Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:45, 16 August 2015

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Regarding Official language Correction for Vidyaranyapura wiki page

Hi, Kannada is the only official language of Vidyaranyapua, Bangalore. Refer your own wikipage: http://en.wikipedia.org/Bangalore to see kannada the official language. Vidyaranyapura is the part of Bangalore and Official language must remain same. Unwanted languages have been put there and I have corrected it, kindly approve my changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.70.117 (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• I've changed it. Per this, the official government report on official languages in India (which is the only source we should accept for it), Kannada is the only official language in all of Karnataka state. Thomas.W 19:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Thomas.W and 117.192.70.117: Sounds good, thanks for the correction/clarification! Fyddlestix (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

New section

How may i contact you to discuss your edits? Thank you very much. Email possible or,this way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingseason (talk • contribs) 13:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kingseason: If you really want to email me, there is a link on the left side of this page titled "email this user" that you can use. But assuming that this is about the article Robert Ira Lewy, I strongly suggest that you start (or join) the conversation on that article's talk page, here. I am only one editor and there are others who have been or will be editing that page - it's usually best to keep discussion related to the article on its talk page, where everyone can see and read it.

Also, while I have your attention - please read up on some of wikipedia's policies - especially on:

• conflict of interest: if you have a close connection to the subject of the article, you really should not be editing it. That doesn't mean you can't be involved, it just means that it's best to suggest revisions on the article's talk page, where other, un-involved editors can evaluate them impartially.
• reliable sources - many of the sources you had linked in the article weren't verifiable or reliable, and un-sourced material in a biography often gets removed.
• What Misplaced Pages is not - wikipedia is not a means of promotion.

I hope you can join the conversation on the article's talk page, that is really the very best place to raise any concerns that you have or settle any disputes about the article's content. Best, Fyddlestix (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

An RfA you might be interested in

The editor we worked with on Ankit Love is being nominated to become an admin. Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/NeilN Jbh 13:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: Oh cool, thanks! I see/run into NeilN all the time, I think he'd be a great candidate. Never would have noticed if you hadn't mentioned it though, RFA is not a page/area I watch usually. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I keep his talk page on my watch list and saw the discussion there. I think he would make a great admin also, I just wanted to keep the notification neutral since I am not sure if CANVASS would apply. Enjoy your weekend! Jbh 14:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Breast Implant litigation

the references paint the experts as paid persons who will say anything for money. What I was trying to prove was that my contributions were peer reviewed scientific contributions of national note. Refs 4 and 9.could not a statement be made that my interest was scientific and predated the litigation? Likewise, I'd appreciate omitting the dollar figures. Do they add anything more than just being inflammatory? Irrelevant to the scientific issue? I believe my peer reviewed papers reviewed by editorial boards of respected journals should trump a one sided newspaper article. Sincerely yours Robert Lewy Kingseason (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kingseason: I do understand your concerns and I want to make sure that the article is fair to its subject - I've raised the issue at the biographies of living person's noticeboard here and asked some other editors to weigh in, but I wouldn't get your hopes up that the article will be returned to its former state. The NY times articles are the most reliable and notable sources that we have on Lewy, there would need to be a very compelling reason for not summarizing/acknowledging what they say about Lewy in the article. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Expansion

I hope its possible to do the Proposed Expansion of my article suggested by Marchjuly. I know you worked diligently on this too. Thank you. Robert LewyKingseason (talk) 10:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Article inclusion of references greatly appreciated. The breast implant business, though nicely softened, is a bit one sided. Just please allow me to say this: the NIH was worried enough about silicone immune problems to convene a symposium in Mharmfularch 1995 in Bethesda, shortly before the NYT declared that the matter was settled. The Preface and chapter citations written by me were from the proceedings of this meeting in the series "Currents Topics in Microbiology and Immunology" published the following year. Would it not be possible, since this is a third party opinion, to state that after the NY Times comment in the article,"However in March 1995 at the National Institutes of Health, a meeting was held to evaluate the potential biological activity of silicones" or similar language and cite the Proceedings as cited below? also I had no part in huge awards; i worked for the court to implement a court-approved class action settlement, not any trial work. in paragraph two "the effect of aspirin on heart disease" (citation needed), perhaps more in keeping with the references which don't mention aspirin directly, one might state "the effect of platelets and thromboxanes on heart disease" instead and then cite those publications (2,4,6-11) in References section. Finally the exact reference for my membership in MMRF Legacy Society showing my name is www.gftpln.org/Article.do?orgId=757&articleId=15295 Thank you Robert Lewy Kingseason (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kingseaon: Please bring this up (and raise future issues/concerns) on the article's talk page - there's not much point just addressing these kinds of questions/comments to me, because there are multiple people who have been working on the article and weighing in on it's content. It's really best to keep all the discussion in one place. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Antifeminism discussion on AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Didaev (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Have fun with that, I really don't think this is an AN/I-worthy issue. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC closure challenge

