Misplaced Pages

Greetings Misplaced Pages Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Misplaced Pages Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Misplaced Pages Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Misplaced Pages Librarian

Misplaced Pages Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Template talk:Video game multiple platforms reviews

Yes, it was tagged wrong. Now looking at the page it needs a merge of the history and a redirect to Template talk:Video game reviews. I do not have the ability to merge histories.Cky2250 (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Female education and economic development

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Female education and economic development. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Mediation

I wanted mediation to continue after the AFD closure, but nothing happened the following day. Unfortunately, Ryulong opted for a merger of the article now - right after removing and re-removing a media file at the NGE page and failing to discuss the matter. I do not know what action needs to be taken, but Ryulong does not appear to want to participate or resolve the issues. Please advise. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh and Ryulong doesn't want me communicating with him anymore via talk page. Does this mean I have no other choice but to bring grievances directly to ANI? This whole situation is degrading rapidly it seems. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have restarted the mediation yesterday, but I got distracted by other things. If Ryulong has started a merge discussion, though, then that will mean that we can't restart it (as you suspected). Before you start any discussions at ANI, let me have a word with Ryulong on his talk page to see if he really intends to give up on the mediation. — Mr. Stradivarius 04:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I thank you for trying Mr. Stradivarius, but if things have to constantly be put on hold when discussions originally unrelated to the center of dispute happen then I longer want any part in the mediation process.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Will you be addressing this or are you holding out on the hope that I will change my mind? Because the latter is not happening any time soon.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping not to have to shut the mediation down, but from your comments it looks like there's no choice. I'll explain in more detail on the mediation page. — Mr. Stradivarius 06:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

And I am sorry it had to come to this. I have also responded there (and you should probably unlist it from the "current cases" template I guess).—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me. I thought that the bot did that, but it appears not. — Mr. Stradivarius 08:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

This is some grade A bullshit, though.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Try out Snuggle?

Hi,

I notice that you recently signed up to be informed about Snuggle, a new interface for easy finding of newcomers. Have you tried it already? If so, could you please give your feedback on the same? Aaron would always like to know what can and should be done to better it.

If you haven't tried it already, I suggest you do it :) I find Snuggle to be very helpful when dealing with newcomers, and trying to find helpful and Good Faith new editors.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ping Aaron or me, and we'd be happy to oblige.

Thanks, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

AFC: Xander Angeles

• Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Xander Angeles (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, thanks for taking the time to review my submission. I noticed it was rejected for failing to meet notability guidelines. I'm wondering if you can be more specific as to the referencing issue you brought up.

• The Philippine Star (philstar.com) is a major nationally circulated daily newspaper, and we've got two articles from there, written 7 years apart from each other.
• Philippine Entertainment Portal (pep.ph) is an online media source with full and independent editorial review.
• The Varsitarian is the student newspaper where the subject went to university.
• When In Manila is a major metro guide in the Philippines, which also has full and independent editorial review.

What else is required to establish the subject's notability?

Thank you! I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 05:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

No problems - let me take you through the sources one by one:

• Philstar - these both look good, and count towards notability in my opinion. However, we treat multiple sources from one publication as one source for the purposes of notability - see WP:GNG point 3.
• When In Manila - this was written by you, so does not count as independent from the subject, as explained in the section below.
• PEP - this only contains a passing mention of Angeles, which is not enough to satisfy WP:BASIC or WP:GNG.
• The Varsitarian - normally, we do not accept student publications for the purposes of notability. In addition, Angeles only has a passing mention in it. The article is actually about Team Manila Graphic Design, not Angeles.

Let me know if you have any questions about this. And also, I have some advice about the sources you use in the future. Other editors will generally take a very dim view of any attempts to artificially make your clients seem notable. For example, I would avoid using any material from When In Manila as sources for your other articles (or from any other publication you are affiliated with, for that matter). If you do this, and you get found out, then your reputation on Misplaced Pages will take serious damage, and you might find yourself at the COI noticeboard or even sanctioned. The best way to get your edits accepted on Misplaced Pages is to keep strictly neutral and to edit strictly by the guidelines. If you can develop a reputation for your edits being neutral and fair, you will likely find life around Misplaced Pages a lot easier. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 11:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:GNG point 3 says that "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." (emphasis mine) I think two articles seven years apart from two different writers about entirely different things really should be considered as two sources. Xander Angeles is the most famous photographer in the country. Regarding the term "independent," I think you and I have different interpretations of what that means. An independent source is a publisher that is not subordinate to the subject. When In Manila is an independent source. They are the publisher, not me, and they did not have to run the article. Regarding your COI warning, its not a COI if I'm not moving it to mainspace. That's why I make edit requests instead of moving things to mainspace myself. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 05:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

