Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ὁ οἶστρος (talk | contribs) at 16:14, 28 November 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

If I left you a message on your talk page: please answer on your talk page, and drop me a brief note here to let me know you have done so. (You may do this by posting {{Talkback|your username}} on this page, or by writing your own note.) If you leave me a message here: I will answer here, unless you request otherwise, or I think there are particular reasons to do otherwise, and usually I will notify you on your talk page. Please add new sections to the bottom of this page, and new messages to the bottoms of their sections. New messages at the top of the page may be overlooked. Clicking here will open a new section at the bottom of the page for a new message. After a section has not been edited for a week it is automatically moved to the latest archive. Links to those archives are given below. However, I reserve the right to delete vandalism, trolling or other unconstructive edits without archiving them.

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

About considering the deletion of Sayabito

Hello Watson, I want to talk about the page of Sayabito. Sorry that I had written that the links in references of "official website of Sayabito".However, the manga does exist in the Good!Afternoon magazine. Although the manga still hasn't had an "official website", I think the link in reference is an evidence for Sayabito. The link is the page of Sayabito in Good! Afternoon magazine in Kodansha. Also, may I ask a question? I want to know that if the twitter of the author can be one of the evidence for it? Can I add the link of Kodansha as an external link for Sayabito? I will add it as an external link if it can be one of the proofs. Please feel free to answer me,thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beetlelover (talk • contribs) 10:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "an evidence for Sayabito". If you mean evidence that it exists, then as far as I know that is not disputed. However, we need evidence that the subject satisfies Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines. Links to "Good! Afternoon" (the magazine that Sayabito is published in), and to the web site of Kodansha (the company that publsihes it) do nothing to show notability, because they are not sources independent of theh subject. Twitter is not a reliable source, as anyone can set up a Twitter account and post anything they like. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Gdandsnahb

I see that you have block that user indefinitely for disruptive editing. By the message he left here with his foul language (using the f**** word)...I think you should disable him from editing his own talk page too since he is taking this as a joke. Regards! Snoozlepet (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It's exactly what I expected. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking him, so disruptive!--Septdix (talk) 04:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hoddywell Archery page

Hi

I created a page for a place called hoddywell archery park in Australia. I understand that it was previouslly deleted but I just wrote some simple information about this place. I don't understand why it was deleted again.

Look forward to your reply Liz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizzy 1988 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The original article on this subject was awful. It was written more like a personal essay than an encyclopaedia article. It was also thought to be promotional, and it was clearly written by someone associated with Hoddywell Archery Park who wished to make it sound impressive, rather than someone whose aim was to give dispassionate, neutral information. However, perhaps more important is the fact that the article gave no evidence that the subject satisfied Misplaced Pages's notability standards. The article was the subject of a deletion discussion, in which there was unanimous consensus for deletion. Misplaced Pages's policy is that, when an article has been the subject of a discussion which has decided that it should be deleted, if it is re-created without addressing the reasons for deletion then it can be speedily deleted rather than take up people's time with another discussion which would go over the same ground again. Did the new version of the article address the question of lack of notability? Far from it: it did nothing whatsoever to indicate notability. In fact, the only information it gave us was that Hoddywell Archery Park is a public archery park, and what town it is in. It therefore quite unambiguously qualified for immediate deletion as re-creation of a page deleted as a result of a discussion, without addressing the reasons for deletion.

