Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JzG (talk | contribs) at 22:29, 25 May 2018 (→Ideological bias on Misplaced Pages: r). 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, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103

This page has archives. Sections older than 12 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Gary Null

In April there was a flurry of activity by a single-minded individual aimed at making Gary Null's biog less damaging. I have rewritten and npov'd a lot of it. Please keep an eye on it. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 12:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps related, right around the same time as the above, Null wrote a two-part anti-Misplaced Pages screed on the website of the network that carries his radio show (see and ). More details about his recent comments about criticism of his work at the SBM blog here. --Krelnik (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Cryptid whale

Although there was no consensus for its restoration, cryptid whale was recently brought back from the dead (). Those of you familiar with the usual cryptozoology tomfoolery on Misplaced Pages will no doubt palm-face at the sight of this because here we have all the usual suspects: deep fringe approaches to biology or folklore and fringe sources masquerading as biology or folklore texts, as well as the application of pseudoscientific terminology (such as cryptid to biology concepts). As expected, a Google Books search for the phrase "cryptid whale" pulls up nothing but deep fringe and pseudoscience sources. Article could use some eyes at the very least, but how to proceed? :bloodofox: (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

There was a consensus to restore it BloodofFox... You were a part of the consensus (against it) and there was more people in favor of restoring it. I myself didn't restore it since the discussion was not done yet but it seems to me that this is another fine example of POV Pushing. Call it what you like but this is the last time I'm warning you to stop vandalizing articles and placing your views on them.--Paleface Jack 23:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

This is, of course, a request for eyes on the article beyond those of our resident cryptozoologists, as their presence is clearly a given. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Paleface Jack: In case you were unaware, unsubstantiated allegations of vandalism are considered personal attacks and may lead to sanctions. Please choose your words more carefully. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I have substantiated them before. But you're right I will behave myself unless it continues....--Paleface Jack 01:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Can we have a link to the discussion?Slatersteven (talk) 07:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Which discussion?Paleface Jack 15:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

If it's about the link to the discussion on the restoration of the article then here it is. Note: There was only one vote to remove it and that was BloodofFox. The rest speaks for itself. Hopefully this helps.:)--Paleface Jack 15:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I count 2, but still less then the 3 for restoration. And yes the result was restoration.Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

BloodofFox not all consensus' that don't vote in favor of removing Cryptozoology articles are done by "the resident cryptozoologists". Please refrain from making unfounded accusations towards things that don't go the way you'd want. The cryptid whale article is notable enough to warrant its existence, all it needs is some cleaning up and given more citations from neutral sources which it has an issue with. But that can be easily remedied... I think.--Paleface Jack 15:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Chemtrails and Template:Alternative medicine sidebar

Discussion at Talk:Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory#Sidebar,_again, if you have an opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Send for Catpol. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 11:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

, . --Guy Macon (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Good one! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Ruggero Santilli vs. Pepijn van Erp

Fascinating story...

• https://www.popehat.com/2016/11/10/popehat-signal-dutch-blogger-sued-in-florida-for-criticism-of-junk-science/
• https://reason.com/volokh/2018/05/11/libel-and-antimatter
• Ruggero Santilli
• Pepijn van Erp

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

cryptomundo.com and mysteriousuniverse.org

An editor is insisting that we use sources like cryptomundo.com and mysteriousuniverse.org over at list of cryptids (Talk:List_of_cryptids#Man-eating_trees). (As the article is something of a hive for cryptozoologists, if you're not familiar with the pseudoscience of cryptozoology, you'll save yourself some trouble by reading this or this first.) :bloodofox: (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that's more of a personal opinion rather than an actual thing.--Paleface Jack 20:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think either passes WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 11:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

And this is being discussed here .Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Socionics

— twice removed — opinion of the Commission on Pseudoscience and Research Fraud of Russian Academy of Sciences that considered socionics to be a pseudoscience. Need your help. --Q Valda (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Wedge strategy

