Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CorporateM (talk | contribs) at 23:01, 19 January 2015 (→Heather Bresch). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is my talk page. Please be nice! Click here to leave me a new message. I normally respond here, and I'll be watching your page (in a good froggy way) if I left you a message there. if you're just bored and want to look at frogs, I recommend The Commons.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14

FYI, Seph

This was posted yesterday --‖ Ebyabe - Inspector General ‖ 19:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ebyabe: Thanks for the heads up. §FreeRangeFrog 19:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Adding properly referenced information to Tony Jones (theologian)

Hi FreeRangeFrog, can you help me edit Tony Jones (theologian) so that it contains appropriately worded and sourced information? I tried to add some, but it was removed very quickly. I'd prefer to edit it to improve it, but I don't want to fall afoul of the 3 revert rule.121.45.218.89 (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I've pasted the content and references that were removed at Talk:Tony_Jones_(theologian)#Adding_properly_referenced_information_to_Tony_Jones_.28theologian.29 so people can help me edit it. 121.45.218.89 (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I cannot. Forgetting for a second that it was sourced to facebook and blogs (which are never reliable), the material was written inappropriately, lacking neutrality and attempting to synthesize information to make the point that the subject's divorce is bad for whatever reason. You'll need a reliable source that specifically talks about the subject and his divorce and places it exactly in that negative light. Otherwise it's all just original research. But ultimately the onus is on you to structure, word and source the information correctly. Per the BLP policy, such material is removed on sight, and without discussion. §FreeRangeFrog 19:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I've left that material alone. I have attempted to describe some of the discussion of emergent theology in neutral pov terms. What do you think? 121.45.218.89 (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Blogs and more blogs. Again, you need to find reliable sources. If you don't have those then it's not gonna happen. §FreeRangeFrog 19:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

What's a reliable source? You really could try to be more helpful rather than reverting everything I do. 121.45.218.89 (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:RS, WP:BLPSOURCES. §FreeRangeFrog 19:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

And I will note that a lot of that article is actually uses unreliable (or primary) sources, however none of that information is negative, which is the "trigger" for removal. So I placed some tags at the top. The article is protected for a week - that should give you time to find your sources. I forgot to mention, if you require a second opinion you can go here and ask for advice. §FreeRangeFrog 19:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Um, don't bite the newcomers, please? I don't feel very encouraged to come back after a week. 121.45.218.89 (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Definitely, unless the newcomers insist on edit warring on a biography and are unwilling to understand the policies they are pointed at. §FreeRangeFrog 19:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand now, but the policy was incredibly long and quite unclear. It was really helpful when you said "blogs are not reliable", even if you were understandably annoyed at the time. 121.45.218.89 (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

If I'd been told that in the first revert, I wouldn't have wasted your and my time on blogs, and would have spent effort finding other sources. 121.45.218.89 (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I think I've come up with a factual statement based on reliable sources (court documents). I'd like to get consensus before proposing an edit. What do you think of the edit at the end of Talk:Tony_Jones_(theologian)#Statement_on_Court_Case_duration_from_Court_Documents — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.218.89 (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, let's try again: Per Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves, I'd like to use the blog posts on the talk page, and perhaps other posts of Tony's, for information about himself. How do you feel about this? 121.45.218.89 (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The article already has enough primary sources... can you find some secondary ones? That would be best. The idea is to improve the article, not make it more worse :) Also, please be mindful about how you use and word those sources. Arriving at conclusions about the subject based on what the subject writes is original research. §FreeRangeFrog 22:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLPN

Ribbit. It appears that an IP-hopper who is repeatedly copying and pasting my post to User talk: Jimbo Wales (and misconstruing it as an illustration of how Misplaced Pages is such a terribly corrupt place) is now trying to game the system by spamming every possible admin in order to claim that they are involved. I am guessing that the IPs are sockpuppets for a banned user, but I don't know who. The IP is apparently now trying to put every admin on report to the stewards. Maybe the stewards can globally block the IPs. Ribbit. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Thanks for the heads up. Are they doing this somewhere else? So far three IPs blocked but those are not range-friendly. §FreeRangeFrog 01:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

