Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rklawton (talk | contribs) at 21:25, 5 July 2010 (→Misplaced Pages: the 💕: formatting (I think). I don't understand Nate's point regarding political power. I haven't any.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Agree in principle but not in form

Yes, you're right in the substance of your edits to remove the links on Eugene Sledge. You will see that I have added a comment to the effect that I agree with the substance of your edits. But I fail to see what purpose it serves to bite a newby so thoroughly. If you are moved to follow through with your threat to blacklist Sidney Phillips' personal website site I'd appreciate it if you let me know, since I have linked his site to his article. Regards.Trilobitealive (talk) 01:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

In real time...I read your comment on the article talk page and I bow to your superior ability to access secret wikipedia information. But you did sound bitey and I'd still appreciate a heads up if you nominate the site for blacklisting. Regards. Trilobitealive (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I love noobs - especially those who show a willingness to learn. I made my first edits to Misplaced Pages as an example to teach my classes that Misplaced Pages was not a reliable source. The repeated reversions and vandal warnings (to my IPs) quickly taught me otherwise, and I took a keen interest in editing constructively. Just a few months ago I went to bat on AN/I for a noob/conspiracy theorist who demonstrated his willingness to learn (in my opinion). I lost, and I pissed off a few people in the process, but I think it demonstrates that I really respect willingness to learn (for the record, I really hate conspiracy theorists). In the present case, MRB has demonstrated no willingness to learn. His edits to these articles pre-date the establishment of his account, and they bear the hallmarks of an SPA/COI/SPAM. My initial edits and comments were brief and to the point. MRB's repeated insistence on adding these links demanded an escalation (or an outright block), and it's this escalation that I presume you perceive as bitey. MRB's lie that he is "just a history buff" came as a complete surprise. Send me an e-mail and I'll send you the smoking gun link (my reading of WP:OUT appears to not prohibit this, but I'm open to alternative views). Blacklisting would only happen if we see multiple accounts trying to make the same edit. The normal process is: warnings (where we are now), account blocking, AN/I (if blocking fails), and with AN/I support - blacklisting. If it comes to blacklisting, I wouldn't be making the final decision, but I'd keep you apprised. Rklawton (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't honestly say I'm sorry for my criticism based on style not substance; if you look through my early edit history you'll see which administrator came close to making me quit. I still dislike anything which reminds me of her style, though you do show yourself to have both a heart and sense of humor once you fill in the blanks. My interest is making better articles and my early realization was Phillips is an important resource to explain some of Sledge's idiosyncracities, for instance the origin of his heart murmer and the reason he was held back a year in both school and joining the marines. So if you shut down Phillips website then we lose that information. I do think its sad that these old WW-II vets spent their entire lives afraid to talk and then the ones who finally did talk are being exploited by commercial interests. And yes I include the good folks of HBO and PBS in the list of exploiters. Trilobitealive (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't thought much about the exploitation angle. Initially the publications looked like vanity books - and still may well be. I haven't dug around for more information on that topic. All the men in my family served in the military (myself included), and two of my great uncles received Silver Stars. They didn't talk about their experiences until I put on my uniform. What they had to say was quite remarkable: anger, guilt, remorse, justification - it was all there. I'd read The Longest Day, Turkel's books, and many others - as well as all the various movies, and I quite agree, our combat veteran's silence was tragic. Our views on war were terribly warped as a result. At this point we're still pretty far from a blacklist, so I wouldn't worry. But I'll keep you posted, though you'll be able to see it unfold on the article's talk page. You would also automatically get an AN/I notice, too - if it should come to that (which I doubt). Oh, and as far as principle v. form goes, I have no doubts I can and should improve my form. Rklawton (talk) 02:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

How can I upload a picture to Misplaced Pages?