This article is by a major entertainment magazine. And this one is Cosmopolitan Philippines. Does that better confirm notability for you? I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Those two do count towards notability, I think, although it would be best to have something that talks more about him, rather than about his launch event. Nevertheless, after some reflection I think Angeles probably does just pass our notability threshold. When considering the Philstar pieces, Angeles' awards, and your new links as a totality, it would probably be enough to make the article survive an AfD discussion. So, I've accepted the submission - it is now located at Xander Angeles. Regarding the meaning of "independent", I've taken part in a fair few AfD debates, so my interpretation is grounded in experience of what actually gets accepted here. But if you doubt it, there's no need to take my word for it - just ask any random administrator their opinion on the question and see what they say. — Mr. Stradivarius 11:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

AFC: When In Manila

• Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/When in Manila (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• When In Manila (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, thanks again for reviewing When In Manila. First of all, the company doesn't have a PR agency. They have a consultant that helps them get press, and that's me. Second, what I do to assist them in getting press is to pitch newspapers and other sources to send a reporter to interview them. Sometimes I write and submit myself. All of these press outlets have independent editors that make the decision on whether or not the article meets their criteria/needs. If it doesn't, then it doesn't run. So in fact, these are all independent articles, because a free press made the decision to run them. These are not press releases. Given the unreferenced state of the current When In Manila article, I think the changes I've submitted really add depth to the organization's entry, and I'd ask you to reconsider. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. Ok, so I wasn't quite correct to say "PR agency". But we do tend to put PR agencies in the same category as other editors who have a financial conflict of interest, so the perspective from Misplaced Pages policy is the same there. As to the sources, let me address them in turn:

• Inquirer Libre - this one was written by you, so I'm afraid it doesn't count towards notability. Our criterion isn't just that it was published by a free press, it's that it is completely independent - so nothing written by, or paid for by, the subject.
• Interaksyon - this one seems ok on the surface, but seems suspiciously like PR. There's a lot of coverage of When In Manila's Twitter trending, and not much at all about any of the other winners. I'd guess that it was written by When In Manila and then just printed as is by the site. There is no author named, which doesn't help.
• Influential Blogger - this is a blog, which we don't accept as a reliable source.
• Facebook - this isn't a reliable source either.
• Philstar - doesn't actually mention When In Manila. There needs to be significant coverage of When in Manila for them to be considered notable per WP:GNG.

I didn't notice there was an article about When In Manila already in the mainspace. If there are no better sources than this, then I'm afraid it should probably go to AfD. Let's see if other editors will be able to find anything. — Mr. Stradivarius 10:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no financial COI here. When In Manila does not pay me nor any of its writers. We all work on a volunteer basis. This is no different than a Red Cross volunteer helping the Red Cross get coverage for something they did. So the Inquirer Libre piece was not written by the subject (because I'm a volunteer) and not paid for by the subject. Interaksyon is the online arm of one of the three major television networks in the Philippines (TV5). The article was specifically about them trending on Twitter (as evidenced by the title) not general coverage of the awards ceremony. Facebook is a perfectly reliable source about When In Manila because they are talking about themselves (self-published sources are fine when used to cite non-controversial information about the subject, as per WP:SELFPUB), although I agree it doesn't add to notability. The Philippine Star piece mentions the When In Manila founder for the Online Media Category, because those awards are given to people not organizations, so he was representing When In Manila. While that isn't the smoking gun of notability, it isn't nothing either, as each awardee got about equal treatment in the article. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 12:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, not financial COI then, but still COI. While you managed to convince me about Xander Angeles above, I'm still not convinced by these sources. I've started an AfD discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/When In Manila, which you are welcome to contribute to. — Mr. Stradivarius 12:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Mediation request Suggestion

I'd like to request that the privileged nature of the mediation process be withdrawn for the Ghost in the Shell 2 mediation discussion concerning, Lucia Black, Ryulong and myself. The reason for this request is that the mediation never got off the ground and it provides key information to support that Ryulong continued to be uncivil, expressed disdain for the process and continued a recognized content dispute after the announcement that it would have to cease for mediation. First, the edit warring and AFD which we waited on, then the subsequent merge discussion long after it was disclosed the mediation would not continue as such disputes ran on. Lastly, because his immediate action upon dropping out of mediation was to re-open a merge discussion that has been brought up no less than four times this year with the last one immediately preceding meditation. Simply put, I believe that the diffs and comments made within should not be protected as not a single issue had been discussed between the parties prior to its close and all the issues were known prior to mediation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

