Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:20, 4 May 2019

The Lenovo IdeaPad Flex merge

Good day. My apologizes, but can you get me a some advice about this page merging process? I just can't get, why i'm doing this wrong (maybe because my English skills is not a property clear, or maybe because i'm not so smart, anyway, this is a just is my fault). 95.154.157.20 (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Your counter-argument on Gab Merger discussion.

Just read it. Wanted to let you know I agree with you. If the discussion wasn't closed, I would have changed my mind. FWIW the wind was blowing in that direction long before the vote anyways. There's a core of Editors working on that Article and for some strange reason they all seem to agree on everything, always. ;)Tym Whittier (talk) 08:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

AfD Nomination

I have closed your proposed deletion. Please read the comments made by other editors. Victuallers (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Katharine Isabelle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Last Winter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources for WP:PROF

Hi, just a pointer that as far as I can see, some of your tagging for missing references, e.g. here, runs counter to the consensus that you can find e.g. in WP:PROF that for establishing certain basic facts, the publications of e.g. universities and academic societies are considered to be reliable sources. Markus Pössel (talk) 09:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Markus Pössel: Yes, but Misplaced Pages relies on secondary sources - independent of the subject - to establish WP:Notability. Citing sources connected with the subject, like a publication or university/society website, is usually acceptable for additional information... but they cannot alone be used to prove notability. If we cannot establish notability, it doesn't matter how many extra sources there are, we shouldn't have an article about them. There are perhaps some aspects of WP:PROF which forget this distinction, and in doing so are in violation of the core WP:Notability policy. -- Netoholic @ 09:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

These are not "some aspects"; they are explicit statements about which sources are acceptable to establish WP:PROF according to the given criteria. You cannot ignore those parts of the guideline when applying the criteria of WP:PROF; doing so with reference to a more general policy would amount to WP:POLSHOP. For the record, I also do not see anything in WP:Notability policy that would mean that the consensus at WP:PROF would be the "violation" of any "core". May be you are relying on a too narrow definition of WP:SECONDARY? Markus Pössel (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Markus Pössel: I can object to a guideline which gives advice that seems contradictory to a core policy like WP:N. My main concern is the idea that only WP:INDEPENDENT sources can establish notability - an idea which seems to have been lost on WP:PROF. A university profile about one of their own professors is not independent, nor is a press release by a scholarly association about the election of a subject to their membership (often these profiles are puffery for the benefit of the prestige of the school/association). Neither, obviously, is a citation of the subject's own work. As soon as an independence, reliable source mentions any of those things, then a subject may be notable. It shows that some publication has noted the subject for their achievements in a way which they do not directly benefit from. It shows that the public has an interest in the subject... in short... that they are notable. -- Netoholic @ 11:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

If you look at the relevant discussions, you should realize all those points were raised when the guideline was formulated, and still the current consensus emerged. For the fact that someone is a fellow of a specific society, the society's records, and announcements based on those records, are a reliable source. Also, the criterion is not that someone else noticed a subject's fellowship in a society, the criterion is the fellowship itself (as it establishes notability by the standards of the scientific community). So no, if you set your own personal interpretations of how particular aspects of a particular policy supposedly contradict the explicit statements in a guideline, in this case WP:PROF, that is not a good basis for contributing to Misplaced Pages. If you as an individual think there is a contradiction, bring it up on the appropriate pages and take the necessary steps to establish a consensus. But do not just ignore explicit statements in guidelines because in your own personal opinion they should not have been included in the guidelines. If you want to improve Misplaced Pages by flagging poorly sourced/referenced lemmas, why not start with those many, many cases where the circumstances are clear-cut, and where you do not need to ignore a Misplaced Pages guideline to make this particular kind of contribution? Markus Pössel (talk) 11:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Markus Pössel: "Reliable" does not mean WP:INDEPENDENT. Neither does "secondary". These are not "my set" of views - this is directly states in WP:NRV: there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.. Perhaps some PROF-based sources are reliable, verifiable, secondary, and maybe even objective - but they are generally not been independent. Guidelines cannot overrule a core policy like WP:N. -- Netoholic @ 11:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, if you personally feel there is a contradiction, bring it up and get the guideline changed. But the guideline was established by consensus, and the point of reliability/secondary vs. primary/independent was part of the discussion. You are taking it upon yourself to single-handedly overturn that consensus. That is not how Misplaced Pages works. Also, you appear to be missing the crucial point that in the case of a BLP, sources need to be independent of the subject of the article, in this case, the academic him- or herself. And if you re-read the opening paragraph of WP:IS stating the purpose of that particular explanatory supplement (not even a policy or guideline), you will find that there is no contradiction with this particular case; so you might want to take care that you are not "Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express" (to quote from the definition of WP:WL). Markus Pössel (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Markus Pössel (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

WGHR (radio station)

While going through to find a few straggler (defunct) articles, I found this one that you moved on January 1. My concern is it's not very good at distinguishing from WGHR (FM). Any thoughts on this compared to the old title, WGHR (college radio)? Raymie (t • c) 00:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Raymie: No real opinion on it, I only moved it to eliminate the (college radio) disambiguation style it used. We should probably disambiguate both using location, I'd imagine. -- Netoholic @ 01:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I found a few more like it, like KANM (radio station) and WUMD (radio station). It just does not disambiguate appropriately because KANM (FM) is also a radio station. Raymie (t • c) 01:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Article about me

Wow. In your zeal for making sure that non-academic sources are used to cover academics (just as, you know, we allow popular magazines to be used to source medical articles or tabloids to be used to source politics), you've succeeded in making an article that was already overly focused on trivial details even more focused on the unimportant. The actual important-to-Misplaced Pages work of removing unsourced original research from the article (that I left in place because, not my problem to fix) was already done by someone else a month ago. But do carry on; I won't stop you. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: I'll indulge your editor-subject COI by asking this - how is it "unsourced original research" when I rigorously sourced it? -- Netoholic @ 04:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Netoholic, you should avoid editing David's BLP if you're in a dispute with him. See WP:BLPCOI: "n editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest." SarahSV 04:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I do not have a dispute with him. At best, recent discussions only drew my attention to the fact that he had a page. Eppstein has edited his own article more than I have... and my edits were diligently-sourced. -- Netoholic @ 04:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The sourcing makes no difference. It can be very threatening to someone when an editor responds to a disagreement by heading for the bio. It crosses a line. SarahSV 05:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I actually thought it might be appreciated that I found independent sources so that his article would be safer from notability concerns... It was actually meant to be the opposite of threatening... a peace offering. -- Netoholic @ 05:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Misplaced Pages's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 TonyBallioni (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)