Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Netoholic (talk | contribs) at 13:38, 27 June 2018 (→June 2018: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Articles that need serious visual work

• Degenerate art
• Lock Haven, Pennsylvania
• German mediatization
• Footlight Parade (not really shitty, but needs cleanup)
• Black Sea - a mess

Reminder: to work on

• Flapper - review for writing, order
• A Matter of Life and Death
• Yiddish Theatre District
• This Is Not A Theatre Company
• Hollywood blacklist - re: The Front
• Seven Summits - badly organized
• The Leatherman - copyedit
• Singin' in the Rain - add from Comden & Green intro to script when it's unburied
• Irvington Historic District (Irvington, New York) - further research and expand into sep article, if possible
• Train graveyard - lots of material out there to expand this

For the record...

I would be completely shocked if you were harassing Kintetsubuffalo, and I find myself wondering where the horrible miscommunication/mistake is that caused this conflict to spring up. I've had nothing (that I can recall) but good interactions with you both, and so all this confuses and dismays me more than a little.

But if I can offer you some advice as well: Don't pursue it right now. You clearly aren't going to be listened to by Kintetsu, so anything you say will only aggravate him further. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Your thinking parallels mine. I've been pondering what to do while I went about my errands today, starting by thinking that I would repost my comment (the one he rather quickly deleted) on my own talk, then moving to asking him to provide evidence or stop making the claim, progressing to talking to an admin -- not for a block or a warning, just so that someone is aware of the situation -- and ended up deciding to do absolutely nothing unless he escalates things. I'll try to avoid him whenever I can, and especially avoid reverts, even of material I think is obviously problematic, in favor of talk page discussion. So that's where I am. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

And, BTW, I'm not hounding or harassing or following him, and I don't believe that there is any evidence which would indicate that I am doing so, which makes his surety that I am all the more puzzling to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Mind of adolf hitler cover.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mind of adolf hitler cover.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Mike Miller 2015

I asked you about Mike's most recent book, which you told me was not an acceptable single source reference, yet his earlier 2006 book is. I don't understand why you would accept one and not the other, especially as the other has benefited from nine more years of research? I also don't see how you are so sure that Göring met with Mussolini in 1924 because that's what Manvell & Fraenkel said in 1962, but Mike says in 2015 that he didn't. Yet in the very next sentence, which has a reference from Charles R Hamilton: Leaders and Personalities of the Third Reich, Volume 1, Göring wrote a letter dated 19.9.1924 speaking about the rebuff. Either he did meet with Mussolini or he didn't. Mike has listed 42 reference works for his section on Göring, is that not enough for you? I also don't see how having two awards deleted amounts to my vandalising the page to be honest.Troy von Tempest (talk) 03:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

We go by the consensus of what most historians say occurred. If one historian says differently, we don't immediately change everything on that basis, we wait to see if the new theory of what happened is accepted by the consensus. A new theory which is not yet accepted is a WP:FRINGE theory: a single source does not an accepted fact make. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

No one has said that your addition of trivial awards to the Goring page was "vandalism", which has a specific meaning on Misplaced Pages (see WP:VANDALISM). I did say that your continuing to question the editorial consensus regarding it was becoming WP:DISRUPTION. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Questions: Why do you refer to Mike Miller as "Mike"? Is this someone you know or are connected with? How can you go through 7 years of editing Misplaced Pages without knowing the very basic stuff you are asking about here and on other talk pages? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you and goodbye

I am sorry if you changed your mind about reviewing my edit request. I judge from your profile that you may not have access too scientific publications online. If that is the case, then perhaps it would be possible for you to visit a university library sometime and have someone help you out. I am not saying this to humiliate you in any way, and I do not expect you to do anything about my edit request, so it is not really about that either. I got curious as to who these hobby scholars could be, and now I know more about that.

Genuine as I try to be here, I will add, with humor, that you are also very arrogant, all of you. Grayfell is the more irritating one, as he is very disingenuous when he argues; your comments are often of much less substance, and so there is little to get upset about.

My last words. Axumtoted (talk) 02:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

It's interesting that you felt the need to do a WP:DIVA exit, since those usually only happen with someone who's had a fair amount of experience on Misplaced Pages, and suddenly feels that they're not appreciated. I'm not sure I've ever seen a newbie with no encyclopedic improvements to their name do a diva dive out the door.I wish I could say that Misplaced Pages will miss you, but it really won't: you contributed nothing, so, in all probability, we'll be missing nothing, especially since your vaunted "access to scientific publications" led you to cite unpublished theses, college newspapers, and students' oral presentations as reliable sources we should base the description of a highly controversial organization on. That shows a certain lack of judgment, which is something we really don't need more of around here.As for "arrogance" -- yeah, I'll cop to a certain amount of that, sure. It stems from 13 years of experience, 230,000 edits, and a fairly deep understanding of the rules, procedures and character of this place. When I look back on my contributions, I can see that I made mistakes, and sometimes may have gone down the wrong path or dug in when I should have conceded, but -- hey! -- I'm a human being, and we all make those kinds of mistakes; hopefully, I've learned from them. What I also see in looking back is a lot of improvements to a lot of articles on a fairly wide variety of subjects, and I'm proud of that. Proud enough that there's really no chance of your making me feel bad with your "it's all your fault" exit, so... mission not accomplished. Maybe you'll have better luck with your next ID. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Ouch! EEng 13:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Infobox Pictures for Nazi Officials

It has come to my attention that the changes you have applied the same changes to Goering across several other biographical articles about Nazi officials. Are these edits based on a consensus decision? If so, can you provide me with a link directing me to it? Thank you. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

They are based on the fact that we are an encyclopedia and not a Nazi or neo-Nazi propaganda outlet, and should not glorify Nazis by having their pictures be bigger then they need to be to identify the person. I am quite certain that you are not in favor of glorifying Nazis. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

As I explained before, that is not my intention. However, I think there's a fine line between glorifying Nazism and maintaining some level of conformity among the holders of offices spanning Germany's history. Before our disagreement escalates into an edit war, I was hoping we could reach a compromise.

My main issue with shrinking infobox pictures for figures like Hermann Göring , the President of the Reichstag & Vice-Chancellor) and Joachim von Ribbentrop , the Minister for Foreign Affairs, is that they are part of a long line of officeholders which can be traced back to the German Empire. Consequently, for the sake of maintaining continuity, I think the pictures of such figures should be no smaller (OR bigger) than those previously occupying the same office. With that being said, I have no problem letting you shrink images for Nazis whose offices only existed during Hitler's dictatorship. Just to name a few, this would include:

• Rudolf Hess - Deputy Führer of the Nazi Party
• Martin Bormann - Chief of the Nazi Party Chancellery
• Alfred Rosenberg- Leader of the Foreign Policy Office of the NSDAP
• Joseph Goebbels - Reich Plenipotentiary for Total War & Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda
• Philipp Bouhler- Chief of Chancellery of the the Führer of the NSDAP
• Reinhard Heydrich- Deputy Protector of Bohemia & Moravia

Let me know what you think. Thanks for hearing me out.Emiya1980 (talk) 06:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

"Continuity" and "conformity" are extremely poor reasons for glorifying the images of Nazis, which is what you are suggesting, whether you wish to think of it in that manner or not. So Hitler is one of a long line of Reich Chancellors, so what? How many of the previous chancellors was responsible for the death of up to 17 million people, not including those killed in the war Hitler provoked?I totally reject your apparent contention that Hitler is simply another German Chancellor and should be presented in precisely the same way as the others. We have an obligation to our readers to present the visage of Hitler, but none at all to do so in a way that makes him look dominant and powerful. Nor should we endeavor to choose images that make him look impotent or clownish -- either choice is a violation of NPOV. We should present his image in such as way that it is easily viewable and a good, neutral likeness, but that's the extent of our obligation to the reader.The same goes for all of Hitler's henchmen, whether they were party officials, collaborating military officers, or those who held ministerial positions. Göring, for instance, was a central figure in the "Aryanization" of German and Austrian businesses, and is not to be forgiven for that simply because he held a ministerial post. I therefore reject "conformity" and "continuity" as acceptable reasons for presenting Nazis of any kind in any but the most basic and utilitarian manner. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zionist Organization of America, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mother Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Dispute

Hello, please be aware you have been included in a dispute. Please see find the link here:

Thank you for your willingness to improve Misplaced Pages!Barbarossa139 (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi BMK, do you know why that references list is appearing on the dispute? The links provided in the dispute do not match the apparent sources. Thanks. Barbarossa139 (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding , a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Template:Z33

As a reminder, restoring questionably-sourced information to an article when its verification has been challenged can be seen as disruptive editing, as you've done here. I've started a talk page discussion about this problematic sourcing which you should participate in, but I do suggest you self-revert unless you are willing to fully stand by your the edit you made. -- Netoholic @ 13:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)