This would have not been the case had you not been effectively and actively propagating the dispute that is the root of the mediation, as you have recently done with Bleach (anime).—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry Chris, I'm afraid I can't do that. Firstly, the privilege isn't mine to give away, it is the Mediation Committee's - I can't do it without the consensus of the Committee, and that would mean going against the mediation policy. Secondly, it would set a bad precedent for future parties who were thinking of undergoing mediation. They might not choose to undergo mediation if they think that the discussions might be used in further conduct dispute venues such as ANI and ArbCom. So I don't think there's any way I can grant your request. — Mr. Stradivarius 16:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I understand. Thanks for taking the mediation case. I understand that Ryulong's behavior cannot be used. Is it acceptable to note that Ryulong broke off the mediation however? It is on his talk page and he openly admits this to be true. I am not sure if the whole matter is effectively secret as in "never occurred" or if just nothing is actionable on interactions on the mediation discussion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact that Ryulong withdrew is also privileged and can't be used as evidence in conduct dispute proceedings. And it's the second option, "not actionable". — Mr. Stradivarius 22:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Wikinium

This user is re-undoing undos I am undoing of his edits. I have informed him why I undid it, he has been adding links to this page on every video game within the list List of PC exclusive titles. And adding portals to pages that have portal within the template. If you could help out that would be appreciated. Thanks, Cky2250 (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The user has broken the three-revert rule one of which was not a undo that is alerted to my notifications.Cky2250 (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I won't have time to deal with this today. Try WP:AN3 or WP:ANI, whichever seems more suitable. — Mr. Stradivarius 22:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Ahhhhh these boards are so hard to know what is best. The articles affected can wait until you are free.Cky2250 (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I had a quick look at the page history, but I couldn't easily tell what the issue was, so I think an ANI thread is probably a better bet than an AN3 thread. Remember to include links and diffs as evidence, and remember to notify Wikinium when you have started the discussion. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 07:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

With help in lua come stalking

No problem, and thank you very much for the barnstar! — Mr. Stradivarius 22:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

• Traffic report: 200 miles in 200 years

• In the media: Rand Paul plagiarizes Misplaced Pages?

• News and notes: Sex and drug tourism—Wikivoyage's soft underbelly?

• Featured content: Wrestling with featured content

• Recent research: User influence on site policies: Misplaced Pages vs. Facebook vs. Youtube

• WikiProject report: Special: Lessons from the dead and dying

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Question

How many pages do I need to mark as patrolled to be treated as a patroller? And BTW, how do you like my signature? And do you like Sonic the Hedgehog? And are you an admin? Answer me ASAP. --] 00:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

What is with the ] don't you want to be a template like {{sing|user=Tariqmudallal|talk=my talk}} ... lol.—CKY2250  01:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Just for fun. Don't mention about my sig except Mr. Stradivarius. --] 01:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tariqmudallal! I'll answer your questions in order:

• What kind of patroller do you mean?
• It's ok, but I'd lose a couple of the <big>...</big> tags.
• Meh, I guess so...
• Yes indeed.

Best — Mr. Stradivarius 11:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

About this - the answer is (I think) that any registered user can be a new page patroller. You don't need any special rights or anything. Also, please don't alter other people's talk page posts - see WP:TPG. — Mr. Stradivarius 21:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

recentley (un)edited addition to article; Misplaced Pages: Acedemic Use

Dear Mr. Stradivarius i am sorry that you misinterpreted m=the intent of a part edit. i was not meant to be taken as a validation but as an example of how Misplaced Pages can be vandalized. there was another revision stating that it was an example. but, i greater appreciate people like you who clean up Misplaced Pages.

-poolic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poolic (talk • contribs) 02:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

More spurious template links

Hello, Mr. S. I hope you can help again. The disambiguation page Synthesis is showing over 400 incoming links, apparently generated by pages that contain either {{Synthesis}} or {{Synthesis-inline}} in their text. Although {{Synthesis}} uses {{Ambox}}, I noticed that {{Synthesis-inline}} does not, so apparently this is a different issue than the one you addressed a few weeks ago. The one template that both of them seem to have in common is {{Category handler}}, so perhaps this is the source of the generated links. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

All the pages I saw used {{synthesis}}, and I reckon this edit should have fixed the problem. Let me know if any of the pages remain in WhatLinksHere after a null edit. — Mr. Stradivarius 11:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Unblock

Hope you don't mind--I took the conversation on ANI as indicative that an unblock of HiLo48 was supported by the community, and have acted accordingly. What remains is dealing with Collingwood. I think I counted 8 to 2 in favor of a site ban. Care to do the honors? Drmies (talk) 04:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Drmies, I do mind: I don't support a no-strings-attached unblock, and I don't think any of the others that commented on the "Way forward for HiLo" section did either. Though a few users have supported a no-strings-attached unblock, they are not in the majority, and I do not think that this is enough to be able to claim a consensus to unblock exists. Your actions here are sending out the message that if you make personal attacks then you will be unblocked after a short time, and before a proper consensus is reached. Furthermore, it's not just sending the message to HiLo48, but to all editors who read ANI. Allowing incivility and personal attacks in this way is not a good way to improve the editing environment here. I strongly urge you to reconsider. — Mr. Stradivarius 04:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)