OK, so the existing article did not demonstrate notability, but that does not necessarily mean that the subject is not notable. The essential criteria that need to be considered are given in the guidelines on notability and reliable sources. I have done a fairly quick Google check for signs of notability, which is not necessarily conclusive, but it gives a reasonably good indication. On the first thirty hits I see pages on web sites associated with Hoddywell Archery Park, and therefore not independent sources, so that they are no evidence of notability. Examples are www.hoddywell.com.au and www.hoddywellarchery.com.au. I see pages on sites which are not reliable sources, such as FaceBook, Misplaced Pages, YouTube, Blogspot, Twitter. (Most of these are also likely to not be independent sources.) I see listing sites, such as www.localbusinessguide.com.au, http://www.theguide.com.au, http://www.aussieweb.com.au/business, etc. These offer no evidence of notability, both because in most cases the information they give is trivial, because many such sites merely post paid advertisements (so that they are not independent sources), and because they tend to be indiscriminate, and include information on any subject that comes within the range of subjects they cover, irrespective of notability. I see not one single example of coverage in anything that could remotely be considered as a reliable independent source, let alone the substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources that would be clear evidence of notability. Leaving aside the faults of the articles which have actually been written on this subject, if the subject does not satisfy Misplaced Pages's notability standards, as seems to be the case, then any article on the subject would be likely to be deleted. No amount of rewriting an article can change the notability of the subject of the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

A vandal has returned

Hi. This guy is back again. Here is his newest sockpuppet. Evenfiel (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. I have blocked that IP (and another one I found) for a while, but he will no doubt be back on other IPs, so I have semi-protected several of the articles he has attacked. Maybe eventually he will get tired and go away, but if not this should at least reduce the amount of damage he does. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Re-creating (with cites) a speedied article

Hi, JamesBWatson. This is just a courtesy notice that I'm about to recreate Third Ear about the Israeli record shop that runs the EarSay record label. There's a Third Ear (disambiguation) page, but the incoming wikilinks all intend the record label -- I may end up with a redirect from Third Ear. I've got a handful of cites (primarily from the Jerusalem Post), so I think it will pass notability. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

76.180.57.28

IP address 76.180.57.28 is not giving any reliable source(s) in his or her's edits when it comes to the Reception section on the Mortal Kombat: Rebirth page.-68.75.31.213 (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite right. The user has now, I think, been adequately warned, but I don't think that was so when you posted the message above. If he/she continues I will be willing to consider whether a short block is warranted, JamesBWatson (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Jesusian

Hello, thanks for all the work you have been doing lately. Could you fix your edit to Jesusian (here) and remove "#REDIRECT". -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing it out. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hoaxer continues

Hi, it appears Akuzaki77 is continuing with hilarious hoax footballer campaign. I have already requested G3s for Abdullah Hamzid and Muhammad Kamal Zaki, as well as AfDing Greenlast Boys FC as being unbelievably unnotable, in addition to reverting a number of other contributions to existing articles of doubtful provenance. He does seem to make the odd constructive edit, so difficult to call him a vandal only account, but perhaps a final warning? Fenix down (talk) 10:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

BWilkins gave a final warning 4 minutes after you posted that message. There do seem to be a few constructive edits, but even they are fairly trivial, mostly relating to people of at best minimal notability. I think that any more nonsense will justify an immediate block. The same goes for Akubera77, who is clearly either the same person or the other half of a pair of friends working together. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Danity Kane image

Hello, JamesBWatson. Do you know why this former image was deleted? I'm asking you because, as seen in that link, you removed the deleted link/remnants. Flyer22 (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The file was marked for deletion by ТимофейЛееСуда as a file with no evidence of copyright permission (speedy deletion criterion F11). However, it seems that the file was a redundant copy of File:20060909 Danity Kane Chicago Signing (2).JPG, which still exists, so you should be able to use that, if you want to. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Another question: Do you know if the deleted file was a cropped or otherwise altered version of the existing image? Since those are allowed, it must mean that the deleted file didn't have sufficient information letting people know that it was a cropped or otherwise altered copy of the existing image...if it indeed was one. Flyer22 (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Checking the two images, I see that it was a cropped version of the picture. More importantly, though, in the course of checking that, I saw more about the history of the original file than I had seen before, and I don't see any problem with the copyright permission. Since the cropped image looks better in the article, I have undeleted it and restored it to the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you very much, James. Should one of us alert ТимофейЛееСуда to this? Looking at the image, it definitely provides most of the information that the original image does; it's just that it's copied and pasted without the links, and doesn't have the description that the original uses. I'll fix that now. Flyer22 (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the information, and alerted ТимофейЛееСуда to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me, but to be honest, I don't care either way. I'm glad that JamesBWatson found that it was a copy of another file, I did not find that when I tagged it for deletion. Based on the content that was there when I tagged it, I decided that there was not evidence of permission and so I tagged it. I'm glad that you were able to resolve the issues though. Have a wonderful day! -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, ТимофейЛееСуда. You have a wonderful day as well. Flyer22 (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

