Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:28, 20 October 2007

Please sign your message with ~~~~ and place new messages at the bottom of the page. Thanks! Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6

Deletion

Why have you deleted Henry Sever? There was nothing wrong with it, or was there? Harland1 13:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it because "It is an article about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject." You can recreate it if you want, but please make sure it cites reliable sources so it doesn't get deleted again. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Arch Coal

I just read a fascinating discussion of an article on Misplaced Pages that you created apparently (or copied from a free content source) and Jimmy Wales deleted but was later restored. Did this really happen? Did you honestly not have a conflict of interest of some sort with the Arch Coal company? If the post is true, it seems like Mr. Wales was being really hasty and vindictive for some reason, and nobody really called him on that? Anyway, I for one would appreciate your side of this story, even though it was a year ago. --Earthboat 14:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that story posted by "thekohser" is misleading. Thekohser was banned a while back to thekohser's unacceptable behavior on the project. Thekohser still holds a grudge and loves to latch onto any story that can be twisted to defame wikipedia.

Yes, I started the Arch Coal article. Yes, Jimbo deleted the article. No, I have no conflict of interests with Arch Coal. But the truth is we were at a point where we (as a project) weren't sure how we wanted to deal with editors who have a COI. Jimbo learned that the author of the story, mywikibiz, was paid by Arch Coal to write the story. Jimbo wanted to put a stop to paid editing so he deleted the article and blocked mywikibiz. I felt at the time that the article if judged on it's merits satisfied our inclusion criteria. I took the article to deletion review and the deletion was eventually overturned. Jimbo gave his blessing to the deletion review and stated that what he wanted - a community review of the article. Jimbo was acting in what he felt was the best interests of the project. And I think he was as well. The Arch Coal debate eventually lead to the formulation of WP:COI and WP:COIN as we know them today. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That site is full of people gnashing their teeth over the fact that they've been banned from Misplaced Pages; only a handful of the contributors there have routinely displayed well thought out and reasoned criticisms of Misplaced Pages. I wouldn't include thekohser in said handful.--Isotope23 18:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, J.S, but according to my background reading on the subject, you got a few of the premises incorrect. First, Jimmy Wales encouraged the mywikibiz editing to be done off-site, which it seems it was. Is that what happened with the Arch Coal item? Did you copy it from a non-Misplaced Pages site, or did you create it? This Kohs person, while spouting a bit of venom, does make the point that the Arch Coal "client" wasn't even a client. No money was involved in the construction of their article. (Which I'm still confused, is that was you pasted into Misplaced Pages, J.S?) It sounds to me that a number of Misplaced Pages editors or admins have come to a judgment about editing that might be done by paid encyclopedists, but they're making their evaluation on false assumptions. More clarification would be appreciated, as I try to form a stronger opinion. thanks!!! --Earthboat 20:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to keep yammering, but I'm also seeing that WP:COI existed long before the Arch Coal dust up came along in October 2006. At least 200 edits were already done on WP:COI before your creation of Arch Coal. And, Wales' comment about the "mutually beneficial" agreement with Kohser also came well after at least 150 edits to the original WP:COI policy. Are we to assume that he didn't know about WP:COI when he said it would be okay with him to edit GFDL articles for payment, just as long as they started off-site? This is fascinating!!! --Earthboat 20:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats why I said "as we know them today". WP:COI was a little known backwater page before the Archcoal/mywikibiz nonsense. The whole episode started the dialog that created a greater awareness of the issue. It was latter brought up by the wikipedia scanner issue and a few newspaper articles.

Look, are you just here to troll my page? I'm getting this whole "I'm gonna getcha and tattle to my buddies" vibe from you... and I'm not really keen to play that kind of game.

Oh, I notice you forgot to copy one of the comments from this conversation to my page... I have included it here. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not here to "troll" your page, although it does seem that Isotope23 is following me around since the TrekNation discussion. What I gather from all the evidence is that Mr. Wales told Mywikibiz that he could create GFDL content off-site, and it didn't matter if he was paid for it or not, and if indipendent editors like yourself thought the content was worthy of Misplaced Pages, of course it could be copied into Misplaced Pages since it was GFDL. Then, for some reason, Wales did a complete 180 and set out to block Mywikibiz and any content that come from him. Then everyone was made to believe that the Arch Coal article was paid for, even though it wasn't, and therefore that was a VERY BAD THING, and then the WP:COI was enhanced to include that line of reasoning, all set up under a false premise. If that bothers you and I'm a troll for coming to that conclusion, then that's fine. I won't write again on your talk page. --Earthboat 15:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems your trying to bait me into something. "Troll" was a bad choice of words and I apologize for that. Jimbo blocked mywikibiz because he failed to live up to his end of the bargain. Also, your assuming that Kohser was being truthful about the Archcoal article. I posted it under the assumption that it was paid for and I did my own research to verify that nothing glaring was being left out because of that. Jimbo felt it was tainted with COI, read like advertising copy and acted accordingly. I took it to DRV and Jimbo gave it blessing to restore it if the community felt that was the right thing to do (No, before you get the wrong idea, I didn't seek permission, I simply informed after I started the DRV - Jimbo rarely interferes with the community). Eventually DRV (sorta) sided with me and it was restored. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Not trying to bait you. I think you've cleared up just about everything I was wondering about this situation of paid editing. The only point of confusion I still have is how MywikiBiz "failed to live up to his end of the bargain". How so? --Earthboat 14:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It was something to do with how his articles were making it up on Misplaced Pages. I was much less involved with that situation. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The FreeSwitch Debacle