The closing of an RFC in which you participated, is being challenged at WP:AN#RFC closure challenge - Cwobeel (talk)

Thank you

Hi Fyddlestix. Thank you for making me aware that someone was slandering me. That user's talk page was not on my watch list, so I would have never known had you not raised it at AE. I very much appreciate your diligence and concern.- MrX 16:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@MrX: No problem! It was such an over-the-top (and non-sensical) personal attack, reporting it at AE kind of seemed like a no-brainer. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Dalton McGuinty

Dear Fyddlestix i know your concern about the safety of the Misplaced Pages but the article of Dalton McGuinty has a very perfect detail with a date prefix is not harm at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.69.79.32 (talk) 06:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Agim Hushi CSD nomination

Next time could you please check the origin of the material before you nominate? Wording like ""he specialized in pedagogy of singing...." existed on Misplaced Pages in 2012 and the website you are flagging says "copyright 2014". The fact that errors in grammar and wording are copied wholesale from Misplaced Pages that are shown to have evolved on Misplaced Pages clearly indicates the site is copying without attribution. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Also - it should have been super clear from the website and the format that Misplaced Pages was the original source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: Fair enough, not sure how I missed that. I'll check twice next time. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

No worries, just saw on it on the Dr's page and noticed the template despite him having no responsibility for the incarnation or the supposed issue. Misplaced Pages's informative templates are mean sounding by the way. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Christina Hoff Sommers

I was curious why you deleted the last post to Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers. I disagree with the IP's recommendation, but I thought it was worth maintaining. Andrew 15:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Andrewman327: Thanks for noticing, I fixed it. I was actually trying to sign the comment for the ip - no idea how I managed to delete it. I guess that's what I get for trying to edit a talk page on my phone! Fyddlestix (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Totally understand. Misplaced Pages is stuck in 2005 when it comes to mobile editing. Andrew 15:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Nice work on Jerry Speziale. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: Hey, thanks! There's still a ton of work to do - it was a pretty bad puff piece to start, and this guy has attracted a ton of controversy over the course of his career - it's hard to figure out what to include/how to treat some of this stuff. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yep. Well, the article needed someone like you, and you have gone beyond the call of duty. (I get so boooooooooooooooooored with writing biographies...). Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Echosmith

You do not appear to be an admin so you really should not contribute to an edit war that you were not previously involved. There is already much discussion going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyth83 (talk • contribs)

@Nyth83: I'm aware that I'm not an admin, thank you. Fortunately, there's no requirement that I be one in order to prevent someone from re-inserting a potential BLP violation, against an apparent (or at least emerging) consensus at BLPN. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

I am indeed an idiot. I have fixed the closure. Unfortunately it's still not going to please anyone. Guy (Help!) 18:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@JzG: Yeah, the dispute over that article is a total shit show. A "no consensus" result is unfortunate as it likely means that the dispute will drag on for even longer, but I'm glad that that particular RFC has been put out of its misery finally. Thanks for the correction and sorry if my complaint/explanation wasn't clear at first. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your willingness to help on Panos G. Georgopoulos. I always have some trepidation as to how much cutting to do in such circumstances, finding the right balance between a bloated c.v. and a reasonable encyclopedic entry. I figure unless the subject is Chekhov or Oppenheimer, a dozen publications should be enough for a listing. Which raises a broader point--do we have a guideline re: such lists for academics, or are we left to make subjective decisions on how much to include? I couldn't find any guidance on the matter. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:18BA:9D03:B907:ADF2 (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@2601:188:0:ABE6:18BA:9D03:B907:ADF2: Thanks! As far as I know it's a subjective evaluation - but if you look around you'll see that the "publications" list rarely takes up more than 1/4 of an article for most articles of this type, often less. If someone has a really long list of publications that are all notable, they will often be spun off into a separate list article, but this is usually only done for very notable and prolific writers/authors/academics. My approach to such matters is to take my cue from WP:BOLD - I guess some people might see that as a "bull in a china shop" approach, but I think it's important not to let wikipedia turn into a database of CVs. People are always free to re-add content if they think too much was removed. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Very best, 2601:188:0:ABE6:18BA:9D03:B907:ADF2 (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Speculation