Looks like this needs an overhaul - the lead seems to fail NPOV, there's too much stuff from the Discovery Institute and Philip Johnson in it, needs a better balance of independent sources. Doug Weller talk 07:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Tweaked to remove self-sourced apologia. Still needs work. Guy (Help!) 10:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Geoscience Research Institute - no longer makes it clear in the lead that it's Creationist

• Geoscience Research Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Creationist organisation but the bit in the lead "that specializes in original research and the study of scientific and Biblical literature. " seems copied mainly from their website.. The lead has mentioned Creationism for some time but it was changed in April. User:BullRangifer reverted but that didn't stick. The whole article may need an overhaul. In October last year User:Robynthehode noted that nowhere in the article was Creation science challenged, and that's still true. Doug Weller talk 08:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

At last I found a useful ifnobox. When I opened the page, the first thing I saw was "Part of a series on CREATIONISM. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 08:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but did you read the earlier lead for Geoscience Research Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - up until l edit it mentioned creation science in the lead. Pseudoscience seems to have been only in the lead for a few edits. Doug Weller talk 09:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller, it appears there is a diff missing above: "up until l edit it". With that I can know where to start. I grew up in Loma Linda, in a very conservative SDA family, and have actually been in their building several times. The pseudoscientific nature of their "research" really must be clearly stated in the article. They do archeological digs and had a collection of fossils and rocks the last time I was there in the 1980s, back when I was a creationist. They basically try to reinterpret everything to justify young earth creationism. Conservative SDAs will not accept an earth older than 6-7 thousand years. Even 10,000 years is stretching it for many of them. BTW, thanks for your help in other matters. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Since they are clearly young Earth creationists, I have taken content and refs from other articles and adapted it for use there. Take a look. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer:, I am really sorry. I saw that and though I'd fixed it. The edit I meant was this one which in fact you reverted, only to be reverted again. I see that editor has added two fact tags for the same source - basically just incomplete details. Thanks to you and User:JzG this is a better article now. Doug Weller talk 17:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

AfD for Anna Poray

The following Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Anna Poray may be of interest to the community. Poray self published a book and gave a couple of interviews in which she promoted fringe views on Poles rescuing Jews in the Holocaust. Poray has received very little attention in RSes (at all), however she has been given as an example for this fringe theory (footnote 94 refrerences here, this is context) or myth ((footnote 85, search for myth). I'll further note that the existence of the Misplaced Pages article is being used to justify use of her WP:SPS book in other Misplaced Pages articles (diffs: , , ). See also Talk:Żegota#Anna Poray - SPS.Icewhiz (talk) 06:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

What "fringe" views on Poles rescuing Jews in the Holocaust did she promote? Can you give few solid examples? (compact, precise, solid few examples please, not a wall of text.GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

There is little coverage of her in WP:RS, however she is mentioned as an illustative example in the footnotes of a RS as follows:

1. Bringing the Dark Past to Light: The Reception of the Holocaust in Postcommunist Europe first, to underscore the large number of rescuers; second, to downplay or ignore the low societal approval of rescue activities; and third, not to differentiate among the various among the various categories of rescuers, protectors, and helpers and their motivations. The same tendencies are currently being advocated and fostered by historians and journalists practicing polityka historyczna.(94) As a tool to normalize the dark past, to claim that Polish anti-Semitism and nationalism did not have much of a damaging influence on Polish-Jewish relations, and to restore the image of Poles as.... Footnote 94 mentioning an interview of her in a Polish newspaper as an example.
2. Also in “I will never forget what you did for me during the war”: Rescuer — Rescuee Relationships in the Light of Postwar Correspondence in Poland, 1945–1949 - For recent mild and strong expressions of this myth see, for example, Mark Paul .... interview with Anna Poray-Wybranowska, “Nation of Heroes,” Nasz Dziennik in footnote 85 - whose context is Writers, journalists, and historians continued to disseminate the myth of “the ungrateful Jew” in publications in the 1970s and 1980s,(84) and the myth has persisted in popular historical consciousness in the post-communist era.(85).Icewhiz (talk) 06:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

