Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:21, 23 May 2018

←

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Thank you for being one of Misplaced Pages's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2017 Cure Award

In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Misplaced Pages. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

Deletion of Fellowcraft (Band/Music Artist)

JzG - I noticed that you deleted Fellowcraft, my band's Wiki page for violation of unambiguous promotion or advertising. I am terribly sorry about that and would be more than happy to take out any language that was/is related to advertising. This was/is my first wiki-page and I was unaware that my language was like that on the page. is there any way that you might be willing to restore the page, wherein I could perform a re-write to take out the ambiguous language? I am more than happy to do so, as I would love to maintain this wiki for us, as a history of our band. Thank you very much for the consideration.--Jonnyryanmac (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you begin with Draft:Fellowcraft and ask for independent review. Guy (Help!) 18:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Intellectual Dark Web

This edit violates 3RR.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Intellectual_Dark_Web&type=revision&diff=841528272&oldid=841517246&diffmode=source

I request you self-revert. Marteau (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

It wold help if people didn't keep trying to crowbar in crappy sources when talk clearly shows no consensus to include them. You should have self-reverted, per that discussion. We could always try RfC? Guy (Help!) 18:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Guy, if I may, I think you're getting rather axe-grindy and even a bit disruptive on this article, and you're provoking Marteau unnecessarily. To be clear, their behavior ain't great either, but I believe you're more likely to listen to reason, if for no other reason than that you hold a mop and have dealt with similar situations in the past. I suggest you take a 24 hour breather. I can hold the fort against the cruft during your absence. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Meh, you may be right. It pisses me off that fans of these hubristic asshats are determined to include lengthy self-congratulatory screeds by IDW mmbers but have failed to find even one proer, weighty, independent source that even says what it is. I have read a lot about this now, the truth is, Eric Weinstein's brother got pissed off when his whitesplaining was mocked and debunked, and Eric formed this group of antisocial injustice warriors to fight against "political correctness", aka treating people with respect. They have a massive platform, yet they claim to be suppressed and silenced. The are not part of academic discourse, not because of any sinister conspiracy but because their ideas are facile and obviously wrong. They operate in broadcast-only media, and claim to be part of a "conversation". And thanks to them, the alt-right gets to play the "both sides" card. So yes, I find the intellectually dishonest dark we to be less than compelling. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Though...when you start a comment with "It pisses me off that..." that might be a sign that you're getting too emotionally invested. The editors you describe are on a crusade. You don't need to crusade back. Just hold the fort until they go away. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of MS Research Australia Article

JzG - I noticed that you deleted a previous article about MS Research Australia (in Sep 2016) for failing to "credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Wiki says that if you're recreating the previously deleted page, to get in touch with the user who deleted it, so here I am! I have a new article about the organisation to upload that uses neutral, non-promotional language, is well-referenced, and demonstrates the significance of the subject. Thanks for your time. AZPascoe (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you start with Draft:MS Research Australia and submit for independent review. Guy (Help!) 18:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, that's brilliant. I'll do that. Cheers. AZPascoe (talk) 00:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

German war effort arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 30, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

meatball:ExpandScope wrt User:Philip Cross

This is somewhat re your closure at Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Philip_Cross.

If you hadn't noticed yet, someone has taken their feud with Philip Cross a bit public. , which showed up on hn even... .

Is there a substantive history between Philip Cross and User:KalHolmann or so ?

ps Hello! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea. This strikes me as one of those cases where someone was editing articles from the standpoint of an opinion, as everyone does, and people with a vested interest in the subjects began to attack them, leading to escalation. You can't amass 130,000 edits, as Philip Cross has, without being reasonably committed to Misplaced Pages. You'd be noticed if you were an agenda account with that many edits. And being attacked by RT and George Galloway is a reasonably reliable indicator that you are doing something right. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Granted I'm probably a little more suspicious than the average person. But my spidey senses tingle whenever an editor's first two edits are to trivially bluelink their user and talk pages, and just a few edits later they show commendable mastery of complex templates and Wiki syntax. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Mine too. Let's wait and see. If he continues the feud, he can perhaps join theantiphilipcross (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 21:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... well... of course the situation was continued off-wiki. I get the impression that KalHolmann wanted to deal with their issues on-wiki first, but did not get the opportunity to do so. This then lead to the expansion of scope. To prevent: check/ensure there was substantive discussion somewhere on-wiki somewhere first (if/when possible) before rapid closing a discussion.

