Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HughD (talk | contribs) at 17:01, 12 February 2015 (→Disambiguation link notification for February 6: notify). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Disambiguation link notification for November 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Club for Growth Action, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dan Sullivan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 11 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

• On the United States Senate election in Arizona, 2010 page, your edit caused a wikilink error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
• On the Morning Joe page, your edit caused a wikilink error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
• On the Jihad Watch page, your edit caused a wikilink error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited MacIver Institute, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scott Walker. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep at it!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I've been really impressed with the quantity and quality of your contributions to our politics-related articles the last few weeks. You've been particularly awesome at making key sentences clearer, more neutral and more encyclopedic. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention

Safehaven86, Thank you for the time and attention you have put into the Rasmussen Reports page. We appreciate your efforts to keep the record straight and the information as balanced as possible. One thing we did notice is that the election results only go through 2012 -- is there any way to get the 2014 Midterm Election results added? Thank you for your consideration! RasmussenReports (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Rasmussen Reports, Jan 14, 2015

Hello. First, I encourage you to read Misplaced Pages's conflict of interest policy. If you are affiliated with Rasmussen Reports, you would have a COI. Having a COI doesn't mean you're not allowed to edit Misplaced Pages, it just means you have to tread very lightly. It's not advisable for you to make any edits to the Rasmussen Reports page or any affiliated pages. Your best course of action is to use the article's talk page to initiate a discussion about any proposed edits and build consensus for those edits. Once consensus is built, a different editor (one not affiliated with Rasmussen Reports) can make the edits on the actual article. What I'd recommend is that you start at the talk page and include your recommended edits as well as any relevant reliable sources to aid in discussion. Take care to use sources external to Rasmussen Reports (i.e. nothing published directly by the company), and to avoid a promotional tone. If you initiate a discussion on the talk page I may contribute, but I can't make any promises as I'm rather busy at the moment. Thanks, and let me know if you have further questions. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

SourceWatch

I certainly agree with much you say. In my own confused state I'm thinking of how well does II (and other groups) stand up to the "ALECexposed" and SPN and anti-Koch brothers agendas of CMD. The SourceWatch article on II has a large section devoted to those topics, and it includes various resources. With this in mind I was thinking SourceWatch may be a starting point for more/other research. (Or maybe it can be banned from WP altogether as being hopelessly POV, But I'm not thinking this will happen.) In any event, as I figure out what where I'm going on this, I am taking your comments to heart. Especially about your comments as to how current SW is. For example, the SW article on Steve Forbes was last edited in 2008. Well, I'm going to remove the link and see who is watching. Here goes.... (Thanks!) – S. Rich (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I appreciate it. While I'm skeptical that SourceWatch is useful in most cases (due to the "attack" tone it seems to take plus the out-of-date nature of most of its articles), I think the best approach for now is to assess each page on a case-by-case basis. It's apparent to me that they've let a number of articles go while focusing resources on other articles. Therefore I wouldn't feel comfortable saying we should never link to them. I think it's best to assess each potential link on its individual merits, as the quality of their articles appears to me to vary widely. Overall, as with any open wiki, I think the wisest approach to take is usually to cull the open wiki article for reliable sources to use, then integrate those reliable sources into the WP article. Thanks for your work in this area! Safehaven86 (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so very much for the Barnstar! Truly the highlight of my day!! (I am happy to see that my gnomish efforts on the project get noticed and appreciated.) Best wishes and happy editing to you, Safehaven. – S. Rich (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Common Cause exclamation mark?

You guys understand that while of course WP is expected to be neutral, sources need not be neutral. A fellow editor pointed out to me the RSN archive WP:RSN as a resource, and found one brief discussion there of Common Cause: "Common Cause may be leftist but they are a strong source...". Is it your position that Common Cause and SoureWatch may not be used as sources on Misplaced Pages?

My issue is with sources that fail verification. The Common Cause source you used did not in any way verify the information you were attempting to add to an article. So it doesn't really matter that's is Common Cause (or in this case, Common Cause reprinting something published by ALEC), it matters that the information added and associated citation don't sync up. And no, I don't think SourceWatch is ever a WP:RS. It's an open wiki. You may be interested in this discussion Misplaced Pages:External links/Noticeboard#SourceWatch. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited EMILY's List, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wendy Davis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you.