JetBrowser

I would like you to see this link --> http://www.unixmen.com/browsing-the-internet-with-a-jet/ I was just posting the reference link, you didnt give me the time maybe. The JetBrowser is attributed to "Performersoft LLC". The Browser's credits page reads "Jet is made possible by the Chromium open source project and other open source software." I have also put up a request to start a new Wiki Page on JetBrowser. If i made a mistake, please let me know. In case, i was right, please revert back the changes you made. Thank You. Eagerly Waiting for your reply. Please discuss the issue on my talk page if possible.

Compfreak7 (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because it was unsourced, and because it was rather promotional in tone. I have also failed to find any evidence that "Jet Browser" is notable. Almost everything I have been able to find about it is on download sites and forums. The review you link to above is the best coverage I've seen, but I don't think that on its own comes it anywhere near to providing enough evidence of notability to justify an article on the subject. As for whether it's enough to justify including a mention of it in a list in the article on Chromium, I will leave you to judge that. My own preference is for restricting such lists to topics with a reasonable degree of notability, but that's only a personal opinion, not a Misplaced Pages policy or guideline, and you have as much right to make such judgements as I have, provided you can provide a reliable source for verification of what you write there. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

That's right. Since its a matter of being 'notable' or not, i shall leave it as it is. Whenever anyone finds a reliable source, it shall be added naturally. So be it. I was especially worried about the 'Level 2 warning' that the Wiki mail i got talked about. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Compfreak7 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

OK JamesBWatson (talk) 10:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Query from Lost007

Why did you undo the edit?? It is NOT The Valle Academy of Dance.

The correct name for that company is The Valle Academy of Performing Arts - see here www.valleacademy.co.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lost007 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I saw a new editor making unexplained changes to a page in another user's userspace, and it looked dubious. However, I should have checked more thoroughly before just reverting your edit, and I thank you for prompting me to check back. Having done so, I now see that the page was unambiguous spam from a spam-only account, so I have deleted it. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Siege The Band