Removing cited material from an article based on your own speculation as to where the reliable source took it from is not how we do things here. If you disagree with putting it in Misplaced Pages's voice, it's better to add, "According to TVQC, so-and-so later advocated for the use of violence...". Cla68 (talk) 04:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cla68: I'm well aware of "how we do things here," but thanks for your patronizing note! I think you misunderstood my edit summary - I was not speculating about where the source got its information, I was suggesting that the source is not a reliable one, especially for content that clearly violates WP:BLP (accusing an individual, by name, of a serious crime, with only a tabloid-quality, obviously POV "news" source as the only supporting reference would seem to fit the bill there). I've raised this on the article's talk page, please reply there rather than here. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry re: ES

Sorry about that. I don't normally edit on controversial topics, and thus it doesn't even occur to me that I should be doing so. This issue has just really caught my attention. I'll try to use them more going forward. --BrianCUA (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your message to me

Hi,

You asked me to stop disruptive editing. the editing was personal accusations against me which is untrue and had no relevance to the discussion. If you look at the top of the page, it says "This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability." Therefore you are wrong to say this. Ibt2010 (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ibt2010: The comments you deleted were a legitimate attempt to discuss the issue - you are not allowed to delete other people's talk page comments like that. Please stop. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, please provide source to rules why you can't delete swearing, spamming and defamation. believe you to be wrong here. Ibt2010 (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

See here. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Antikyra

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Antikyra. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Please don't edit war

. If you disagree with an edit, and it isn't an obvious BLP violation, take it to the talk page first. When someone takes the time to add info to an article, it's very rude to erase it forthright like that and that's not how we try to do things here. Cla68 (talk) 10:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cla68: It's very hard to believe that someone with as many edits as you can be this confused about what is or isn't an "edit war." You added content which I did not think was acceptable, so I removed it. For you to add it back without consensus would be edit warring, but my removing it is emphatically not. See WP:BRD. You should now seek consensus on talk before once again adding this (obviously inappropriate and unacceptable) "source" back into the page. Good luck with that. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Umm... Not sure what you are accusing me of

Regarding the André Marin page, I only have one editing account. If anything in the last edit I tried to fix non-NPOV that someone else had added but didn't spend a lot of time on it. The previous format had a strong voice that took away from a neutral POV near the end of the article. I'll take a look again to see if I can figure out what is going on, but I did notice non-NPOV, and did try to fix it. It detracts from the strength and balance of the article. Unfortunatley the whole thing started out very poorly and seems to be swinging back to non-NPOV from time to time. It seemed to settle for awhile but it seems to be coming back again. I'll check it out and see what I can do. In the meantime I'd appreciate it if you could point out specific areas somehow so I'm not searching all over the place. In addition I don't appreciate your insinuation that I have as you put it, an "axe to grind" although you clearly have one to grind with me for some reason. So in the future, please try to avoid flaming so what needs to be done, CAN be done, and keep your crappy opinion to yourself. Love, CheckersBoard. <3 CheckersBoard (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@CheckersBoard: I have no particular axe to grind with you, and apologize if I gave you that impression. I agree that the Marin article needs considerable improvement and work - but I have noticed that a number of your edits, including these , among others, are problematic. They violate wikipedia's policies on original research, and seem unduly focused on adding negative information about Marin, while removing - or failing to mention - information that might be construed as reflecting positively on him. I urge you to review wikipedia's policies on biographies, on WP:NPOV, on original research, and on neutral point of view if you plan on making similar edits to the article in the future. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Jerry Speziale

I'm trying to get someone to repair the page under Jerry Speziale. Being someone in the court system, I have reviewed the page and see that information was removed about the case involving Lori Mambelli. Mr. spazzing out in that case was found and completely exonerated not guilty and all civil accounts. The page is making it appear as if he was involved when in fact it was clear he was not in the court transcripts and articles.

I believe that information and slanderous and making the perception that Mr. Spence yeah did something inappropriate with Mambelli. You clearly appear to have the best handle on these pages and editing and I am reaching out to see if you can change the page back to it without that information because it is damaging and a very big mischaracterization that could create liable for slanderous issues.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatricekerwin (talk • contribs)