Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 16:42, 11 June 2017 (edit summary removed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 813 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, even though the tweet was poorly worded it means nothing. You are saying that my sources are not a reliable, colleges and university never use Misplaced Pages as a reliable resource. Sounds like that you are biased and want to erase what this man said, however whether he said he said it poorly or not, he is a public figure, and it's still history and it was said. If it is too controversial for your perhaps you need not to be here. Nance said it therefore it should be mentioned. Every time there is a negative mark on a liberal entity, people are quickly try to erase by justifying as not free speech, poorly said, unreliable resources, fake news, a right wing or left wing conspiracy, etc... What if CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, ABC, CBS mentioned the tweet? Would you call them reliable? They are not reliable either, they are all biased based on their political views. I have seen many controversy removed with some explanation that is fruitless as the one you described the removal of my paragraph. If you have a problem with being unbiased and to resolve at our level perhaps we need to escalate this higher. I am trying to work with you here and add the stipulation so we all can agree with.

We should not alter history to inflate one side. You said "Great to hear! When will Misplaced Pages start "requiring" to treat things with "neutrality." As far as I can see/read it's mostly a biased agenda." Does it make it right for everyone follow the shepherd that leads his sheep to a cliff? We all are biased but as mature adults we need to set aside our biased ideologies and come together as people and compromise. I am going to add a stipulation and if you want to add more to it go ahead-- we should find middle ground and we should not dismiss one person's comment because it makes Nance or his political party look bad. It was said and he is a public figure so he has to live with it like everyone one else. Once he comes back and says "What I meant was..." then we can add his explanation.

AttentiontoDetails (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a free speech platform and we have standards about what sources we accept and do not accept - particularly for defamatory claims about living people, and the claim that anyone encouraged a terrorist attack is most surely defamatory. Moreover, Misplaced Pages operates on a consensus basis, and there is no consensus that anything about the tweet should be included in Nance's biography. I encourage you, as a new user, to review our content policies such as WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE, all of which are implicated in this matter. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

You removed one of my edits

For a lack of validity in the publication I posted - yet other sources in the page are from personal blogs... Care to explain why? If I cite a government source will you allow it? Feel free to sanction me away - I've yet to break a single rule in the Misplaced Pages court of law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swreynolds92 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Swreynolds92 Welcome to Misplaced Pages — you are new at editing, and you have leaped to insert yourself into a contentious, sensitive issue relating to a living person. Misplaced Pages is not a court; we are a collaborative Internet encyclopedia project. We have policies and standards for writing about living people and one of those is upholding high standards for sourcing of material. The Daily Mail does not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy required for such sourcing. Moreover, the issue you are editing has been rehashed several times and there is a standing consensus for the wording in question. If you wish to modify it, you will need reliable sources and consensus on the article talk page. I invite you to discuss your proposed changes in more detail on that page, and I will also warn you that making unsupported or poorly-supported claims about living people can and will lead to sanctions under the biographies of living persons policy. We are required to treat living people with sensitivity, fairness and neutrality. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

- Great to hear! When will Misplaced Pages start "requiring" to treat things with "neutrality." As far as I can see/read it's mostly a biased agenda. Am I missing something?

If you have general questions about Misplaced Pages's policies, the place to ask about them would be the Village Pump for Policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Christine Fair

See Doug Weller talk 09:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

(Unexplained major revert including poorly-sourced defamatory material; removed per BLP.)

Define how it is poorly resource and defamatory? As I explained earlier Nance did in fact say it therefore it should be mentioned? Why can't you compromise with me? If you wish not to compromise with me perhaps we can have the adults (Arbitrators) take care of it. I thought I was talking to an adult with an open mind, but you decided to call my material poorly sourced and defamatory. I disagree. I said I was going to compromise with you and you could have added a stipulation, but since the conversation here is already it's your way or the highway I cannot see other recourse but to bring it up to the Arbitrator. I would like to give a change to better explain how it is defamatory and poorly sourced before I will take it to Arbitration. I was hopping that 2 adults can solve this issue without escalating higher.AttentiontoDetails (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I can see if he was not the one whom wrote the supposedly defamatory tweet I would agree with you. His tweet was genuine and Twitter verified there is nothing defamatory for something that he said personally. It is defamatory only when someone else fabricates the tweet. AttentiontoDetails (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome to escalate this to ANI or to ArbCom, but I warn you that you will not find the outcome you seek; quite the opposite, as a matter of fact. Misplaced Pages strives to treat living people with fairness, sensitivity and an avoidance of sensationalism. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

You mean to tell me that even though he personally, consciously, and freely wrote "This is my nominee for the first ISIS suicide bombing of a Trump property". Misplaced Pages don't want to be unfair for what he said? Wow,I didn't know that Misplaced Pages is politically correct to a certain group of people and political views. I would like to know how is defamatory to Nance for what he wrote. No one else went to his Twitter account which is verified and published by Nance himself. It makes no sense that it is defamatory to oneself for writing something that could be defamatory to others. I can't wrap my mind around this. Help me understand I am just a stupid libertarian that doesn't understand how it makes defamatory. AttentiontoDetails (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay no problem. Go ahead and give me the silent treatment. I honestly was trying to understand what you meant, but your vague comment will result more confusion than anything else.AttentiontoDetails (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, he wrote that tweet. The problem, for you, is that when you place that tweet in the context of the other tweets he was posting, it is clear that he was discussing the prospect for Trump-named buildings in other countries to become high-profile terrorist targets — not, as you appear to be asserting, asking a terrorist group to bomb a specific building. Your choice to take that tweet out of its context is not shared by reliable sources, and hence will not be shared by Misplaced Pages. Your interpretation of that tweet, in other words, is not verifiable in mainstream reliable sources, as all content on Misplaced Pages must be, by foundational policy. Moreover, as it is highly defamatory to accuse a living person of supporting terrorism, Misplaced Pages policy dictates that we will be extremely cautious about republishing such accusations — they must be supported by high-quality reliable sources. Once again, your accusation and claim fails on the merits. The long story short is that no, Misplaced Pages is not going to say what you want to say about Malcolm Nance. It just won't. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Empowering Women

The most important thing you can do to help women is believe them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shalpley (talk • contribs) 16:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)