Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:15, 10 June 2011

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, MakeSense64, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Versus22 _talk 07:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Software prices?

Would you care to point to the specific instance in the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style backing up your claim that Misplaced Pages does not publish software prices? On the contrary, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, and the cost of any particular software package is highly relevant. The price alone generally tells you whether it's a consumer shareware-type application (like Fractal Time is) or an enterprise-level application that costs thousands of dollars per seat. --Cyde Weys 21:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You may want to check out the guidelines explaining what WP is not: WP:NOTDIRECTORY.See Point 4, quoting:

"... therefore product prices should not be quoted in an article unless they can be sourced and there is a justified reason for their mention. Examples of justified reasons include notable sales of rare collectors items, prices relating to discussion of a price war, and historical discussion of economic inflation. On the other hand, street prices are trivia that can vary widely from place to place and over time. Therefore, lists of products currently on sale should not quote street prices. In addition, Misplaced Pages is not a price guide to be used to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices of a single product across different countries or regions."

--MakeSense64 (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I still contend that there is definitely a reason to publish at least a ballpark figure of how much software costs, as that tells you a lot about the software. However, the article in question is about an idea moreso than the software, so the cost wasn't doing much for that article. If the article was just about the software, though, I'd definitely include it along the lines of "As of January 2009, the software was $19.99 per license" — that is useful information. And by giving the date, you aren't creating a directory field of sorts that has to be constantly keep up-to-date. --Cyde Weys 12:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have seen a long discussion on that topic here: Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_11#Price_guide_.28again.29, so I guess that's where you can have your voice heard on that point. --MakeSense64 (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. It looks like that discussion is a year and a half stale, though. Maybe I'll have to start a new one somewhere. --Cyde Weys 15:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Academics

Re your comment on the Elwell page, the bar does tend to be higher for academics, but not it seems for professors. A mini debacle I've had occasionally is over the notion that if someone has got the professor title in front of their name, there is a default position of notability. If you want to get a BLP quickly beyond new page patrol, make sure the person is called a professor - CSD-A7 won't apply. I don't agree with it - but there it is :) The plus side is that once academics are there, they're harder to dislodge as their work can be assumed peer-reviewed. This means that non-academics who produce worthy works, and those such as Mr Elwell, have a higher bar to jump when it comes to work and honour verifiability and General Notability Guidlines. Acabashi (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's the distinction I saw being made on the pseudoscience guidelines. Since psci lacks the peer review process that normal sciences have, the bar is put higher for psci to get notability. So being published or the head of an institution is in itself not sufficient in the case of psci. In those cases the general WP:BIO or WP:N guidelines can establish notability.

Maybe I will try to put this question on some relevant noticeboard.

Today I came across this one Marina_Bai. BLP with notability for only a single event. Although it is a rather funny story, this is probably one for deletion. How would I go about that? MakeSense64 (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh God not another one - Astrology is a hornet's nest. I've added a find sources in the talk page. If it was just the one source you could have gone for Articles for Deletion, but there is stuff in GNews, GBooks, and the BBC, so no chance I fear - I've added a sources temp anyway - if you want to improve the article with the cites go ahead - I won't as I've had my fill for now with Elwell. BTW did you see that the Deborah Houlding article has been worked on and much improved by User:Tomwsulcer - I might have mentioned it. You might have noticed that Clooneymark has reverted Elwell and added more stuff. You could bring up a question on noticeboards about the odd teacher location and notability threshold level of psci - it would be useful to see if Elwell's gong is seen as worthy of mention. I think your intimation that psci are in academia because there is nowhere else for them to go is a sound point - it confused me as you found out. Cheers. Acabashi (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sock

I asked for an investigation into Makepiece101 as a sock or meat puppet of one of the editors of the Elwell page - the account has been blocked see here. Out of courtesy, this information copied to other current editors of the Elwell talk page should not be referred to within the Elwell talk page. Acabashi (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, no problem. I understand. Didn't know that was even possible.

More strange things appear to be going on behind the screens. I don't know what to make of this:

I put my name on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Astrology/Members a couple days ago, and one of the editors on Elwell page followed me there within hours. You can see Makepiece101 followed suit (and pretending to be a sceptic). But now 5 more new members have suddenly joined there, in what appears to have been a very inactive project with few members for years. Coincidence? Or is this more forces being mobilized?

I have been learning a lot about WP in just a couple days.

Thanks for keeping me posted. I think I will sit back and watch the show for a while on Elwell's page, perhaps making some quick comments.

Every suggestion we have done so far has fallen on deaf ears, and I remember the saying about leading a horse to water. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If an editor carries on doing this kind of thing there would be, no doubt, a permanent block on their account. If it is shown that an editor is garnering forces for their point of view from other legitimate editors - usually through talk pages, but possibly through Wiki emails too, this would be grounds for a block. Sockpuppetry and Meatpuppetry are two of the worst "crimes" that can be committed on Misplaced Pages as it can, amongst other things, be used to skew articles in favour of a non-neutral point of view and bully other editors, and is frequently used by those who wish to push their own point of view regardless of others.

- Makesense64 I have deleted comments that break the Misplaced Pages policy that you invoked for your own purposes not so very long ago. Remember, this is what you did yourself, so I assume it is an appropriate action to take. Feel free to remove this comment too if you wish. I am offering it merely as an explanation.Clooneymark (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Acabashi (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

- Makesense64 I have deleted comments that break the Misplaced Pages policy that you invoked for your own purposes not so very long ago. Remember, this is what you did yourself, so I assume it is an appropriate action to take. Feel free to remove this comment too if you wish. I am offering it merely as an explanation. Clooneymark (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

all astonishing. I think I prefer my quiet little geography hobby!! Possibly because I dont come up against this kind of thing usually, Im not really sure what to say regarding Elwell edits, so Im now staying very quiet and would really appreciate advice? It still reads very "peacocky" to me and certainly not a neutral point of view but since our editor friend hasnt listened thus far I cant imagine him changing his mind and listening now. Panderoona (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes it's better to sit back and let the dust settle for a while. One critical sentence was added as soon as I suggested it, but given the rather large body of critical articles about Elwell it is not getting due weight imo. Adding criticism section would be much better, but how to get across that the criticism section is normally not written by the editor who is most obviously a strong proponent of the subject of the article?

I can easily imagine that geography articles are a lot more peaceful. I see you have done a great job in that regard.

MakeSense64 (talk) 05:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)