Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Uncle G (talk | contribs) at 18:28, 5 April 2009 (→Source Credibility: On games). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

�

Mean

This edit was kind of mean, as has your overall attitude towards me in the deletion discussion. I am sure that there are some administrators who would wish to discourage the involvement of new editors in the project. Perhaps you are one of those? Sławomir Biała (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

For instance, the explicit assertion that my edits were not made "in good faith" seems like a fairly bald charge. Anyway, you may as well block me now for editing in bad faith. I will not object. Sławomir Biała (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Shall I take it that I have a second lease on life here? Or shall I go to some appropriate forum and insist that I be blocked for "bad faith editing"? Sławomir Biała (talk) 02:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Uncle G/On the discrimination of what is indiscriminate

Can I make it an essay, moving it to Misplaced Pages main space? Ikip (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• It's already an essay. And some of it is in the first person. A better thing to do would be to find some way to improve that section heading. Uncle G (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • As you know, many people scoff when an editor quotes user essays in AfDs, but a mainspace essay has more clout and authority. Have you brought this essay up at WP:NOT? Ikip (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
    • This subheading?: ""Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is not an indiscriminate criterion for deletion." good question.

      Ikip (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

      • No, the section heading that the page is talking about, not that, which isn't a subheading at all. As I said, a far better use of time than discussing whether my page should be in the project namespace or not would be to go to Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not and discuss finding a better section heading. One can always link to that user page to show what the problem is. As to whether I've brought it up: You appear to have missed what I wrote on the page. I did more than bring the issue up. I actually edited the policy to fix part of the problem, back in 2006. Uncle G (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:Icons in AFD discussions

Chained Mormon

Thanks for joining in. I was standing too close to it to improve it any more. It now looks like a substantial and well cited article and precisely in "our" mould here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Carrie Petrelli

Heh. Thanks for using that as an example -- now I can't A7 it myself. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm reasonably sure that I haven't used that article as an example of anything. And "what links here" seems to indicate that no-one else has, either. Do you have the correct article? Uncle G (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• Ah. You're talking about the AFD discussion, not the article. I did use that as an example. One interesting and relevant thing is what the nominee in another RFA discussion did, with a similar question. See this edit. That edit all by itself was a fairly good indication of how the nominee would use xyr tools, I thought. I've just been back to the discussion, this being the earliest opportunity that I've had to revisit it, and found it closed — alas! Uncle G (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. It was interesting that you found my clean-up of your question more informative than my answers :D By the way, I see that you were involved with WP:AfC in its beginnings? Martin 07:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed, I was. The refactoring that you did showed how you thought, how you approached using your existing tools, and thus how you would approach using the tools that you were nominated for receiving. Uncle G (talk) 11:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Deconstructing SMPs

Lol, I didn't even realize that. I obviously didn't read the entire article, and the parts I skimmed over, I figured it was just the result of a really, really bad automated translator. :P Anyway, thanks for cleaning that up. =) --slakr 13:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Piano rock article content

Hi, I just saw that the piano rock article was deleted. Article deletions are always unfortunate when the articles in question arguably contain useful (and in this case, even cited) information. Do you still have access to the content of the deleted article? I can think of three ways to remedy this situation at least a bit:

• Add a summary of the information in the article to another article, which addresses the notability and single-source problems, since you do not even need to claim that there is a recognised genre, only a trend or strain of piano-based rock
• The solution chosen in List of musical works in unusual time signatures#See also, which references an earlier, unsourced list that is a subpage of the talk page belonging to the article
• The solution chosen in User:Melodia/List of popular songs based on classical music, with a subpage of a user page housing the information, which would not take up a lot of server space in your case anyway and as such, cannot be construed as misuse.

I would be glad if you found a way to salvage the article content and make it available and findable for interested users. Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sanaz Shirazi

Hello Can I make changes and add more info to the article? Dont like the way some of it sounded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qchristina (talk • contribs) 18:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• We welcome expansion of stub articles. But that expansion must be done properly. This isn't a press release service, a personal web site, or an advertising billboard. It is an encyclopaedia. Your additions must be verifiable, neutral, and not original research. I've started the article off in the right direction. Notice that everything there can be checked, by readers, against fully identified sources with good reputations for checking their facts, and does not present the Shirazi's views as if they were Misplaced Pages's. (Misplaced Pages, an encyclopaedia, has no views.) In addition to the tutorial and the policies that other people are already pointing you towards on your talk page, I suggest that you also read User:Uncle G/On sources and content#Tips for editors. Work from good sources, show the sources, be neutral, include only knowledge that is actually acknowledged by the world at large, don't mis-use Misplaced Pages for what it is not, and you won't encounter too much trouble and difficulty here. Uncle G (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hm...

I appreciate that ad hominem attack on VP. Very well done. So, if we're going to play little games, was this also why you pulled a prod off Felicitaries with no reasoning? MSJapan (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• There was no ad hominem anywhere. I simply told you to think about why we are so poor in expanding certain classes of stubs, by considering why you yourself do not expand them.

