Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:31, 7 August 2007

July 2007

Do not delete factual information on Misplaced Pages. Thank You! Please do not delete content from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to Marv Albert. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Misplaced Pages:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Angel Of Sadness /C 23:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It was constuctive in that it removed a section comprised totally of opinion. Try looking at the edit before slapping some warning tag on this page. 24.4.253.249 00:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

All I know is that you deleted content from the article without an edit summary. If you don't use an edit summary such edits tend to look like vandalism. Please use edit summaries in future. Thank you Angel Of Sadness /C 10:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok I should have apoligized earlier but I am now. We both made mistakes with this, so let's just forget about it and continue improving wikipedia rather than fighting over a silly thing like this. Happy Editing Angel Of Sadness /C 18:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. 24.4.253.249 18:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from All the Young Fascists. Please be more careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Misplaced Pages without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Brianga 05:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It was absolutely intentional. I removed material that had been tagged as unreferenced since July 2006. As the tag says, "Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed." 24.4.253.249 06:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did to DJ Bone. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —DerHexer (Talk) 10:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. No, once again it's removing very old unsourced information. See my response above. 24.4.253.249 10:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

speedy

the way WP:CSD reads, speedy is only for articles that make no assertion of notability or importance. to say one has written some books is an assertion of importance. It depends on the importance of the books, and that is not something one or two people really should decide in a rush. (for web contents and bands, it's different for practical reasons, because 99% is worthless) I doubt he actually is important, but afd is the place for that--or better prod, if you think it won't be contested. This is interpreted in practice to mean no good-faith assertion "I am king of the world" does not count, though people try it. Conceivably it could be redefined as no assertion that would hold up in afd, but that isn't what it says now. I don't think it should, either--your judgment is sensible but not everyone's is, and it would soon become used as "I don't think it is notable, or at least i wish things like this weren't here." I'm very cautious at this-- a more experienced admin removed one of my own tags this morning, & he was right. DGG (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Here are some other hints and tips:

• I would recommend that you get a username. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Misplaced Pages, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and there are many benefits of having a username. (If you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.)
• When using talk pages, please sign your name at the end of your messages by typing four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username (or IP address) and the date.

If you have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or type {{helpme}} on this talk page and a user will help you as soon as possible. I will answer your questions as far as I can. Again, welcome, and I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. 17Drew 06:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Carmel High School

G'day,

following on the discussion about this edit and your query on my talk, {{unreferenced}} is not a challenge in itself; it is a maintenance tag that indicates that an article needs referencing. A quick google news archive search indicates that some of the facts you removed were readily verifiable, so deleting these facts isnt the best solution to improve the article in question. John Vandenberg 14:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:CITE, any information that is likely to be challenged and has no reference should be tagged with {{unreferenced}} or {{fact}} and then removed "if no source is produced within a reasonable time". Waiting over a year is more than reasonable. 17Drew 15:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so I'm getting two very different responses, one referencing Wiki guidelines and one which seems to turn them on their head. John, I point you towards the POLICY page on verifiability - "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. ou may tag the sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, or tag the article by adding {{Not verified}} or {{Unreferenced}}. Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long." 24.4.253.249 18:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't respond sooner. As you are aware, I was reviewing your recent contributions on the weekend because there is a lot of information being deleted amongst your earlier edits ( amoung others). Of those, I have researched a few of the topics and found that the removed information can be readily verified. Category:Articles lacking sources from June 2006 is part of the Misplaced Pages:Unreferenced articles project: "the goal of this project is to ensure that articles meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability, by including at least one reliable published (online or offline) reference." While it is acceptable to delete material that has been unsourced for so long, doing so on a large scale without checking for sources borders on cutting off the nose to spite the face. As you are working on articles in that category, there is an expectation that you are adding sources to these articles. As a result, I have reverted a few of your edits and improved a few others, but please bear in mind that there are a lot of your edits (esp. since the "Carmel" edit) that I have agreed with. John Vandenberg 06:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad we agree that I haven't been doing anything wrong :) And I do appreciate you actually looking at the content of the edits I made, unlike some of the other contributors to this talk page. I do, however, disagree with the "expectation" you present since it seems to be contrary to Wiki policy. I'm not going to track down sources for Australian footballers, for example, because it's not a topic that interests me - I'll let the fans take care of that if it matters to them. Some of the stuff "needing" references is obvious POV, OR, and/or too trivial to even be in the article. Others, as you've seen, lead me down some interesting paths (I'm still trying to reconcile the timeline for the Darien II). 24.4.253.249 13:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) The expectation I talk of is the difference between not doing the wrong thing, and doing the right thing. Wiki policy tries to define what is explicitly wrong, and encourage what is right (the original contributors should have provided sources). However if you're tackling maintenance tasks, you have already taken on the task of fixing what others have neglected, in which case the most productive thing to do is add sources where they can be added (i.e. OR can only be called that if it cant be sourced easily). A lot of valid information will take years to find its way back onto an article once it is lost in the history. I also couldnt be bothered looking for verification about Barry Hall, despite being a fan and knowing that the guts of the information removed is able to be sourced. Hopefully someone else will notice and undertake that. OTOH, I am interested in towns, schools, history, and other odd-balls, and hence I have taken on a few of the challenges you have made by removing content. John Vandenberg 13:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I think the challenge came a year ago when the unreferenced tag was added - I'm just bringing it forward. Adding sources may be the best thing for Misplaced Pages, but perhaps not the most productive thing for me. The same could be said for the person who originally added the material, the person who placed the tag, and everybody who's looked at the articles since June 2006. Choosing to tackle the backlog imparts no extra responsibilities. But at this point it's just quibbling; we're both working towards improving the quality of the articles, just from different perspectives, both of which are correct. If mine spurs you and others to do research and add citations that I choose not to bother with, then in the end everybody benefits.