I hope I got your intention right ... you put up the username warning, but deleted the cats, which I figured meant you were going for a good cop/bad cop thing and expected an admin would be along to block. If you'd prefer I take no action on user talk pages you've edited, please let me know. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 16:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it didn't mean I was "going for a good cop/bad cop thing". It meant I would give the user a while to see how they went on, rather than immediately blocking. One of the reasons for doing this is that very often in such circumstances it is unclear at first whether a username block or a spamusername block is appropriate. To anyone without extensive experience of assessing unblock requests, a username block or softerblock might seem more friendly than a spamusername block. However, time and again I see the following situation: a user is told by an admin that they are blocked because of their username, but all will be fine if they switch to a new username. They switch to a new username, but another admin tells them that they can stay blocked, for a completely different reason. The user tries to explain that they have satisfied the specified condition, but yet another admin says "no". It seems to me that this business of telling the user one thing and then, when they do what they have been told to do, shifting to a different reason for blocking, is actually more unfriendly than telling them right from the start that promotion, COI, and user name are all issues, and that they need to deal with all of them. I have seen discussions about this problem from other admins who frequently assess unblock requests. For this reason, in a clear-cut case I place a spamusername block right away, but in a more doubtful case, where the editing is not outright spam, I try to give a warning that there are problems, but not block. That way I can leave more time, to see how the user reacts. Later, it is possible to take anything in a wide range of possible actions, including an immediate hard block, a soft block, a message that the user really must change username (or else there will be a block), or sometimes even no action at all. Unfortunately, the intention of doing this is often thwarted by an admin coming along and blocking because the user is categorised as having username issues, so I remove the category. But this time even that didn't work... As for your invitation to let you know if I'd prefer you take no action on user talk pages I've edited, well, perhaps yes, but I claim no ownership of users I've warned, and if you make a different judgement than me about what is suitable action then that's your decision. Perhaps "think twice before acting", rather than "take no action". JamesBWatson (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't get the point of removing the cats, sorry. It's possible there's a misunderstanding here because I just finished a month of experimenting with a {{uw-softestblock}} message that said nothing about COI or deletion, on the theory that I might gain some support for that; the results were inconclusive, but more to the point, I found that covering Filter 188 hits (new account creates a page similar to the username, for the talk page stalkers) is priority work, it's likely to suck up all the time I allot to blocking and deletion work, and those messages really should educate people on WP:PSCOI and deletion ... and the reason you're giving is right on the mark, people don't usually explain it that well ... so I added that language to softestblock, along with unblock instructions. So I think you're saying we disagree on where the best block vs. warning line is, but no two admins draw it in exactly the same place. I have some data that suggests that what I'm doing is working, but I don't want to beat anyone over the head with it ... warnings work fine, too. - Dank (push to talk) 18:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

TheFireLog

Hi there, TheFireLog page was deleted, I'm not sure why, but I'll have to review it. Due to the rapid deletion, it is gone from my sandbox too. Is there any way to get it back so I can modify it? Never mind - I found a copy. Is there any way to have someone evaluate before it gets deleted, for example make a request to look in the sandbox?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darren.toombs (talk • contribs) 20:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I was going to resurrect the page and move it into your user space, but I see that you have already created a userspace draft of it, so I assume that you don't need another. If for any reason you do want the old one back too, let me know, and I'll restore it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The new one in my user space has been modified. I am trying to get the page from being an advert to being a product information page. The first cuts were pretty bad, but I think they are getting better. I am using Textpad as an example. Would it be possible to give me feedback so I can get it to pass the guidelines? Thanks. 16:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darren.toombs (talk • contribs)

Jesusian

Hi, you recently turned Jesusian into a soft redirect. Any chance you can add a {{long comment}} to the page so that it doesn't shows up on Special:ShortPages? I would add it myself, but it's protected, and so is the talk page so I can't request {{edit protected}} either. -- KTC (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done JamesBWatson (talk) 01:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Yves Arman

You PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, but rather than restore and immediately send to AfD I have userfied it to User:Faranne/Yves Arman and given some advice about notability at User talk:Faranne. Letting you know in case you want to watchlist it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Lord McAlpine "joke"

Regarding your "joke" slur, it was nothing of the sort but merely fair comment. My edit was absolutely not an allegation of a "cover-up" and reverting it on those grounds plainly some kind of misplaced conviction. Above all it was a knowwlegeable edit made in good faith.

I had the same sort of experience at Suicide of Amanda Todd just getting that unfortunate girl's date of birth recorded. In that case the principal reverting editor was of the opinion that the article wasn't a biography and a biographical detail like that was irrelevant, again nothing more than a personal conviction. I had to take it to an RfC to get it included.

