Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aoidh (talk | contribs) at 12:37, 9 August 2012 (→FarenHYPE blanking: Comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

In this world, hatred has never been defeated by hatred. Only love can overcome hatred. This is an ancient and eternal law. –Dhammapada (1:5)

GA Nomination for Traditional healers of South Africa

Hi thanks for looking into the article. I have done what I can, however, even if it is still far off being a GA, feedback on what else could be done to improve it would help signficantly. A user Lemurbaby (talk) was going to look into it and was the one that suggested I nominate it, however they haven't responded, so I assume they are busy elsewhere. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do in the meantime. Mycelium101 (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It will take me a few days to a week to complete the review. Please be patient. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

2012 Aurora shooting

I am not clear on what I did wrong. United States Man (talk) 23:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the template. My concern is with WP:BLPCRIME. Viriditas (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I was just trying to keep the content on the page because there was an edit war going on. The IP kept removing it but I just put the info back until everyone figured everything out. United States Man (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to delete the template I added to our talk page. I think the IP was right for removing it. We need to be very careful with adding this kind of material. The person wasn't charged with any crime. Viriditas (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay. United States Man (talk) 23:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

And just to let you know, HammerFilmFan sent a message to Huntster because he thinks you should not send messages and called you a bit testy. United States Man (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Message received. I'm working on composing a new message for HammerFilmFan right now. I think he'll like it. Viriditas (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I like that too. Lol. United States Man (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I'll see if I can get better sources.DaltonCastle (talk) 06:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I'm sure you'll find something. Viriditas (talk) 06:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You are....

...much too kind. Arcandam (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Columbine shooting on Aurora shooting article

I've been off Misplaced Pages for the past few days, since before you left your comment on my Talk page, and I have no idea what state the article is in now, but just to respond to your comment: I simply didn't think that particular statistic merited being mentioned in the lede as one of the most important facts about the Aurora shooting. There aren't a lot of big shooting events in Colorado, so saying it's one of the biggest shooting events in Colorado doesn't seem that significant to me. I thought the statistic about the most victims in any shooting in NATIONAL history would have better justification for being in the lede. But I removed the Colorado stat from the lede in full awareness that it was just my opinion that it didn't belong there, and that I might be reverted; also, I didn't remove it where it was mentioned elsewhere in the office. As I said, I have no idea if the Colorado stat is anywhere in the current version; that was just my rationale for removing it at the time. Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, we disagree. I work on lead sections all the time, and this kind of statistic always appears in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Your idea of having WP:Conservatism work on the radical gay activism article

I am very much not in favor of this. WP:Conservatism is (and, to all appearances, is intended to be) a vote-stacking machine for editors with a conservative affiliation, not simply a project for improving conservatism-related topics. There are some articles it's difficult to prevent them bannering, because they maintain the claim to being an actual WikiProject rather than a resurrection of the conservative notice board and WikiProjects may banner and watch articles within their scope, but this article isn't about conservatism - it's of interest to conservative editors because they might wish to use Misplaced Pages to push an anti-gay agenda, but asking the alleged wikiproject to banner the article, against wikiproject practice, is just inviting more trouble of the kind we're already having. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that whatever we do, we need to remain optimistic and hopeful about editors from different backgrounds working together to collaborate. Viriditas (talk) 06:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Neogeo diffs

Thanks for finding those. That did change the character of the situation... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

FarenHYPE blanking

Your blanking of FahrenHYPE 9/11 is a violation of WP:BLANK. The guideline states:

If you think an article has no useful content, then either fix it, or else leave it in its present state and propose it for deletion.

The guideline provides the following exemptions:

• Libel
• Privacy of BLP
• Copyright vio
• Incorporation into another article

The reason you provided does not qualify as a allowable exemption under the guideline. The rationale you left was "you do not get to maintain and promote unsourced articles." Besides not being an acceptable exemption, I find it highly personal and suggest you stick to improving FahrenHYPE and leave the drama to another "unnamed editor" who is much better at it. Note that the article was previously kept at a deletion discussion and represents a consensus which is still in effect. Obviously you need a new consensus--at AFD--to blank the article. – Sir Lionel, EG 04:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Insults are a poor form of humor. The problem is that the humor is subjective, but the insult remains. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Lionel, a redirect to a parent topic is not a blanking, nor do I need a consensus to redirect an unsourced article that has packed sources for eight years. I'm afraid you have the burden of proof backwards. It is you who needs to add sources to prevent the redirect. Viriditas (talk) 05:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The guideline defines blanking as "editing a page so as to leave it... without any substantial content." Redirecting certainly falls within that description. You see, once it goes to AFD, a whole bunch of editors will scramble to find sources. Why should I have to find sources all by myself? This is supposed to be a collaboration. In any event, if you have a policy which supercedes or negates WP:BLANK lemme know.– Sir Lionel, EG 05:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Lionel, the page wasn't "left" without substantial content—it was turned into a redirect. This is the third time you've claimed that a redirect is a "page blanking". It wasn't and it isn't, and it sounds like you need to read up on redirects. Appealing to a deletion discussion from eight years ago isn't helpful. There are no sources, and the burden is on the editor wishing to keep content not on an editor redirecting an unsourced aricle to a parent topic after remaining unsourced for eight years. If this isn't making sense, feel free to escalate this to the appropriate noticeboard, but please don't continue to make silly claims on this page. Viriditas (talk) 05:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI a link to a policy--any policy--would make this go away fast.– Sir Lionel, EG 05:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Lionel, I'm not trying to make anything go away, and while appealing to a rule might work in some situations, I find it helpful to use our minds instead. Tell me, Lionel, what is the difference between page blanking and redirecting? Viriditas (talk) 06:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• WP:BLANK: "editing a page so as to leave it completely blank or without any substantial content"
• WP:REDIRECT: "a redirect is a page which has no content ..."

I hope you aren't going to suggest that a "blank" page is different than a page with "no content." – Sir Lionel, EG 11:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• You stopped one word short. A redirect has no content itself. That's not the same as having no content. The intent of WP:BLANK is to prevent articles from being useless blank pages and ensuring that any article that a reader arrives at has meaningful information; if they are redirected to a relevant article then this goal is fulfilled. WP:BLANK is a guideline that should be used with common sense; guidelines aren't meant to be taken as a literal word-for-word law that must be followed to the letter. This is especially true when the redirected page in question is completely without sources. WP:V is a policy, and as the entire page has no sources of any kind, and therefore no content that can be retained in keeping with WP:V, this core policy supersedes the guideline you're referring to. - SudoGhost 12:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Informing you

This message is to inform you that you came up in a discussion on the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#News. Viewmont Viking (talk) 08:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)