JS: First thanks for more clearly explaining the Notability issues... it appears the talk page has been locked for new users so I apologize if this is the wrong location for this. I wanted to pass along this article http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061016.gtfrontlines16/BNStory/ another mention of FS while only in passing it does show that the media is aware of the project. Please advise if this is the type of thing you are looking for. --Silik0nJesus 09:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This would fall under "trivial" coverage... dosn't provide much in terms of establishing notability. Is in indicator that the busness might be on the cusp of reaching notability however. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Solar power

What a consensus of 1-0 isn't good enough? There are also the proponent and the author and if you count the author of the other version, all of whom abstained from voting, that still makes it 3-1. 199.125.109.41 19:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Gone with the Wind

I appreciate the concern you voiced in your message to me. I do take civility seriously; the nature of my messages, including the most recent, on the article's Talk page reflect my best judgment about how to effectively deal with this particularly clever troll. He has succeeded in luring several productive editors into squandering considerable amounts of time and energy. The nature of my comments was designed not only to affect his future behavior but to highlight that behavior in a memorable way for other editors who might be tempted to waste more time and energy dealing with him.—DCGeist 19:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

While I can appreciate the "tuff love" aspect of what you are doing, you run a very serious risk of looking like a dick. At some point incivility becomes disruptive to the smooth operations of wikipedia, and as you are aware, other then diplomacy there is only one tool available to admins to end a disruption. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. And as I am not an admin, I have to apply a different decision-making process in deciding how to deal with the major disruption caused by this anonymous troll. Risking looking like a dick is intentionally part of the method I concluded would be most effective in this case. I was blocked a month and a half ago or so not for being a dick, but for completely losing my shit for particular circumstantial reasons--the reference is irrelevant to this case. Using the tools I have at hand (i.e., words and that's all), I have engaged in a focused, clear-headed response to a troll--a response that incorporates a measured amount of incivility--in order to address a serious case of disruption. I appreciate that you disagree with my judgment in this matter. I remain convinced for the time being that my judgment is correct. If you disagree strongly enough, then you should now move to have me blocked if you believe that's appropriate.—DCGeist 20:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion if I may ask about the Mutates

Since the section for Mutates is deemed unworthy of an article, would adding the Gargoyles Clone Clan be appropriate, since they are associated with The Mutates? 74.61.186.169 00:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit lost... not sure what your talking about. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

In the Gargoyles Character section, they include entries on a Gargoyle Clan consisting of Clones. Those clones have strongly associate with the Mutates. So I was suggesting to move the Clone entries to the Mutate section to expand it. Would that be ok? 74.61.186.169 02:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why you think Mutate (Gargoyles) needs to be deleted. It covers a particular group of characters. And character groups don't stike me as a violation of any rule. As the discussion on that page mentions, it would only make the List Of Gargoyles Characters too big in content. 71.115.192.199 07:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I just don't think it's appropriate for an encyclopedia to enter the waters of what is really more appropriate for a fan-site. I think a brief description in a larger list would be fine... And, in fact, the page does violate some of our rules. See WP:V and WP:OR. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The information happens to be vaild. It came from Greg Weisman's page Ask Greg, and if you can't trust the producers own words, then I feel for you. The problem is that some spammers were using the links to the site in their vandalisim resulting in wikipedia banning the links to said site. It seems to me that banning usage of a website just because some spammers messed up is a violation of the good faith policy. 71.115.192.199 19:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not that I don't trust the procurer... it's just that it doesn't satisfy our policies for citations and verifiability. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And how are we suppose to link to a website that's banned from use? Because that's where most of the controversal info came from. 71.115.192.199 19:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter... it's not the kind of content we should be including here anyway. It's much better suited to a fan-site or a guide of some kind. We need our articles to talk about the subjects in a way that deals with how they subject interacts with the real world and not try to summaries in-show events or storyline. Also, this conversation really should continue on the AFD debate page. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Content? Now you're making it out to be a porn site. I assure you, the banning of the site was due to a few spammers.

What bothers me about it is your comment on it: "I just don't think it's appropriate for an encyclopedia to enter the waters of what is really more appropriate for a fan-site." It seems to me that your reason for deletion is more a personal preference than for the good of Misplaced Pages. Not all of life's problems can be solved by deleting them.

Has anyone with higher authority suggested deletion of the site? 71.115.192.199 20:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not share your point of view in the deletion debate? My opinions are based on how I read policy and my opinions are in line with the majority on wikipedia. Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. See also our essay on fancruft, our guideline on how to write about fiction and our guideline on how to evaluate Notability. Once you have reviewed those essays and guidelines you'll see where I'm coming from with my nomination and you'll be able to make a more persuasive counter-argument at the deletion debate. However, I'm no longer going to engage in this conversation on my talk page... it is counter productive. Porn? What are you talking about? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Spamming a reliable source is still spamming

Re: . This editor's behavior is clearly spam and is inappropriate per WP:SPAM and WP:NOT#LINK. Sorry if I wrote the report in a manner where it could be interpreted that the links are low-quality. --Ronz 16:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If the links improve the quality of our article then WP:SPAM should be ignored per WP:IAR. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess we disagree. More importantly, I don't see any evidence that 24.148.22.105 made any effort to increase the quality of the articles. His sole contribution to wikipedia is to add 22 britannica links to 22 different articles. --Ronz 20:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you think Britannica has any need to spam wikipedia? Without that I'm left with assuming the user meant to be helpfull. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think employees of Britannica might spam Misplaced Pages, thinking that they'd benefit from doing so. Just look through COIN and WPSPAM to see the problem occurs regularly. --Ronz 22:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)