it's quite plausible that the other editor was in a different situation, so you can never compare your block to the non-block of another editor. Not trying to make you angry, just trying to provide some additional context/knowledge - I expect that they'll be no further blocks anyway :-) ES&L 16:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I was only looking for clarification when I mentioned the other editor. No reason to be angry at all :-) Hanswar32 (talk) 10:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

How to appropriately resolve disputes

As the notice above indicates, you've been temporarily blocked for edit warring. Many users find themselves confused as to why they were blocked in such a situation as they believed they were acting in the best interest of Misplaced Pages. What it is important for you to understand is that as far as the edit warring policy is concerned there is no right and wrong in an edit war. Anyone who edit wars is wrong and is blocked to prevent the disruption from continuing. There are very few exceptions, such as reverting blatant vandalism, which is not the case here. We don't allow edit warring because it never helps resolve an issue, and it always makes it worse.

What to do instead:

• Mark disputed statements or, if needed, the entire page with appropriate tags
• Initiate discussion on the talk page (note that edit summaries are not a substitute for actual discussion)
• If that does not rectify the issue, there are many methods of dispute resolution on Misplaced Pages that can be used as needed.

In a collaborative encyclopedia, disagreements are bound to rise over article content. It does no one any good - not our editors, nor our readers - when these disagreements are fought through the articles themselves. In order for Misplaced Pages to work, we must work them out collegially, drawing where necessary upon the wider community to help resolve stalemates. --Moonriddengirl 12:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Not broken

Just as an FYI, I thought I'd point out that making edits to point links directly to an article instead of one of its redirects is seen as unnecessary per WP:NOTBROKEN. Dismas| 21:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I kind of figured that it was unnecessary but my attitude up until now was that such a practice was making Misplaced Pages better by getting rid of redirects in favor of direct-linking. Hanswar32 (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Twistys.com

DO you think the creation of this article is a lost cause or that it might have a chance some day? Now that the founder of Freeones.com has been inducted into the AVN Hall of Fame, I think we have a decent chance with that one. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Unless it passes the Misplaced Pages criteria for articles of that nature, it'll very likely eventually be deleted. Hanswar32 (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC

This is a neutral notice to someone who has edited Desireé Cousteau that there is a Request for Comment there. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

CAVR

Hey Hans, there was a discussion and some debate about this on the Project Talk page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pornography/Archive_7#CAVR_Award_based_content_deletions recently. Morbidthoughts and I had further discussion about it User_talk:Morbidthoughts#CAVR. Granted, I'm trusting MT's knowledge and opinion over HW's inane biases, but the CAVR awards seem little more than one guys hobby than any kind of industry worthy "product evaluation". I thought I was making a decent stance for it based on the reported proliferation of reviews, but apparently he had some know biases in how and what he reviewed. As for the "(inter alia) an AFD concluding unanimously that the 'award' failed the GNG", I have no idea what HW was talking about and he never substantiated it. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)