You paraphrasing your original post. I'm asking - What did "fringe" views on Poles rescuing Jews in the Holocaust she promote? Fringe claim and ref. to the fringe claim please, not a cherry-picked negative opinion of somebody else. Thanks.GizzyCatBella (talk) 07:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree, this seems like WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Not that I generally think WP:CANVASS is a helpful policy, because the more people invited to the discussion, the better. But yeah, what's fringe about her views? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

As for FORUMSHOPPING - posting in a single, relevant, noticeboard is not forum shopping - it is a means to get uninvolved editors involved. Others have commented on: I'll just leave here the idea that the AfD mentioned seems to be populated with a number of people using CAPITAL LETTERS, as ... oddly, do some of the AE reports above this one. Examining the contrib history of some of said editors (not Poeticbent) may be interesting. Just an observation, like ... - the circumstances in this AfD.Icewhiz (talk) 07:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

It would seem that per the sources I quote above, Poray promoted a fringe theory or myth regarding the motivations, scope, extent, and of Polish rescue and "the ungrateful Jew" regarding recognition of such. I find the following in the 2004 interview with her instructive: Dlaczego tak się stało? - Ten uratowany Żyd nie chciał uznać ich zasług, nie podając powodów. Jestem z nim w kontakcie. Jemu wydawało się, że oni chcieli go zgubić w lesie. Nie bierze on jednak pod uwagę tego, że to były jeszcze dzieci, które dodatkowo żyły pod straszną presją, między zagrożeniem ze strony Niemców i ze strony Ukraińców. Zdaje się on zapominać, że jednak go dwa lata trzymali. - (via google translate) - Why did this happen? - This rescued Jew did not want to acknowledge their merits, without giving reasons. I'm in touch with him. It seemed to him that they wanted to lose him in the forest. However, he does not take into account the fact that these were still children who, in addition, lived under terrible pressure, between the threat from the Germans and the Ukrainians. He seems to forget that, however, he kept him for two years.. So it seems this is an example of ingratitude.Icewhiz (talk) 07:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

An example of out of context circumstance of somebody who did not want to acknowledge their merits, without giving reasons is a "fringe view"? Having a constructive discussion seems to be a challenge. But I'll try again, What fringe view did Anna Poray promote? - Solid facts and refs. Please.GizzyCatBella (talk) 07:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I presented sources - from the peer reviewed Yad Vashem Studies which is an expert journal in the topic area, and a book published by University of Nebraska Press. It seems variations/copies of this footnote were also published by Berghahn Books, Routledge, Yad Vashem Publications, and possibly a few other book chapters/journal articles. There is also coverage in this PHD dissertation:Kwiatkowska, Hanna Maria. Conflict of images. Conflict of memories. Jewish themes in the Polish right-wing nationalistic press in the light of articles from Nasz Dziennik 1998–2007. University of London, University College London (United Kingdom), 2008. - Nasz Dziennik constantly reminds its readers about the lack of Jewish gratitude for Polish heroism. The most dramatic in tone of those reminders was the interview with Anna Poray-Wybranowska from Canada who documents Polish heroism in saving the Jews during World War II. She claimed to have convincing evidence to estimate that `1 million of Poles were saving Jews'. She criticized the `restrictive conditions of Yad Vashem in acknowledging the Righteous Among the Nations' - it almost sounded like a deliberately unjust system that belittles the Polish efforts. Wybranowska made a plea `to erect a memorial wall with the names of all those who saved the Jews because `those Poles are the greatest heroes in the world 17l The article asserted what the title implied, not only a great number of Poles were heroes during the war, Poles in general are a `nation of heroes'.Icewhiz (talk) 08:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC) Addendum - note that none of this coverage is sufficient for notability - for a general bio and all the more so under NFRINGE - all the footnote variations above cite the 2004 interview in Nasz Dziennik as one of a few examples of this myth. The PhD dissertation gives this one paragraph, and is mainly focused on the the editorial line of Nasz Dziennik (which is the scope of the work - covering how the Polish right-wing nationalistic press covers Jews - with the Poray interview given as an example of "the most dramatic in tone" of coverage of "lack of Jewish gratitude").Icewhiz (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