I was wondering how could I upload a picture on Misplaced Pages? Zaz986 (talk) 03:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Click on your article (or any article), look on the left side of your screen for "Toolbox" - it's the third item down (more or less) "Upload file". Remember, the file (image) you upload must be your own work - it can not be copyrighted by someone else (ie, you can't just copy it from someone's website). Rklawton (talk) 03:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok thank you very much. What if I were to ask for the persons permission for use of that image? Would I be able to use it then?Zaz986 (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but there's a process for that. We provide several different free-distribution license options, and the person would have to agree to the specific one chosen as well as contact Misplaced Pages directly. It's not an option I've explored because I do all my own work. Rklawton (talk) 03:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks. How much time will I have to improve the Tinkernut.com Article and how will you be reviewing it? I read the criteria for making an article like that on (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WEB) and found that this aricle just about meets 2 out of the 3 criteria. I am also not writing this article to advertise the Website and do not want it to link back to the site for advertising reasons. Zaz986 (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

One of the things I look for is an editor who is making an effort to learn, and I really appreciate the effort I'm seeing in your case. I see no reason to be hasty. How many days do you think you will need? Rklawton (talk) 03:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd really like to save this page. But I don't know where to start. So the article needs to have evidence that it should belong in an encyclopedia like Wikipedai? I guess maybe 3 to 5. Less if I can gather some more resources. Zaz986 (talk) 03:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Three to five days sounds OK with me. This won't prevent another administrator from deleting the article (there are about a thousand of us). However, if that happens, let me know, and I'll move your work over to a separate workspace for you to use without any time pressures - and you won't lose any of your work, either (so don't panic if it happens). Rklawton (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll try and post on here again in a few days and talk to you about the article. Zaz986 (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you check the Tinkernut.com Article?

I've added a few things to the article and I thought you could check it out. I'm having some problems putting a screenshot of the home page and I was wondering if you could help me with that? I've also added more resources as I thought that would help. I would just like you to know that I will keep editing this page in the future as well as many other Misplaced Pages Articles.Zaz986 (talk) 05:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think screen shots are permitted - copyrights and all that. I'll check on the article Monday. It's Mother's Day. Rklawton (talk) 05:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok.Zaz986 (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering if you have checked the article?Zaz986 (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Some other people and I have added more to the Tinkernut.com article

Alot of people have added things to the article. Could you check it out and tell me what you think.Zaz986 (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

So will the Article stay?

Will the article stay? And what do you mean it lacks style? How can I improve that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaz986 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why it wouldn't stay. Style? Read WP:MOS - but don't worry, that's something lots of folks (we call the gnomes) are willing to help with. Rklawton (talk) 02:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Will you submit it for any type of approval?Zaz986 (talk) 05:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Articles stay up and they get improved. If someone thinks it doesn't belong, they post a note and go from there. Rklawton (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Quick Close

How's about we close this one too (and archive it)? It's over, methinks. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

General tsos chicken

I found an interesting website about general tsos chicken and I was wondering if it could be used as a reference on the page. The link is www.generaltsoschicken.net/RecipeSteps.html it has step by step instructions on how to make general tsos chicken as well as a funny how to video which goes over the steps as well.

Gabster611 (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Gabster611Gabster611 (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You might want to check with Misplaced Pages's food project. Misplaced Pages isn't a "how to" - so I'm not sure links to recipes are appropriate - but the folks working on the food project would know better than I. Rklawton (talk) 04:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The Tinkernut Article was deleted

I recently visited the Tinkernut Article and it says that it has been deleted. Would you be able to check it and possibly restore it? What was the reason for deletion?Zaz986 (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the article and moved one of the more notable bits to the top paragraph (per our style). In this way, the casual reader can see and evaluate the article's merits more quickly. I left a note with the deleting admin stating I disagreed with his reasoning and suggested if he thinks the article isn't notable, then he (she?) should submit it to a more formal deletion review. This doesn't obligate the admin to take any action at all (which would be good for you), but if he does submit it for AfD, then you will be notified and given a link. The process would then be open for discussion for five days. You may participate in the discussion. Generally it's best to simply oppose the deletion and point out that the article makes several claims of notability. After that, read what others write and see if you can fix up the article accordingly. Some editors make the mistake of responding to (and repeating themselves) every little comment thereby making the whole process tedious for everyone. Simply fixing problems as they come to light should suffice. The main problem I see is style/formatting - but neither of those are grounds for deleting an article. The problem I initially saw (and others apparently still see) is with the subject's notability. Personally, I think 2.8 million views counts as notable, and additional awards, interviews, etc. bolster the case. Sure, he's not the most famous web personality out there, but he's firmly enough in the gray area where I wouldn't want to nominate the article for deletion myself. Rklawton (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you for restoring the article. I saw on the user that submitted the Article for deletion also submitted it for AfD, what will happen after the discussion is over? Will the article stay or go? Does it depend on the Misplaced Pages users commenting about it?Zaz986 (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Users will comment on it, and another admin (not me or the guy who submitted it) will evaluate the comments and make a decision to keep or delete it. If it's kept, it's usually kept permanently. If it's not kept, you can appeal. Rklawton (talk) 05:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding what you said on the discussion page for the Satanic Verses