  Come now! Think! The reasons that you don't expand them are the same reasons that many others don't, either. This doesn't make the articles the problem. It makes lack of editor ability, willingness, interest, time, and other factors, the problem. As I said, the fact that we have these stubs says nothing about the articles. The only thing that it reflects upon is Misplaced Pages editors.

  Your attempt to address the problem by thinking of how to systematically remove the articles is entirely wrongheaded. It's the editors where the problem lies. That is what you should be trying to fix. And a good place to start is by looking at the reasons that you yourself don't write, when not only do you know that sources exist, you even know exactly where and what they are. Figure out what would encourage you to write, and you'll have a way to encourage others to do so, too. Uncle G (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Linking Degree (Freemasonry) at Freemasonry

I am not asking for "perfection" before we link to it... however, I am asking that we not link to sub-articles that have fundamental factual accuracy issues. Those need to be ironed out, then we can link. Blueboar (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• There's no justification for that, and that's not how Misplaced Pages is built. We don't de-link articles because they don't yet include all information on a subject. We build the web, especially in the case of main topic articles for sub-topics within other articles. And via that web, other editors find articles and work on them, and help us to write the encyclopaedia. We certainly don't remove internal links on spurious "verifiability" grounds (especially since unverifiability isn't even the issue with the article being linked to, as you and I both know). A main article internal link cannot be unverifiable. That's clearly a reach. Uncle G (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think this is now a moot point. Most of the factual inaccuracies have been ironed out, and as a result my objections to linking it at the main Freemasonry article have been resolved. I will re-link it. Blueboar (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Icon Group International and GFDL

Apologies for bringing this to your talk page rather than to the appropriate discussion page. There seem to be several potentially appropriate discussion pages so I don't want to choose one where this will be ignored, and you seem to have a pretty good understanding of GFDL.

What do you make of the GFDL compliance of these books that have copyright notices such as this? Is that notice sufficient attribution to us, the copyright holders? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• See Misplaced Pages:Mirrors and forks and Misplaced Pages:GFDL Compliance#Footnotes. Compliance with §4(B), §4(I), and §4(J) of the GFDL appears to be missing, by my reading. There's no list of authors, no history, and no link to a transparent copy of the original. Contrast this with, say, the book that one gets from Misplaced Pages:Books/Classes of supernovae. (Notice the author list and permalink to the original transparent copy at the bottom of every article.) I suggest listing these as mirrors, in the appropriate GFDL compliance level. Uncle G (talk) 05:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments on proposal

Hi, as you participated in the village pump discussion, I'd like to draw your attention to this proposal. Further input is welcome. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 12:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Eric Devendorf and Jonny Flynn

Hey - these two articles have been consistently vandalized recently. Can you protect these two pages for a short period of time? GoCuse44 (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• I've kept an eye on the edit history for the past couple of days. The persistent vandalism seems to have died down at both of those since I protected the other article. Let's see how things continue without protection. If it becomes a problem again, drop a note on Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection. Uncle G (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

AbsoluteTelnet DRV

Hi! I left a response to your comments on the AbsoluteTelnet DRV page. I was hoping you could read my additional comments and respond AbsoluteTelnet DRV. Thanks --Brian Pence (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Flagrant disregard of guidelines

Hi Uncle G

What do you make of the reply to my original point at User talk:Kittybrewster#Marvin Sutton?

Thanks, Bongomatic 10:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice!

I'm referring to User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage. That rocks! I'd support moving it to the mainspace if you felt it was ready.—S Marshall /_Cont 16:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Seattle-Portland Rivalry

Noticed that you removed the AfD on this article. I didn't realize that one was made previous to the 24th until now but consensus seems to be to remove and it doesn't meet standards. It has hardly been improved content wise. Also, some have expressed valid concerns with notability, the title, and verifiability. I'm not necessarily against including this article but don't think it is appropriate at this time. Is it eligible for deletion if the article is not improved? If so, how long is appropriate to wait?Cptnono (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• I did no such thing. I ejected it from Proposed Deletion, because it was ineligible, having already been contested once, the first time that it was nominated for Proposed Deletion. The difference between AFD and Proposed Deletion was explained to you yesterday, on the article's talk page. Follow the hyperlinks that were given in that explanation, in particular the one that leads to Misplaced Pages:Proposed Deletion, to see what Proposed Deletion is all about, and what it does not cover.

  Don't treat this as Someone Else's Problem, by the way. Deletion nominations are not sticks to beat other editors with into doing one's bidding. If you want an article expanded or cleaned up, follow the advice in User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do: expand it or clean it up yourself, or apply the appropriate expansion or cleanup request tag. You all have the page move tool for fixing the the title, moreover. That isn't a matter for deletion, either. Nominating an entire article for deletion because one is unwilling to simply rename it appropriately using the tools that one readily has to hand onesself is wasting everyone else's time frivolously.