As for FORUMSHOPPING - You posted this on 4 additional different panels, NOT in a single, relevant, noticeboard as you claim:

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions

GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Adding DELSORT categories is not forumshopping, it's totally standard procedure in an AfD. The only way it might be disruptive is if it was added to irrelevant categories. If you're going to cast aspersions, at least get your facts right, please. Black Kite (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
• Indeed, and they probably would've ended up on those delsort lists without me - Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting volunteers go over AFDs which haven't been added (or partially added) to delsort lists - often shortly after the nomination. However, as I am familiar with the AfD process (and the article I'm nomming) I tend to add most of the AfDs I nominate to the delsort lists - you might see this in other nominations I've made in the past - so not to burden other volunteers (though I do not always get it 100% right - sometimes it does get added to another list or two - but I'm usually fairly accurate on the lists).Icewhiz (talk) 09:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Ryuho Okawa aka Lord El Cantare and Happiness

That is, Happy Science and the Happiness Realization Party. Maybe these don't qualify as fringe however, but at first glance he certainly seems to. He was married to a self-proclaimed reborn Aphrodite and now to someone believed by some Happy Science members to be the goddess Gaia. Doug Weller talk 14:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Myers–Briggs Type Indicator

Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This in Category:Pseudoscience. Is it pseudoscience, fringe science, unproven science, disproven science, or what? --Calton | Talk 03:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Just from having read the article, it seems to fit the definition of pseudoscience pretty well. Proponents claim it is a scientifically valid tool for analyzing personalities, but repeated testing by independent experts reveals that is produces meaningless results. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

"Seems to fit" is not good enough. I'm looking for an explicit reference as such. --Calton | Talk 06:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The user ist just eager to have a revenge for opposing him on one page, so he noticed this edit of mine in my contributions list and got curious whether there's a chance to pick up a fight.Miacek (talk) 03:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Grow up. If you're wondering what's fueling Miacek's persecution complex, go to WP:AE here and this AFD here, and see what he seems to think are reliable sources. --Calton | Talk 06:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Pseudoscience. It wasn't when it was dreamed up, but it has become so through being artificially sustained after it was shown to be bollocks. Guy (Help!) 08:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Quantum healing

• Quantum healing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article is slowly becoming an ad for Chopra, and is presenting the topic as if there was serious study of it. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Does it even need to exist? Seems spurious to Quantum mysticism, where Chopra is mentioned anyway. Black Kite (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd be happy with a smerge. I doubt he'd like it much after I've finished with it anyway :-) Guy (Help!) 18:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Enthusiastic magic categorizer

I've noticed at least two IP editors, Special:Contributions/90.254.151.253 and Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:BC32:7E00:DD99:F8FC:476B:AF5D, have been adding (mostly) Category:Magic (paranormal) to a lot of articles where this addition may be questionable. In a couple of cases, I have done reversions, as either subcategory of existing category or clearly an inappropriate category to apply. I noticed that another editor, Huntster, rolled a lot of these back on the first-mentioned IP. I'm still leery of category debates because the criteria for applying a categorization still seem a bit unclear to me. Magic itself is not well delineated and sometimes spills over into mythology, folklore, and religion. The impression I'm getting is that these categorizations are being applied as if magic is "real" (as opposed to the scholarly approach the magic (paranormal) article tries to take) and that the editor(s) adding these categories want to claim influence in every conceivable topic. — jmcgnh 07:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Noticed that too, should be reverted. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Alternative medicine

This is to inform you that there is a discussion going on at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Alternative medicine, which seems to run foul of WP:FRINGE and WP:ARBPS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Hard info on Tellinger seems difficult to find. This might help search for something. Also see and . Doug Weller talk 13:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Adam's Calendar "an important site of a lost ancient civilization" and Michael Tellinger

Created by the same editor, Tellinger might be notable but he's also fringe, the calendar is nonsense. What's shocking is that "Slave Species of the Gods:The Secret History of the Anunnaki and Their Mission on Earth" is published by Simon and Schuster. The book on Adam's Calendar is published by Zulu Planet that seems to be owned by Tellinger. Same publisher for "Temples of the African Gods" and "Ubuntu contributism". Doug Weller talk 13:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The calendar page is now nominated for AfD. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Did you know that young blood transfusion may make the ageing process reverse?