There is no reason to believe that Muslim scholars decide which Quranic verses are authentic or not. The Quran has been preserved in its authenticity since the inception of Islam. There is nothing fictional in the slightest about that. Your argument, presumably, is that early Muslim scholars had to cut this verse out of the Quran. Most early historical accounts dating near the death of the Prophet(PBUH) don't mention a single thing about the satanic verses. The idea of such a thing seems to be not at all in the mindset of early Muslims or later Muslims but simply a lousy rumor spread within a few circles. Al Tabari is not a certified historian of Islam. He was born 200 years after the Prophets death. To say that he has any say over such a thing is foolishness at best and pure slander at worst.14:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.113.234 (talk)

You should probably take some time and read up on the history of the Quran as you see to have bought into popular, modern myths. The current version doesn't match the earliest versions, and parts of it even today are incoherent even to Arabic language scholars. You might also find this article informative Historicity of Muhammad. Rklawton (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The Article was deleted again

The article Tinkernut was deleted again. I left a message on the user who deleted the page but I still havent gotten a response. What should I do? Just wait for a response or can you restore it again? Or should I just give up?Zaz986 (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You read the deletion discussion page. Is there something on this page you do not understand? It's possible to appeal, but given what I read, I'd say you'd be wasting your time. The subject simply lacks sufficient notability. Rklawton (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Oke thanks for all your help.Zaz986 (talk) 04:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

link spam? from 2008?

I was just updating the format - if you don't like the link why didn't you do something about it in the past two years? j-beda (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Just letting you know. Rklawton (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If you would familiarize yourself with our policy on external links - you would save us pointless discussion. These links are a clear violation. And your smart-ass tone is also not welcome. Rklawton (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, don't get your shorts in a knot. If you think that I contributed to link spam because I changed a link from http://blah-blah.com/Front_Page to http://blah-blah.com/ and added an interwiki link to WikiSpot then you are incorrect, as I didn't add the original links in the first place (as I mentioned, the Wairarapa entry link seems to have been made in late 2008). The ONLY page I actually added anything to today rather than just changing a format of was to the Alameda, California page - I just happened across their Alameda Wikispot page when looking for some Alameda info, and thought it was a good source to add to the wikipedia entry. Perhaps it is inappropriate for this entry - I did not do a huge background check on their "history of stability" and "number of editors". My quick look had me feel that it was appropriate in that case.

What got MY shorts in a knot was, frankly, my hurt feelings when I felt you had accused me of "link spamming" over a variety of articles when I felt that my actions were in fact more equivalent to typo corrections. Perhaps I should get a thicker skin.

I do feel that we have moved wikipedia a bit too far in the "notability" direction and are starting to suffer from loosing useful information and user participation, so I probably would tend to be more inclusive than you perhaps would be, but I do recognize the defensibility of what I perceive to be your position. If I ever have an urge to contribute more to this work, I will certainly keep your expressed position in mind. j-beda (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I was dead wrong about the link-spam bit. I jumped to conclusions on that one, so you have my apology. The links however, aren't helpful. The inclusive/exclusive debate is an old one and not likely to be resolved within the community as it's rather intangible. In the present case, a handful of editors does not a stable wiki make. Rklawton (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages: the 💕

In case you haven't noticed, this is a 💕. Any body, Any where, at Any time can say what ever they want on Any thing. It is open to the public to be edited. On the other hand, if that were true, then Misplaced Pages would turn into an illogical, incoherent, nonsensical mess. Therefore, it is policed, managed and enforced, in order to breed out the truth. Misplaced Pages is deigned to bare the truth, and not run as one continuous bibliography. If it was, (that is, let us assume, for a moment, that you're right) when the article states:

The name refers to Eostur-monath, a month of the Germanic calendar named after the goddess Ēostre of Anglo-Saxon paganism.