  Only nominate an article for deletion on notability or verifiability grounds if you've looked for sources yourself, and come up with nothing usable. The first step is looking for sources. Only after you've done that can you confidently and honestly say that none exist, at which point you can go straight to deletion and present a solid rationale that actually has a basis in our deletion policy. There isn't a waiting period, but there is a necessary precursor. The idea that waiting is even involved is wrongheaded. You shouldn't be waiting, for Somebody Else to do the work, you should be doing — searching for sources, yourself. And if you actually do find sources when you look for them, the next step is improving the article, not deletion nominations of any sort. You'll have done some useful legwork that can help other editors. (This is, after all, a collaboratively written project. Writing the encyclopaedia is not Somebody Else's Problem. Everyone adds a little bit of work, and, amazingly, the encyclopaedia gets written.) Again, see the triage procedure. Uncle G (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Did you intend to come across snippy and lecturing? I think you missed my point completely. As I have stated in the article's talk pages, I don't see how it can be a valid article if it can't be improved. I have attempted to find sources but can't. At this time I remain doubtful that it can be fixed and wanted to see if there was criteria to keep the rivalry information in the team's subsection if it is not possible. I also did not see where you explained to me the difference between AfD and Proposed Deletion. Would you mind throwing that link in so I can read what you said? I will look at the info you mention above as well but am curious to your previous explanation on this one in particular.Cptnono (talk) 03:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I didn't explain it to you. Peteforsyth did. And if you've looked and found no sources at all documenting any such thing, you can nominate the article for deletion at AFD. The criterion for including such content anywhere, in a standalone article or as part of a larger article, is verifiability. If you've tried to find sources against which this content can be verified by readers, and have failed, then it fails to satisfy that requirement. Uncle G (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Understand what you were trying to say about the difference between an AfD and Proposed Deletion now. Regardless of me getting the terminology wrong and since you look like a fan of rescuing articles, is this article worthy of expansion? This article could be wikilawyered and stylized to be OK at first glance but it still looks like the information works best in the subsections of the two teams, potentially the Cascadia cup (Seattle-Portland-Vancouver), or maybe new articles about the relatively small supporter groups of the two teams who don't have articles but care most about the rivalry. In your opinion, is it best in this stub (it can be forced larger if needed) or is expansion to the already existing articles sufficient. Talk:Seattle-Portland Rivalry has some links to sources but no one has taken notice.Cptnono (talk) 07:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Rescue Barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For your editorial efforts culminating in the rescue of The Economist editorial stance. -- FayssalF - 16:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Good close!

Now how often do you hear "good close" at AfD??? *grin*

I was tempted to speedy Giambracy as a G3 and figured I wouldn't bite. Given the pattern you saw, looks like I was assuming a bit too much good faith. Good job!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you. Uncle G (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Addition to DRV process

Hi, you've been active as an administrator in the DRV process in the past so I would appreciate your comments on my suggested change to DRV requirements. Thanks! ] (talk · contribs) 09:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Functional integration (neurobiology)

Hi -- why did you remove the prod from that article? Without a source it's utterly useless, and I, a neurobiologist, don't know how to find a source for it. I feel that as an admin who ought to behave responsibly, it is now up to you to turn that into at least a semi-respectable article. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• You do know how to find a source for it. The technical term for the process involved is "reading". ☺ One place to begin reading is the "Further reading" section of the article itself, in fact. More ways to find sources can be found using the methods outlined in the several places indexed at Misplaced Pages:Editor's index to Misplaced Pages#Resource. And you don't get to demand that other people edit articles for you. Everyone here is a volunteer. You want the article improved? {{sofixit}}! Uncle G (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Let me try this a different way. Why did you remove the prod? Are you actually familiar enough with the term "functional integration" as used in neuroscience to believe that the article is valid? (To put this on the right plane, maybe I should explain that I'm not a newbie, I'm the maintainer of WikiProject Neuroscience.) Looie496 (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
    • You are avoiding doing what I said to do. Go and read the "Further reading" section of the article. You should be reading, not arguing.

      Indeed, as a WikiProject Neuroscience member, you should be busy showing that you can find even more sources, and do far better in your own chosen field of the encyclopaedia, than some random person called "Uncle G" managed to do in a few minutes with only some ordinary search tools. I can find things such as doi:10.1038/sj.npp.1300145 with a few minutes' work. You should be able to do better. You should be busy showing me (and everyone else) up, by finding even more — far more — sources than I did, and turning neuroscience stubs into full articles. After all, it's what the WikiProject that you are a member of is supposedly there to do.

      If you want some more things to put on that WikiProject's to-do list, read Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Typoglycemia (2nd nomination). Uncle G (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

ANI Discussion

Another user has posted to ANI an issue that concerns you. The relevant thread can be found here. TNXMan 16:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Source Credibility

Hi. I'm somewhat speechless, actually. I have listed this edit: on the WP:ANI. It took me a while, because I've never had to do this before, and wasn't even sure what to do. I thought discussions of this sort were always done on talk pages? If you look at my contributions, I don't think you'll find very many recent mistakes of the magnitude you describe. Have I pissed you off sometime in a past life? Did I criticize a previous edit? I just dont' get it... --OliverTwisted (Stuff) 16:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)