There is an entirely different and even crazier IP who has just posted to WP:ANI with a conspiracy theory that User:BatteryIncluded is the real master of the Internet via Misplaced Pages. I don't think that those IPs are in any way related. User CombatWombat42 advised me of the post to WP:BLPN as impersonation. It wasn't regular impersonation, since they were only copying and pasting my signature to what had been my post. I haven't seen any further evidence of the IP that you blocked since you blocked it. As I said, I think that the IPs that you blocked (and another admin also blocked) are sockpuppets for a banned user ranting about how bad Misplaced Pages is. The most recent post is entirely different. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The post has been deleted, and redaction has been requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Redaction performed. Yet another user at WP:ANI complained about abuse by Binksternet, who is an ancient enemy, and said that he would obtain a restraining order, but then deleted that phrase in response to the WP:NLT warning. Multiple weird stuff, but the really crazy post is gone, and I haven't seen any more abuse by the IP-hopper whom you blocked. Thank you for blocking. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Restoring a fact that got dropped from Tony_Jones_(theologian) earlier today

Please see my suggested edit at Talk:Tony_Jones_(theologian)#Requested_Edit:_Tony_Jones_has_three_children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.218.89 (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Misha Cross

I am re-creating this article because she has now won the award for Foreign Female Perfomer of the Year at the 2015 XBIZ Awards. Erpert 15:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Okeydokey. §FreeRangeFrog 16:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Re:Speedy deletion declined: Terminales

Hi, this article is a hoax, especially by Brandon Peniche did not participate in any series with that title. Nor had 3 seasons, this is the real series. Allison Lozz nor participated in this series. I recommend you to investigate well. The user who I believe that article is an obvious puppet of User:Talker36912. Who has also created this another article that is also false .--McVeigh / talk 21:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@McVeigh: Thanks for the heads up. There's a difference between a hoax topic and misleading information in an article. They are not interchangeable. If "Terminales" the telenovela exists then the article cannot be considered a hoax. Hoaxes don't apply to content, because the deletion is performed on the article rather than the content. Not sure if that makes sense. The Acapulco one on the other hand is definitely a hoax. Ultimately though, you're very likely right that this is a sock of Talker36912, so I've deleted the articles as G5 instead. Cheers! §FreeRangeFrog 23:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

OK I understand, thank you for your help.--McVeigh / talk 00:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Eliminating the Michael Parker edits from the Satin article

Dear FreeRangeFrog, - Thank you again for offering to eliminate all of Michael W. Parker's edits from the Mark Satin FA. I have now reviewed all 23 of them and must conclude that it would be good - no, great - if you did so.

Because I do not want to be seen as "owning" the Satin article, I feel I should share with you my reasons for wanting each of the edits reverted:

XX.) Please note that on Jan. 15 at 21:58, NeilN properly restored the Ben Franklin picture and caption. (Parker had been so incensed that draft evader Satin made use of a patriot like Franklin in his Radical Middle book, that he eliminated the image and caption.)

1 - 10.) Ten edits stretching from 21:11 on Jan. 9 through 9:22 on Jan. 14. These all consist of Parker's attempts to alter the Assessment section to reflect his antagonism toward Satin's draft evasion. By now they have all been reverted (by four different editors).

Edits #11 - 23 were all created on Jan. 14. They should all be eliminated except the last (which I can restore if eliminating them all would be easier for you).

11.) 11:10. The word "militant" is not only not libelous of one of the fiercest (and best) polemicists in U.S. journalism, it is actually tamer than the words the source used ("nastiness" and "attack-dog mentality"). In the context here, it should not make anyone think of AK-47s or ISIS types.

12.) 17:10. Parker's "empty brackets" relate to a plural "s" that had been correctly edited out of a complex sentence that was being quoted. Like many of Parker's subsequent edits, this one appears to reflect a sincere misstep and / or unfamiliarity with the source material.

13.) 19:53. Overlinking (an ever-present danger in this article, addressed during the FA process in 2011) ... no need to link to the U.S. Constitution in this context.

14.) 19:57. Mention of the Vietnam War is turned into a link to the Vietnam Memorial.

15.) 20:00. No need to create an internal link to SDS here, since it had already been linked two paragraphs earlier.

