Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NeilN (talk | contribs) at 16:39, 8 December 2009 (→December 2009). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Comments

Per WP:TALK and standard practice on wikipedia, please do not add discussions the the beginning of talk pages and even worse, do not add them to the beginning of an existing discussion (i.e. at the beginning existing topic heading). I have removed your discussion here and not bothered to add it back since it didn't seem to related much to improve the article which is the purpose of talk pages. I won't however remove it if you add it to a new discussion or the end of a relevant existing discussion Nil Einne (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. The cited *guidelines* say nothing of the kind. They discuss that new Topics should be placed at the bottom of the page - not posts. The guidelines do say, however "Be welcoming to newcomers: People new to Misplaced Pages may be unfamiliar with policy and conventions. Please do not bite the newcomers. If someone does something against custom, assume it was an unwitting mistake. Politely and gently point out their mistake, reference the relevant policy/guideline/help pages, and suggest a better approach." Since your action in deleting my post appears a willful and deliberate violation of this guideline I have replaced my comments at the top of the page. --DaleEastman (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

A "newcomer" who's been editing since January 2006? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I defie you to show where I posted to that discussion before December 4th, 2009. --DaleEastman (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I never assumed your mistake was on purpose. And I clearly did 'point out their mistake, reference the relevant policy/guideline/help pages, and suggest a better approach'. In fact, that was precisely what my post was about. If I had assumed your mistake was on purpose, I would not have bothered to point out to you that you made the mistake nor told you how what policy informs you you made a mistake nor told you how you can correct your mistake, since there is clearly no point pointing out someone is doing something wrong if they are already aware they are and already know how they should do it. In fact, what you're quoting at me demonstrates that I was not in any way wrong in my actions. Yes I could have simply moved your post down myself but it was not a requirement by precisely what you quoted at me and I was fully entitled to remove your post, informing you of why I did so, and giving you the chance to correct your mistake if you wished. Incidentally, as I explained above, I removed your post because 1) it was in the wrong place 2) it seemed rather off topic and forumish, repeating claims that have been discussed 10 times over. If your post was important and added something of merit to improving the article that hadn't already been discussed 10 times already then I would have moved your post down in preference to deleting it although as you yourself have demonstrated, this is not strictly required. And as I did not, and do not feel that your post really added anything to the discussion, I felt deleting it while giving you the option to add it back properly if you really felt it necessary was the best course and as you helpfully pointed out, a perfectly legitimate course for me to take. It is unfortunate that you decided to completely ignore my advice and added it back to the top, but another person User:Verbal has moved it down as you should have done. And if that and SBHS's comment isn't clear enough for you, yet me repeat it. Adding discussions to the bottom of existing discussions is implied both by WP:TALK and Help:Talk page and as I said, is standard practice on wikipedia. If you feel these aren't clear enough, you're welcome to propose clarifications. If you don't accept that the guidelines I've provided mean that you should add new comments to the bottom of an existing topic, unless replying to someone's point in which case you should add them indented and below the post you are replying to an any existing indented discussions and also don't accept my word that it is indeed proper practice here on wikipedia then I suggest you ask for clarification at WP:Help desk or WP:VPP. If you simply want to argue that since they aren't clear enough there's nothing wrong with what you did, then I have no interest in further discussion with you. I suggest you read Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines and numerous arbcom and other decisions where's it's infirmed or implied that ultimately if policy doesn't accurately describe what we do, then it needs to be modified and you may also want to consider how people who WP:Wikilawyer are usualy treated on wikipedia. Incidenetally, if it doesn't matter when you first posted to the discussion. Rules on talkpages are basically wikipedia-wide as are most of our policies. If you have extensive experience in editing wikipedia then you should be aware of the basic rules and can't be considered a 'newcomer' even if you are a first time participant in one specific discussion. However your history shows you have a habit if placing discussions to the top so I WP:AGF as I always did that despite your history you were genuinely unaware of policy here even if you don't meet the ordinary definition of 'newcomer'. It is unfortunate that no one has clearly informed you of this before however that may be because most of your other contributions to talkpage appear to have been the kind that would be deleted anyway regardless of where they were placed. However now that you have been informed, I suggest you start following normal practice. While many users would just move your posts down if they feel they are constructive, many may just delete them if they are in an odd place and they feel they add nothing useful to the discussion as I did. Remember that there's no reason people should be expected to spend their time to correct behaviour that causes problems as adding posts to the top does and given that they no longer have to WP:AGF and can presume you're aware of what is expected but are purposely flouting established practice, they have even more reason to just delete your posts. And as I said above, now that you are well aware of proper practice, there's no reason for them to notify you that they removed your post. If your behaviour begins to be WP:Disruptive there's a fair chance you will be blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 02:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Why would I ask for a clarification of a policy that clearly does not state, as you claimed, posts should be added to the bottom of topics. If you would like the policy modified I suggest you request that modification through the appropriate processes. As for your claiming my not following unwritten policy is disruptive consider that I could also invent any number of unwritten policies and claimed you violated them. Then go on to claim your actions were WP:Disruptive. With that there's a fair chance you will be blocked. --DaleEastman (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Tiger Woods. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. NeilN 22:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

OK I added the source. BTW - you clearly chould have heard this new nickname bandied about by now. --DaleEastman (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Tabloids journalism like this is not a source sufficient for biographies of living persons. I've blocked your account for 31 hours. If you continue to ignore that policy (linked from the edit notice of the article) then you'll be blocked indefinitely.--Chaser (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't be foolish. The media always assigns nicknames. "Bugsy" Siegal, for example, hated his media assigned nickname. Yet that is the name given not only inside his Misplaced Pages article but as its title. BTW - are you similarly going to ban everyone that uses Media Matters as a source? --DaleEastman (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, there is nothing in the policy you cited banning the NY Post - one of NY City's oldest newspapers. Perhaps you should suggest that to Misplaced Pages through the proper procedure as a policy change. --DaleEastman (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh please. It's clearly a tabloid. Real news sources wouldn't use fake pictures on their covers, and editors working in good faith would not claim them to be sources. Get real.--Chaser (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you like this Reference better?

"Results 1 - 10 of about 11,800 for "Cheetah Woods". (0.29 seconds" - From Google

--DaleEastman (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

DaleEastman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

blocking because one administrator hates a source is bizarre and excessive. Would Google's 11,800 hits on "Cheetah Woods" have been a more acceptable reference? Then by all means lets change the reference to that.

Decline reason:

No valid reason for unblocking given. TNXMan 23:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

"Results 1 - 10 of about 11,800 for "Cheetah Woods". (0.29 seconds"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22Cheetah+Woods%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

That number drops to 9 when searching Google News, a better filter of reliable sources. --NeilN 23:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Then your point would be Google News also confirms "Cheetah" is Woods' new nickname? Thanks. BTW - it's 10 now, and here's the new Google count: "Results 1 - 10 of about 12,700 for "Cheetah Woods". (0.30 seconds). 12,700 and going up like a rocket - 10% increase in less than a day! Wow! Ane here is Bing.com's count: "ALL RESULTS1-10 of 6,810,000 results." Double Wow! Could 6,810,000 hits be wrong? --DaleEastman (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No, 10 sources (many of them blogs/gossip sites) out of the many thousands of newspapers Google indexes does not make it a common nickname. What's your agenda here? Have you read WP:BLP? "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." --NeilN 16:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)