I guess there is an on-going off-wiki feud, in fact.

Thanks for taking the time for me! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kim Bruning: Few people are more welcome here! It is a source of sadness that we converse less often than of old. I have opened a question at WP:AN because I do agree that this is not an obvious one. Guy (Help!) 11:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Kandi_Barbour

Just my personal viewpoint, not wanting to comment on talk or whatsoever, since the article had went through 1 AFD, and closed as "keep" see 1st AFD, moving back to the version then which is in 2007 AFD Version and add reliable sources maybe right. The AFD is too short in my opinion for 'Keep' by current standards but that's what standards are that in 2007 anyway. Just my humble opinion and as mentioned, I am rescuing myself away from this, so I did not post at AN/I or talkpage. Thanks for indulgence in advance --Quek157 (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Just to add if I am there voting, I will vote as per Delete - No RS, no coverage in depth, non notable person (using 2007 languages where there is not yet all the abbreviations) --Quek157 (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Two !votes in 2007 counts for pretty much nothing. Standards have changed very substantially since then. Guy (Help!) 15:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

yes. I wholeheartedly concur with Quek157 (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Reconsidering Steve Laury

Hmmm.... it turns out Steve Laury, which you deleted and whose restoration I declined at WP:REFUND (and I also blocked the plaintiff), is notable after all. He meets multiple WP:MUSICBIO criteria:

• #2 - Passion (Steve Laury album) reached #1 on a Billboard chart (this isn't cited)
• #5 - published at least two albums on a notable label - Stepping Out (Steve Laury album), Passion (Steve Laury album), and Keepin' The Faith (Steve Laury album)

Even if criterion #2 is not met, he still qualifies as notable based on criterion #5. Based on that, I think the article should be restored. Because the record label was mentioned multiple times, it didn't qualify for A7 either. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

For me, the only thing that counts is whether someone not associated with him can write an article based on non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. Subject notability guides are only an indication of subjects that re likely to meet WP:GNG, they cannot trump GNG because GNG is based on V and RS. If we don't have multiple non-trivial reliable independent sources, we can't verify that an article is neutral. We definitely can verify that most revisions of the deleted article were not. Not nobody's standing in the way of a new and properly sourced article, I guess. Guy (Help!) 15:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I've seen cases where an article was deemed keep-worthy when sources were difficult to find but the artist met one or more of the other criteria in WP:MUSICBIO, particularly for musicians notable before the internet became widely available. I was in the process of finding all of this guy's album articles and tagging them with {{db-a9}} when I realized that he may be notable after all. Sources may be difficult to find because his notability stems from the early 1990s, before the World Wide Web. For example, he apparently charted on Billboard in 1991, but Billboard's own archives don't even go back before 2005.

Apologies for removing the archive tags you put on the WP:REFUND discussion, but I felt that words to the effect of what I've written here should be brought up there. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Storm's a-brewin' at food irradiation

Food irradiation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Student editors have been assigned to rewrite the article. See note on my talk. I mentioned to Herna327, apparently their leader, about consensus issues. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

BLP RfC comments

Hi, I have moved your comment from the "comments" section to the "threaded" section as it seems to fit in better there. You may wish to leave a !vote in the "comments" section as well. Regards, --LK (talk) 08:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban enforcement?

Hi. Just wondering how to go about getting enforcement of a topic ban. The user in this AN/I thread has avoided the area until the last couple of days, but is now making biased edits to the main article on the immininent abortion referendum in Ireland. Diffs:

• Addition of an unregistered campaign group (we have a consensus on Talk about what groups are included);
• Challening content of a quote? I guess?
• POV dump
• Biased tagging (the main Yes advocates have all spoken in the media about use of unregulated abortion pills
• etc...

I've warned the user but if they persist, do I need to go to AN/I or is there some other mechanism? WP:TBAN isn't clear on this. Bastun 08:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

My farcical topic ban, so it really was designed as I long suspected, not so much a topic ban but as a political tool...to keep me from jeopardizing your "edits to the main article' on the imminent abortion referendum in Ireland".

You seem to make a game out of this encyclopedia, hounding User:Leftwinguy92 with erroneous sockpuppet claims, now too is it?

Boundarylayer (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page