As for your remark it is a hurtful personal attack. You really ought to know better. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I didn't mean it as a personal attack, and I'm sorry that it came over that way. It really did seem funny to me that someone could, apparently without any sense of irony, accuse others of bad faith in the same breath as telling them to assume good faith. Since you evidently don't see the funny side of it, I suppose it would have been better to have mentioned the contradiction in a way that wasn't meant to be humorous. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I spent a full hour making that McAlpine edit. The comment I made about it being reverted was absolutely unobjectionable. Of course your little irony was not likely to be taken in good grace. I don't see the point in editing Misplaced Pages in this environment. I've been preparing an expansion on the Metock case and I may see that though, I'm not sure, but I should think it extremely unlikely I will continue to edit Misplaced Pages therafter. I'm just not prepared to put up with the fantastic hassle it apparently involves. Get this right JamesBWatson, I feel as personally attacked by you as if you had ridiculed me at a cocktail party to my face in front of my wife, in front of my colleagues. What is worse I have no redress. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It clearly wasn't a personal attack from you James. You're doing fine. JASpencer (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Awesome

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Many thanks for your help with a perpetual problem. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I only wish there were something more effective we could do, but I do what I can. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Can I publish this article now?

Hi James -

A couple of months ago you deleted the article I had created on the novel SHAKEN, NOT STIRRED by Aaron Cooley, as it had not yet been published yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Shaken,_Not_Stirred_(novel)&action=edit&redlink=1

As the novel has now been published, can I re-submit the article? Here are links to its Amazon and Barnes & Noble sales pages: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00A2V7E4M http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/shaken-not-stirred-aaron-cooley/1113750239?ean=2940015936186

You had also mentioned a desire to see some reviews of the book. Here are three reviews: https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/aaron-cooley/shaken-not-stirred/

http://www.bookpleasures.com/websitepublisher/articles/5596/1/SHAKEN-NOT-STIRRED-The-Secret-Files-of-I__-F______-Code-Designate-17F-Reviewed-By-Dr-Wesley-Britton-of-Bookpleasurescom/Page1.html#.ULTjWIfAeSp

http://www.herliterarysalon.com/shaken-not-stirred-by-aaron-cooley/

Please let me know if you can restore the article, or if I should re-submit. Thanks - Mittern71011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mittern71011 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Since you have a relatively small amount of experience of editing Misplaced Pages, it may help if I start by clarifying the process which led to the deletion. As you will have seen from the deletion log entry, the article was deleted because of an expired "PROD", which is short for proposed deletion. This means that an editor proposed the article for deletion, time was allowed in case anyone contested the proposal, but nobody did. In that situation, the article is deleted. My role in this as an administrator was just performing the administrative tasks of (1) checking that the proposal had been correctly carried out, had been given the proper amount of time to allow a chance for it to be contested, and had not been contested, and (2) clicking the button to confirm that this was so. The "concern" listed in the deletion log is the reason given by the person who proposed the deletion (in this case the user Ubelowme), and does not reflect my own view. I would not myself have written a deletion proposal giving the concern as the facts that a book was unpublished and unreviewed, because that would be likely to give an inexperienced Misplaced Pages editor the impression that being published and reviewed were the only requirements, which is far from true. For a subject to be the topic of an article, Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines require it to have received substantial coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject (i.e. not from the author, the publisher, any business selling the book, anyone else in any way involved, or anyone working for any of those people). The first two links you give are links to the web sites of businesses selling the book, and are clearly not independent sources. The other three are web sites that publish reviews on request from authors, and two of the three web sites quote prices for doing so. Again, they are clearly not independent sources. Consequently the information you have provided does nothing at all to indicate notability. Quite simply, anyone at all can get reviews for their work on sites such as kirkusreviews and bookpleasures, whether the book is notable or not. However, rather than rely only on the sources you gave, I made my own online searches to see whether there was evidence of notability. I found again the sites you have already linked to. I found such unreliable sources as YouTube, Twitter, Misplaced Pages, and FaceBook, where anyone can post anything. I found www.goodreads.com and bookriot.tv, which both gave the identical text, consisting of one paragraph about Aaron Cooley and one about the book. It is perfectly clear that what they gave was a press release or equivalent, and not an independent source, but in any case it was not substantial coverage. And so it goes on with other pages that I found. To summarise the whole thing, there is a large number of web sites that mention the book, but every single one of them looks like part of an attempt to promote the book, probably by its author. The Misplaced Pages coverage is no exception to this: every one of your edits has been an attempt to promote the book. Many people mistakenly think "anyone can edit Misplaced Pages" means "anyone can post anything they like to Misplaced Pages". It may well be that you thought that, and came here thinking that Misplaced Pages was one more place you could use to bring this book to public awareness. However, Misplaced Pages is not a medium for promotion, and far from being a tool to make something well-known, Misplaced Pages requires that a subject has already received substantial attention from independent sources. I see no evidence that the book comes within a million miles of satisfying Misplaced Pages's notability standards. If and when it does become notable, probably some uninvolved independent Misplaced Pages editor will choose to write about it: someone involved with the book is not the right person to do so, as they will have a conflict of interest, and are unlikely to write from a neutral perspective. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Kevin Annett