What it should really say is:

Robert K. Barnhart, in his Dictionary on Concise etymology, says that the name refers to Eostur-monath, a month of the Germanic calendar, which named after the goddess Ēostre of Anglo-Saxon paganism.

If you don't agree with this change, consider this: I can insert my new idea without violating Misplaced Pages's policy. Look here:

The festival of Easter is undeniably related to Jesus. In fact, the Latin word for Jesus is Iesus (Pronounced: Ee-isus) 2.

And later:

Easter in England is first mentioned by the Venerable Bede in his book, The Reckoning of Time, in 725 A.D. Therefore, it must have started in England some time before that. At which time, the Churches in England spoke Latin in their Liturgy.

Now let us look at the policy itself. I heard user:Ruckabumpkus mention over and over again about peer-reviewed articles. "You would have to cite a peer-reviewed article", or "You would have to write a peer-reviewed article in a magazine or newspaper". (Which I still think is pretty silly and backwards.) I read the entire policy of Misplaced Pages, and those words are never mentioned. All I read were, "reliable, verifiable sources". I used such sources to:

• Prove that Jesus is translated into Latin as Iesus.
• Prove that Iesus is pronounced "Ee-isus".
• Prove that the Churches of England spoke Latin when Easter was first there.

If you look at any article on Misplaced Pages, they use anything but peer-reviewed article in an article or newspaper. They quote fan-sites, they quote movies, They quote crack-pot websites, they quote original ancient text. Now, let's unpack those words, peer-reviewed article. I am writing on an article, which is being reviewed by my peers (being a fellow Wikipedean and a fellow Christian). Nate5713 (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the lecture. You're wrong, of course. Misplaced Pages is *not* about the "bare truth". Misplaced Pages is about reliable, verifiable sources. Note also that extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Also, academic topics require academic sources. On the "logical" side, I think an editor with as little editing experience as you have really should listen and learn from significantly more experienced editors. It's only logical that we might have a better grasp over what is and is not appropriate. We've been trying to communicate this to you, but for reasons I couldn't hope to explain, you seem bent on not learning. If you persist, I will initiate proceedings aimed at having you banned from editing. Rklawton (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Before I rebuttal, I'd like to know, just in case, how you would go about banning me. Nate5713 (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I would submit a report with a list of your edits to the administrator's notice board and request they comment. Basically, a guy who insists on using his own logic and conclusions has a snowballs chance in hell. They wouldn't ban you outright, they'd try their luck, much as I have at advising you that we don't publish original research, and then they'd ban you. Just my guess, though. That's how it's usually worked in the past. Sometimes editors wise up, read, and follow our guidelines, and sometimes they don't. The short of it, though, is that we have a limited time to spend volunteering, and people who just don't get it and take up too much of our time get the boot. Rklawton (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Before we get too hasty, I have read the policy and I think I am just as wise as when I started. Here is the definition of original research:

If no source exists for something you want to add to Misplaced Pages, it is what we call original research.

I don't think this applies to me. After all, I use reliable, verifiable sources, they just happen to bring a conclusion to the reader's head, there is something else I found in the policy too, called WP:SYNTH. SYNTH states that I cannot string together known facts to draw a conclusion. However, look at my proposed edit:

Easter in England is first mentioned by the Venerable Bede in his book, The Reckoning of Time, in 725 A.D. Therefore, it must have started in England some time before that. At which time, the Churches in England spoke Latin in their Liturgy.

True, I string together facts, but I don't in any way promote my new idea. Just a thought, I hope you don't take this the wrong way. Nate5713 (talk) 10:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"String together facts" is what we call WP:SYNTH and we do not allow it. Period. Rklawton (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I know you're wrong, but I won't argue with you, because you claim to have some political power that some Wikipedeans have and others don't. Curiouser and curiouser. Nate5713 (talk) 12:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The little funny colored letters indicate there's a "link" - if you put your pointer on it and click with the left mouse button, it will take you to a page where other Wikipotemouses make the same point. My power - I call it "reading". Rklawton (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Being an administrator on WP needs no "claim to have some political power", really. It's a fact at this point, Nate5713.

Play by the rules: or you're out of the game... Doc9871 (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand Nate's point regarding political power. I haven't any. I just have knowledge based on experience. I guess "knowledge is power", so maybe that's something. Rklawton (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)