16.) 20:04. Overlinking, this time to "racial discrimination."

17.) 20:07. Link to a publisher. On 1 Jan, 2015, possibly in anticipation of this article being summarized and linked on the Main Page, Colonies Chris eliminated virtually all the links to commercial and academic publishers (a couple of dozen), and on 4 Jan I eliminated the rest. We need to be consistent here.

18.) 20:25. The "a" is necessary here since there is no one "post-liberal, post-Marxist politics."

19.) 20:32. Removal of an ellipse from a direct quote. Perhaps Parker did not understand its function.

20.) 20:39. Overlinking again. The word "hippies," not even the subject of the sentence here.

21.) 21.01. The reference here is to the idea of New Age politics, not to anything entitled "New Age Politics."

22.) 21:04. More overlinking - "military intervention." Moreover, the entire phrase is "humanitarian military intervention," and the phrase appears in a direct quote.

23.) 21:16. This edit belongs, an addition of two commas. I will re-insert them if it's more convenient for you to revert everything at once.

If you feel more of Parker's edits should stay, I will defer to your judgment. But I am confident I handled them properly.

Again, I appreciate - more than I can say - your good offices here. - Babel41 (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Babel41: It's Sunday and NFL Playoff day today so I'll be getting around to this until tomorrow. In the meantime, feel free to make as many changes and reverts as you wish - my "job" as it were is to make sure the article ceases to be damaged more than making value judgments about the content. That's more your area since you're the subject matter expert. This isn't a content dispute, it's the restoration of valuable material damaged on purpose by a disruptive editor. §FreeRangeFrog 18:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Frog, - Yes, I too enjoyed Marshon Lynch's vicious running today, so reminiscent of Jim Taylor's style for the Packers in the early 60s. But I am nothing like them and am glad you have my back with regard to consciously disruptive editors (seven entries by Parker today at Talk:Mark Satin: Revision history). I hear what you're saying about content and will revert Psrker's content-oriented edits (#11-22 above) myself late tomorrow.

I tremble for the future of this article; as you may have gathered from it, Satin is no more beloved among Marxists and some Greens than he is among conservatives. I also wonder about the wisdom of letting FA-rated articles be edited by newbies (see edits #11-22 above). But those are issues beyond my pay grade. - Babel41 (talk) 07:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thasnai Sethaseree

Hi, The page "Thasnai Sethaseree" can be edited if it is not written in the right format. But it should not be deleted due to the reason of advertising or promotional aspect. (Thasnai (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)).

Please create a draft and submit it to AFC for review. There was nothing salvageable in that article, and repeatedly making the same argument everywhere is not going to change that. Before you do, make sure you review the notability guidelines and make sure the subject meets them. §FreeRangeFrog 18:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Heather Bresch

Hi FreeRangeFrog. I'm probably becoming quite a pest by now, but wanted to let you know I shared a draft on the Talk page of this article and there is an ongoing discussion (we talked about this article on your Talk page previously). I also started a string at the BLP Noticeboard. So far there is consensus that the current controversy is excessive, but not regarding whether the controversy should have a separate article or be consolidated to Bresch's page. CorporateM (Talk) 22:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM: I am reticent to engage in something time-consuming because of (temporary) lack of time. But I do agree that the controversy is excessive, both in standalone form and in the subject's bio, and could probably be summarized in a paragraph or two. §FreeRangeFrog 21:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Yah, that seems to be the word on the street from everyone. I'll keep looking for someone willing to spend some time on them. CorporateM (Talk) 23:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of my page Utsav Lal

Hi, I just realised that my page containing biography of living person Utsav Lal has been deleted or proposed for deletion ( not sure which one is currently the status). The reason indicated seems to be not enough references to substantiate information.I am totally unsure why this should have come up since multiple external links and facts were added to my page to substantiate all information. In case, thee was something that did not still have references, I can add links or edit. Request if you can advise on what needs to be done now.I would like to edit the page as per the wikipedia guidelines and restore but am unable to do anything. Alternatively, can I set up a new page. Please help. Sangita — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangita Lal (talk • contribs) 08:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

As it was explained in your talk page, please create a draft and submit it for review. §FreeRangeFrog 21:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)