Hi James,

In the process of making some edits, I would like to ask for the content of the following page:

10:29, 17 July 2012 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) deleted page Kevin Annett (Expired PROD, concern was: Self-published author, non-notable figure)

Is that still around? Thanks Jpabc (talk) 01:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I drafted a reply here, saying that I would restore the article and move it to your user space for you. Normally, doing so is automatic when someone asks for access to the content of an article deleted by PROD. However, when I restored the content of the article, I found that it made unsupported accusations against people, which is a violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on biographies of living persons, which requires that we "remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced", so unfortunately I do not think the material is suitable for restoration. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

help

i need your help

i want to recreat page Konia kshetra. Konia Kshetra is a region ( part of sant Ravidas Nagar district Uttar Pradesh India) for your reference: please check http://wikimapia.org/#lat=25.2296017&lon=82.2163188&z=12&l=0&m=b&show=/4085231/Konia-Kshetra i'm intrested to recreat this page please give advice for this place

(Baangapatti (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC))

I see that you created two versions of this article, both of them deleted as not having enough context to identify article's subject. For the first one, Konia kshetra, that deletion reason was certainly sound. For Konia Kshetra, although I nominated it for deletion, looking back now I am not sure that was the best possible reason to give, as you did say "Konia Kshetra situated in Sant Ravidas Nagar district in the state of Uttar Pradesh, India", which is enough to identify the subject. However, you also included personal opinion in the article, writing "One of the finest and isolated area where peach and brotherhood prevails". That is not at all objective reporting from a neutral point of view (quite apart from the fact that the meaning of "where peach and brotherhood prevails" is far from clear). You also need to provide sources, so that statements you make in the article can be verified. Provided that you follow those principles, I see no problem with writing a new article about Konia Kshetra, though. The map you link to is a good source, not only to show existence of the place, but also to show where it is, and illustrate its situation surrounded by a loop of the Ganges. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

move request (From Noon till Three vs. From Dusk Till Dawn) / guidelines confusion

Hi. A while ago, I made a move request that was rejected. But since this question was never answered, and since one account involved has meanwhile been blocked for asserted sockpuppetry (a decision you upheld) and another user commenting currently is being suspected of the same, I'm not so sure how many people have actually thoroughly reviewed my request. Could you spare the time to take a look at it? It's not so much about this individual case, as it is about gaining certainty with regards to the guidelines and their implementations (to have From Noon till Three on the one hand, and From Dusk Till Dawn on the other, seems contradictory / inconsistent to me). Regards – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

1. The suggestion that Anthony Appleyard is "suspected" of being a sockpuppet of Materialscientist is absurd. How much checking did you do before posting a link to the unsubstantiated anonymous edit on this? The edit was done by a vandalism-only editor, who also made such ridiculous edits as this one, a warning message about editing an article that the warned user has never, in fact, edited.
2. The fact that an edit is made by a sockpuppet account does not make any difference to it unless the use of multiple accounts is relevant to that edit. The editor who used posted to the discussion you refer to under the username UnQuébécois did not also edit the same discussion using any other account. The fact that he used another account elsewhere is completely irrelevant to that edit.
3. All these ridiculous arguments about such trivia as whether or not to put a capital letter for a preposition in the middle of a title bewilder me. Why on earth should anyone care? Yes it's inconsistent, but why does that matter enough to be worth spending so much time on it? Ralph Waldo Emerson had the right idea about this. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi.