As for Barry, I hope you noticed that I only removed negative unsourced material, per BLP, and left in a lot of stuff that could have been removed, like "Hall is instantly recognisable with his large stature, balding blond head and distinctive spider tattoo on his right shoulder." Try finding a source for that claim! 24.4.253.249 22:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Anandham

Simply quoting a policy, then saying it can't be verified doesn't mean it can't, have you even tried? The show itself can be used as a source for the plot details, but yes there are some small unsourced pov bits which should be removed, and the article is, in general, of poor quality, but leaving it as simply a list of characters and who plays them is making it much much worse, if the article bothers you that much, prod it or afd it, it would probably pass on lack of notability--Jac16888 21:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Why, yes, I did. I couldn't find anything from a 3rd party reliable source. And I thought plot summaries as stand-alone articles were expressly frowned upon at WP:WWIN; "Misplaced Pages articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic, but not as a separate article." 24.4.253.249 22:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Misplaced Pages, as you did to Agni. Misplaced Pages is not a mere directory of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. Since Misplaced Pages uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Buddhipriya 07:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Take a closer look at the edit I made; I didn't add the link. 24.4.253.249 08:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there

I just wanted to note that after stumbling into your edit history and talk page, I feel like starting some kind of IP Editor Anti-Defamation League. Unfortunately if you don't register an account, you're just going to be slapped with more of these unnecessary -- and slightly insulting -- warning templates. Perhaps I should create a special barnstar for your situation ;) Eleland 01:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL Thanks for the laugh. It's a shame that such a prejudice does exist. If you create such a Barnstar, I'll proudly display it at the top of the page. 24.4.253.249 19:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply

No problem, I sort of assumed that had happened. I've been not always getting edit conflict lately too. Usually when there is database lag. IPSOS (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Bot warning (why is a bot authorized to determine human motive?)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Alter ego, was not constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Alter ego was changed by 24.4.253.249 (c) (t) deleting 15140 characters on 2007-08-03T17:21:24Z. Thank you. ClueBot 17:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Your edit met the bot's vandalism detection parameters. If you leave a note at the page indicated in the warning, the creator of the bot can improve the parameters. Some false positives are acceptable when the bot still catches mostly vandalism. Leebo /C 17:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've already reported the false positive of the mindless bot. This is starting to piss me off. Why the fuck is a bot authorized to determine malicious intent? Can it read edit summaries or investigate talk page discussions? Obviously not, but it can throw around labels like "vandalism" without it's creator ever having to be involved. 24.4.253.249 17:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This bot is on a trial run... I think it's just unlucky that it happened to be you (one who frequently receives invalid vandalism warnings) who got a false positive. Leebo /C 17:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I see it as indicitive of how easily "vandalism" accusations are made and the lack of repercussions such labeling can have for the accusers. 24.4.253.249 17:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that - I'm the owner of the bot and I apologize that your edit was reverted. Bots are very important and necessary for the functioning of Misplaced Pages, and they greatly aid users. Out of over 250 page reverts, this is the first false positive. The test which triggered this edit being marked as vandalism is that virtually the entire page was replaced with a relatively small amount of text, which is usually indicative of vandalism. A human looking at that edit could easily revert it as well unless they did thorough research, as I have now done. There is protection built into the bot to prevent edit wars - note that it did not attempt to correct the page a second time after you re-deleted the text. So again, sorry about that, but it doesn't seem to have caused much trouble. As a side note, you really should have a user account instead of just editing anonymously - this bot considers edits made by actual (and active, as you are) users to be more credible than anonymous edits. Winbots 18:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that last point is one of his pet peeves. It's a fact that most vandalism comes from anonymous users, but that doesn't make any given edit by an anonymous user less credible. Leebo /C 19:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand the functionality and purpose of bots; what I find deplorable is giving one the ability to make allegations of vandalism. I already have to contend with plenty of humans who can't tell the difference. Since Misplaced Pages uses a definition of vandalism that is dependent on the intent of the editor, it seems obvious that no bot can make that determination. Simply change the wording that the bot uses in it's edits and talk page warnings and I'll have much less of a problem with it's use. (I don't like the prejudice against IP editors, but I understand that one.) Where do I go to comment on this bots "trial run?" 24.4.253.249 00:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You should not take the warnings personally if your intent was not to vandalize. The bot is designed to be as unintrusive as possible. It will not revert changes after the first change, neither will it revert changes by registered users with 50 or more edits. If you wish the bot to not revert any changes made by you, it would be best to get an account, but if you do not wish to get an account, the second best thing would be to add the your IP to the bot's whitelist which is publically editable. By the way, do you have any beef with MartinBot? MartinBot does exactly the same thing as ClueBot does. If ClueBot hadn't reverted your edit, it would be likely that MartinBot would have. About the trial run, it is no different than any other bots' trial run, and you should be able to find it easily. Winbots 00:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) I take all accusations of vandalism personally because, by their very definition, they denigrate my motives. That is why I've bothered to respond to the various other accusations on this page. If ClueBot hadn't made such an unequivacable claim of vandalism I wouldn't have reacted to strongly. I don't recall encountering MartinBot, but if it uses similar wording then yes, I would indeed have a problem with it. Human intelligence is needed to ascertain a motive. To paraphrase one of my edit summaries, automating accusations of vandalism is simply automating bad faith. 24.4.253.249 01:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed the bot. Please let me know if it reverts any more of your edits. Winbots 20:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Haha, I'm jealous. 17Drew 00:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL I never thought it would really happen. Thank you. 24.4.253.249 00:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Prod. on Fred Baker (IETF chair)

Hi, I've removed your prod. on Fred Baker. I would argue his involvement in his "highly technical field" makes him exactly notable in that field. If you disagree, feel free to send it over to WP:AFD. KTC 07:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I really don't care enough to bother. I did put the COI tag back based directly on an edit summary in which he identified himself as the topic and made substantial changes that persist to this day. 24.4.253.249 08:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Warthog

For an IP address with no watch list, you're mighty obsessed with this article. Baseball Bugs 03:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, and by the way, IP address, don't be giving me orders and threats. You're a nobody from nowhere. Baseball Bugs 03:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• And you have also done 3 reverts in 24 hours. Don't be lecturing somebody else about a revert war(t) that you started. Baseball Bugs 03:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• It is not possible to make a "personal" attack on an anonymous IP address. Stop already with your lecturing. Baseball Bugs 03:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)