Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:01, 24 October 2006

FEMA Trailer

I suggest you rename the article "FEMA temporary disaster housing", or some such, and re-write a bit to expand the scope. Unfortunately, but logically, it's usually the case that people interested in deleting hang out in AFD. I'll never understand the deletionist mentality. At any rate, it's one way to eliminate the stated reason of many delete votes before the debate closes. Derex 05:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• 22-October-2006: Hello, Derex. Thanks for the advice, but I really don't care about the topic, I just wanted to see how people would react to major changes before deleting the article anyway. I noticed that "FEMA trailer" was used in many Wiki articles and would be nice as a link, but I saved an offline text copy to read about trailer details later. (Let's move on, read next topic, below.) -Wikid77 07:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems like you went to a fair bit of effort for an article you don't care about. But, I guess I don't care about it either and I spent a good 10 minutes on it. I get really irritated by drive-by deletionists who spend all of 5 seconds typing "nn-delete" on a well-sourced and written article. I wish they'd take two seconds to ask themselves what is the good in deleting a particular article. One of the editors voting delete on that just worked an article on a single episode of a TV show. Astounding what he thinks is important, and what is not. Derex 07:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• The "FEMA Trailer" edits were a mix of routine-reference-writing (seems I've rewritten a hundred articles) and checking to see the potential for saving an article: I appreciate your conclusion about renaming as "FEMA temp..housing.." and agree the article is headed for deletion and then recreating with that new title. I don't mind that deletion, and might reincarnate it as the new title. It is very interested to learn your insights on deletionism. -Wikid77 22:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatapitya

A wise man told me over 10 years ago, "The search for knowledge is a fool's errand" -- there is no end to the task of collecting/writing knowledge (even if there were a cooperative encyclopedia), so it really comes down to how the people react with each other: and you see how that's going on WP. After reading WP articles for 6 months, I see too much trash, and the real facts are in the old "1911 Britannica" instead: very sad and pitiful, but I just search Google instead of reading WP. I feel sorry for all those news guys who rely on WP trash articles and get embarrassed on the air by quoting from WP, but the same could happen about quoting superstitious "old wives tales" or circus creatures from old encyclopedias, etc.

You do the math: a zillion people writing half-baked articles, minus a thousand others deleting solid-sourced text, plus a million pranksters hiding more clever protracted vandalism, and many others slanting articles to favor Jewish interests, or their corporations, or boost pet-politicians, what's the total of truth remaining? Never trust nobodypedia. All I can hope is that you can be happy when you | search Google for "Weakipedia" and Google concludes, "Did you mean: ..." The truth shall set you free. Peace. -Wikid77 07:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There needs to be some sort of trust-ranking for editors based on either professional credentials or peer-rating. I have been contracted to design a robust game-theoretic algorithm with this objective for a different project ... a very tricky proposition butting up against two famous impossibility theorems. It's a problem not dissimilar to Google's problem of ranking webpages when faced with strategic manipulation. I doubt that Misplaced Pages will ever adopt such an algorithm, but Misplaced Pages will be quickly by-passed by the masses if it does not yield a quality product. Derex 07:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Well, it sounds like you are in the right place at the right time, with your insights. I've heard recent news that WP is banned in some schools or libraries, which seems appropriate to the error-levels & student bickering: I revised the "Cook Islands" upon a "select-random-article" which happens to link the current CBS "Survivor" (TV series) and get this, horror of horrors, the article had stated "Capitan James Cook" saw the islands in 1770 which I changed when multi-sources said that Cook visited the islands in 1773 and 1779 (his title "Captain" was spelled "Capitan" and the date was wrong). Since even the "Cook Islands" was mangled on name/dates, considering the popular TV show, then yes, ban WP from decent society. Perhaps you can find another wiki-project better managed, but I feel WP is a dreadful waste of time except for the valuable lessons learned about dangers of mixing anonymous people with psychopaths and knowledge. More later. Peace. -Wikid77 23:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

User:GabrielF/911TMCruft

I'll give you the same suggestion I gave User:NBGPWS -- namely, please consider MfD or another, much healthier way of resolving this. Disruptive behavior doesn't really help anybody; there are proper forums for these issues, and revert warring doesn't seem up to par. Luna Santin 08:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, that's an odd comment to me; I only made a single edit ever to that page. However, the issue needs to go before an RFC in my opinion. It is broader than whether it should be deleted. There is plenty of votestacking going on too. I don't think the page will get deleted, but it needs to be known that this is going on. If they had only been transparent about this, rather than sneaking around, there'd be no problem. Derex 08:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Mainly I'd rather not see another 3RR block over something like this. :) I don't believe we've run into each other, before, and unfortunately I'd only given your contribs a quick glance before writing that message, so I was a little concerned that you might be picking up the revert war right where NBG left off; bad lapse in AGF on my part. RFC sounds fine to me, too; maybe also WT:AFD (or WP:AN if things keep heating up). I do think you have a legitimate beef that's at least worth looking into, my main concern is that it all gets discussed... um, "appropriately" is the word that comes to mind, but that makes me sound so draconian. I think you get the idea. Luna Santin 09:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No lapse at all. I did just one teensy revert out of irritation, so I can understand that. I'm not sure why GabrielF didn't just leave it alone; sure would have strenghted his case that it's a harmless neutral noticeboard. I had actually de-watch listed it, because there's not much I can do except get annoyed. But I have 3RR watchlisted, and noticed the listing there. Derex 09:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

response

Hi Derex,

I appreciate your levelheadedness and the thoughtfulness of your note. As you can see I've tried to better define the purpose and inclusion criteria for the page in order to ensure that nominations are on-topic and nominated for reaons of policy rather than an editors opinion about the subject of the article. I think your suggestion of posting a note on the AfD about it being listed on the noticeboard is fine. I think the best way to implement it is the same way that articles are tagged as being within a wikiproject, namely by placing a template on the talk page that points to the noticeboard. I will create this template as soon as I have a chance and I'll add it to the instructions for using the noticeboard. GabrielF 15:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

So NuclearUmpf is Zer0Faults too???!!!

Zer0faults has abandoned that account and opened a new account NuclearUmpf (talk · contribs) . Thatcher131 16:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I had NO idea that Nuclear was ZerO till just now! http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zer0faults OUCH! NBGPWS 22:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh good lord, that explains a thing or two. I've never heard of this fellow before (that I recall). His signature contains links to both usernames, which is how I go to the other one. Derex 23:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict claim

Please note on the page history that noone edited the page for an hour before you or 10 minutes after you. --NuclearZer0 22:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was composing a considered edit. And getting a cup of tea in the middle. However, that's simply a courtesy of an explanation. Me remarks are my own, and I'll thank you not to edit them. What are you so worked up about anyway? The part I moved elsewhere didn't have anything at all to do with your reply anyway. There is no substantive difference between my old posts and revised, except that I decided that it was silly to ask a perfectly reasonable AFD to be relisted. Since you didn't respond to that, you have no basis for complaint about me removing a view I no longer held. Derex 22:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)