Yep that is an actual hook approved for the front page.

The article is Young blood transfusion and the DYK "discussion" is at Template:Did you know nominations/Young blood transfusion.

I opened a discussion about that at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Promoting_FRINGE_snake_oil_on_the_front_page.

Perhaps folks can look at the article in the meantime. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see that the article is generally MEDRS compliant in the first place so is definitely not ready for any aspect to be Main Page viewing.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC))

Kidnapping of Aldo Moro

Those of us of a certain age will recall when this was one of the biggest news stories of the 1970's. Unfortunately the article looks like it has become a collection of really fringey conspiracy theories and the like. I opened a discussion on the talk page and tagged the article. Additionally I notified WT:ITALY. Regrettably I have no Italian so while I can definitely say that I smell fringe stuff, I am not in a position to read or make determinations over the sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Young blood transfusion

We have FRINGE pushing here a la Burzynski Clinic. ffs Jytdog (talk) 02:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Coincidence?

https://www.themarysue.com/sinkhole-hellmouth-someone-beep-buffy/ --Guy Macon (talk) 12:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Fringe IP editor at Newark Holy Stones and Michigan relics

Deleting sourced material, adding original research and a fringe source. I've reverted but it might be useful if others have it on their watchlist. Note I started this post last night but got logged out, Wikimedia servers got borked, etc. Doug Weller talk 12:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Ideological bias on Misplaced Pages

• Ideological bias on Misplaced Pages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article included assertions of bias sourced from creationists and Conservapedia critiquing our content on evolution, and commentary by Brian Martin (social scientist) supportive of antivaxer Judy Wilyman. Needless to say I do not think either of those constitutes a valid scholarly critique of Misplaced Pages's accuracy. More eyes would be appreciated. It is my firm view that critiques of our "bias" by WP:FRINGE advocates has no place there, or at least that we would require reliable independent neutral sources that contextualise it. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

With regards to Brian Martin's claims of bias (Martin, Brian (June 21, 2017). "Persistent Bias on Misplaced Pages: Methods and Responses". Social Science Computer Review. 36 (3): 379–388. doi:10.1177/0894439317715434.), User:JzG has a WP:Conflict of interest because he was criticized by name in Martin's study. No matter how valid his concerns, he should never have removed it, edited it, or commented on it as he's done here. -- Netoholic @ 18:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

No, you should never have included it. It is blindingly obvious that the article is motivated reasoning. Someone who advocates for anti-vaccinationism writing about how we are biased because of how we covered his own antivaccinationism, sourced directly from the primary source, is something that no Wikipedian should have done. It's a single author article in a journal in an unrelated field, where the single author's own view of our treatment of his reputation is the primary subject, and the author in question supports the debunked OPV-AIDS hypothesis, holds up Andrew Wakefield as a martyr and supported a PhD thesis that is a copy-paste grab bag of antivax tropes by an avowed antivaxer, so removing it from the article is mandatory per WP:FRINGE - and we also do not leave in material that is plainly an off-wiki personal attack while we study our navels. Guy (Help!) 18:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• It seems to be a notable topic and I would appreciate the Fringe Theory Noticeboard attack dogs not going with their customary ferocity littering it with WP: links thanks. It isn't some woo-woo medicine or totally crackpot theory. Dmcq (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Wait. It is a totally crackpot theory! -Roxy, the attack dog. barcus 20:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. There is some scholarly material in the article, but it was written by an editor whose main motivation appears to be his repeated failure to change articles due to Misplaced Pages's "ideological bias", the studies are primary sourced, and a third of the article or more as he wrote it is criticism of our "bias" by creationists and other nutters. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Just noting that I nominated this for deletion. (not the it matters, but I nominated it before seeing this thread -- reliability of Misplaced Pages is on my watchlist). — Rhododendrites \\ 21:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution