Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wuhwuzdat (talk | contribs) at 02:29, 7 February 2009 (→Gurboura's vandalism articles: old news). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

ok, I'm talking to myself, but...we can't have this page sitting here empty, right?

New posts go at the bottom of this page.

Any sections, unedited for 2 days or more, that I consider to be closed topics, or old news, will be deleted at my discretion.

Marking pages as "patrolled"

If you are here to complain that I do not mark pages as "patrolled", please have someone add the ability to do so when searching through the edits on this page; http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=newbie, as that is where I do my "Patrolling" from. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Lambaste

I've removed your speedy tag, because the fact that an article is more suitable for Wiktionary is NOT a valid reason to speedy it. Please restrict speedy tagging to valid reasons.

As it happens, the whole content is a copyvio, and I've tagged as such, but speedy deletion tagging must involve a correct reason, not just a "I think it should be deleted, please find a reason for me". Mayalld (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there - I just came across another instance of this slip at Ancient Greek sculpture art - the content was quite comprehensible, so your A1 tag didn't apply, but it is a copyvio and can be speedied on those grounds. Gonzonoir (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Marking and Deletion of Brainify

I have made this comment to Orange Mike but am sending it to you here as well as the one who marked the page for speedy deletion:

To people who are not members of the educational technology community, this may seem like a page which simply describes a website. It is not. This is a site of significance because: 1) its creator is a pioneer in educational technologies. He is a UBC faculty member who produced WebCT - the first widely adopted course management system for higher education. It is used in 80 countries and was the primary driver in on-line learning in higher education 2) this site (Brainify) is the first ACADEMIC social bookmarking and networking site for students. That alone makes it significant.

In my opinion, the article was not biased in any way - though I am happy to argue that point if you feel otherwise. However, as to its significance, as an educational technologist, I can assure you of its significance to the university and college community.

I respectfully ask that you either reinstate this article, or *at the very least* ask the opinions of a few experts in this field as to the significance of this article.

I appreciate very much the need to keep Misplaced Pages on track, but question the rapid deletion of articles of significance by administrators who may not be subject-matter experts. If you are a university or college educational technology subject matter expert - I apologize. If not - please either reinstate the article or consult the opinion of someone who is.

Thanks - Edtechguy46 (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The reasons for deletion stated on your dear departed articles deletion record are "Article about a web site, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject", in other words, you did NOT make it clear, in the text of your article, why this subject was significant and/or important.

This includes making it clear to middle age, non college-educated, machinists, like me. As for the significance and importance of this websites creator, that has very little to do with the significance and importance of his creation. Pardon the expression, but, crap from a thoroughbred quarter horse is just another pile of horse crap. Make the article about it's subject, not about the subjects creator.

Reinstate? Beyond my powers. Perhaps Orange Mike can bring it back from dead article purgatory, but if he does so, I would recommend having the article placed in your user space, editing it there, and BEFORE you put the article back in mainspace, ask a few editors to give it some constructive criticism. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Good advice. Thanks. Edtechguy46 (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

New Page Patrolling

Hello, I noticed you have been patrolling/tagging a lot of new pages for speedy deletion. However, you are not marking these pages as "Patrolled" when you do so. Please do so, as it prevents the (minor, but still present) inconvenience of checking new articles that have already been checked. Thanks! Jamiebijania (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

They should be marked, as I am using Twinkle, and my config for TW is set to "TwinkleConfig.markSpeedyPagesAsPatrolled = true;". Perhaps this is a slight bug in TW? Wuhwuzdat (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok thank you for explaning!Cheers,Jamiebijania (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

AIV

Thank you for making a report about Apolloespisteme (talk · contribs · block log) on Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Misplaced Pages and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. You may want to start going through the redirects while i post a generic COI notice.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

Hello. When you patrol new pages, acceptable articles or articles which have been tagged for deletion should be marked as "patrolled" using the link at the bottom right of the article. This is intended to save time. Thank you. MrShamrock (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see my response and explanation to another user, earlier today, in the section above titled New Page Patrolling. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry 'bout that, didn't see that MrShamrock (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

CSD

I have noticed you widely applying the G3 tag to articles. Most of these aren't vandalism. Please assume good faith and refrain from labelling articles as vandalism, it drives contributers away, and is the wrong CSD criteria.--Patton 23:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Were these articles like Bloof, Flojipoj, Maksist, Klonijo, Raloy, etc, etc, etc? Pure gibberish, attempts at neologisms, all created by 2 accounts, who I suspect are the same user. 1 article is probably a test page or nocontent, a pattern like this is pure vandalism. Just finished a sock report on them/him. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, and they didn't come under G3, they aren't vandalism. I have rejected the speedy tagging and listed them at AfD.--Patton 23:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion, Seeing as both of the content authors,User:Flojipoj and User:Hax0rIII have just been blocked for an indefinite period of time for sockpuppetry, why dont we invoke WP:SNOW, and dispense with the debate? Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)