1. How much checking? None, I just wrote what's on his own talk page ("which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Misplaced Pages accounts"). I don't know that user (nor his accuser) and have no opinion of him. It just caught my eye, when I posted there to ask for comment on the spelling for From Dusk Till Dawn. With another user involved in the request I actually had very good communications before, seems like a nice chap. (By the way, if you can be bothered – no need for another rant against me –, just out of curiosity, with regards to the block you upheld, you wrote it was "way beyond all reasonable doubt". How does one positively know if someone is / uses a sockpuppet?)
2. How would I know what his sockpuppets are? You seem to know, I don't.
3. I happen to think consistency, spelling, typography and layout should matter in an encyclopædia. You apparently don't. Fair enough. It wouldn't hurt to bring that across a bit more politely, though. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I accept that I was less friendly than I might have been in expressing point three, and I apologise for that. I agree that consistency is desirable, but inconsistency at such trivial levels is really not of significant importance. Personally, I think there are more useful ways I can spend my time on Misplaced Pages than dealing with such details, but if you feel it worth your while then that is up to you. I meant what I said only as an expression of my own unwillingness to bother about such matters, but I can see how it will have come across as what you call "rant" against you. As for how one knows that someone is a sockpuppet, there is no single answer to that, and frequently a combination of different information is used. In this case, the wording I used, saying that the evidence was "way beyond all reasonable doubt", but without giving any indication what the behavioural evidence was, is the kind of thing I tend to say if I have seen evidence that I think the user was unaware of, but which could easily be avoided in future if the user were made aware of it. In that situation, I am naturally reluctant to spell out the details. However, it certainly suggests that I had in mind much more specific evidence than, for example, making similar edits to the same articles. There are many sorts of evidence that might come up, such as two accounts doing a large proportion of editing on different articles that are unrelated to one another, extremely similar use of language, and so on. I have known of two accounts which swore they were unrelated, which seemed to have forgotten that they had both made statements on their user pages giving the same real name, the same date of birth, the same religion, etc etc. I have known editors to say "I said ...." in referring to an edit made by the other account. My use of the expression "way beyond all reasonable doubt" suggests that I had in mind several different types of evidence, where one would have been highly suggestive, two pretty convincing. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for explaining. (About my initial post, I have no problem admitting I'm pedantic with regards to formal stuff. But as I have been corrected over spelling and typography in the past myself – "in the past myself" or "myself in the past"? –, it's also a case of just wanting to try not to repeat the same mistakes in the future; and for that I have to know what is considered correct.) – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• OK. Even though I usually don't bother about such things, you have acted as a gadfly and provoked me into looking into it. I have confirmed that, as stated in the discussion you referred to, Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (capitalization) does say that "till" should not be capitalized. I will therefore rename From Dusk Till Dawn. That will produce the consistency that, as I said above, I agree is desirable (even if I care less about it than you do). JamesBWatson (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. I'm not sure it shouldn't be the other way around (that the naming conventions and From Noon till Three's spelling be changed), but be that as it may, Dame Consistency riding in is what I was hoping to see first and foremost – and sorry for having been such a pest (although that being part of my "charm") over such trivial matters. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Personally, like you, I prefer "Till", but consensus is clearly against renaming From Noon till Three. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You're right. It's just that I wonder where that funny "shorter than five letters" rule might stem from. One would think Misplaced Pages and IMDb to follow the same standards for titles, yet the latter spell it From Noon Till Three and From Dusk Till Dawn. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)