Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:21, 9 April 2013

• /Archive1 December 2005 to September 2006
• /Archive2 Non-local numbers: A discussion. September 2006
• /Archive3 September 2006 to November 2008
• /Archive4 November 2008 to January 2011
• /Archive5 February 2011 to May 2012
• /Archive6 June 2012 to October 2012
• /Archive7 November 2012 to February 2013

Aleksander Werner

Thank you for your help! Thank you also for your feedback!

I will keep on working. And I again apologise for my Misplaced Pages newbie-ness. I do find it hard. Its getting easier though!

After you submit - if you keep working on the article before someone looks at it, will they see the most updated version? Or should you submit again?

With the press release: I have the piece of paper... could scan it in... is this just not okay and should I just cut anything I have from this source?

Thanks again.

Lisafoster8 (talk) 11:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You can keep working on the article while it's awaiting review; the more you improve it now, the greater the chances of success. Reviewers will always look at the most recent version of the draft. Submitting it again would place it at the end of the queue again.

Press releases are not reliable sources because they are not subject to fact-checking or editorial oversight; the issuer can make her press release say whatever she wants it to say. In this case it seems to have been issued by someone related to the retrospective; thus it would not be an independent source either. Neither problem would be alleviated if you uploaded a scan of the press release. Huon (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that information! I will take it out!

Lisafoster8 (talk) 11:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

new article

Hi Huon, is this better? Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund Malke 2010 (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that the Time opinion piece is by Jenny Beth Martin herself: Obviously not an independent source. Since we apparently cite it only for stuff also contained in the other sources, I'd remove it outright. The article still reads more like a mission statement than like an encyclopedia article, I'd say - I'd merge it into the main Tea Party Patriots article. Huon (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Huon, there's quite a bit more material to add in. I'll finish it off tomorrow. I'll change out the opinion piece now. Thanks so much for helping, I really appreciate you taking the time here. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Sanjay_Arora

Hey Huon, How are you. This article was rejected due to lack of references. I have fixed it. Could you please look at it and confirm the creation. As always thanks for your timeBbry2 23:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Lcarg2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcarg2012 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry it took me so long. Unfortunately I'm not quite prepared to accept the article. While the Times of India and the India Post are reliale sources, major parts of the draft are based on less reliable sources or don't cite any sources at all. For example, I couldn't confirm that Arora emigrated to the US in 1999 - the only source that mentioned a date was a blog (not reliable anyway), and the 2011 blog post said he emigrated "ten years ago". We'd need quite some editing to weed out the dubious sources (I already removed that blog) and to make sure the draft's content is based on what the good sources have to say about Arora. Huon (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Robert Lombardo. Review of changes and feedback please.

Thanks Huon. I'm really, really new at this and am struggling along. As if my old age didn't interfere enough, I have a traumatic brain injury from an auto accident which gets me even more confused sometimes. Trying to contribute to Misplaced Pages is one of the ways I'm trying to deal with this. And it's not an excuse, it's just a reason. I think I understand your comments and your further requirements. I'll keep digging. I won't submit it again until I've got some additional solid information. Thanks again for checking out my sources. This whole Wiki project is just an amazing thing to me. And for me at least, it's an honor to participate.Final4one (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to help. If there's anything else I can do, please don't hesitate to ask me here at my talk page. Of course you can also use the {{help}} template again - that might yield a faster reply when I'm not online. Huon (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

AfC question

I noticed that you're answering a lot of questions at AfC, so I'll ask you one about the process itself. What happens, or needs to happen, when an AfC submission is declined and the editor working on it keeps plugging away. I'm referring to I-35 exit list specifically. Thanks. –Fredddie™ 23:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Good question. At the AfC help desk we've explained to him in great detail that we simply will not accept the draft he's writing, and Imzadi 1979 also told them so in no uncertain terms on their talk page. Since the draft currently isn't submitted for review, I'd ignore it and treat it as that user's sandbox. We cannot prevent the user from wasting their time in this fashion, and we can hope that they'll later use the familiarity with US highway templates they'll gain to good effect.

If the user repeatedly re-submits the list for review, we might ultimately have to delete it for being disruptive (via WP:MFD), but that hasn't happened yet, and before we go that route we should probably leave another note about the user's disruptive behavior at their talk page. Huon (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

OK sounds good. Thanks for the reply. –Fredddie™ 01:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Harmless Harvest (2)‎

Thank you so much for your quick answer to my question at the Help desk and for your suggestions for my article. I've made some improvements and resubmitted following your advice. Thanks again! Jolfy (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

RFC

Hey,
We are having some problems with Jinnah's religion. Can you comment on the talk page so that we can end this debate once and for all. Thanks
--Inlandmamba _{(fruitful thought)} 21:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with Canada's Handyman Challenge

Hi Huon, Thanks so much for the help with the article last week. It was really great to have someone right there to answer questions. From the sounds of it, you do that for a lot of people, which is really great. I noticed after submitting another article that there is a huge backlog for reviewing articles. I was wondering if that was something I could work towards helping with, since it seems to be quite a lot to do. Do you have any advice? (ProliferatingJade (talk) 07:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC))

Hello ProliferatingJade, I'm sorry it took me so long to reply, especially as you're offering help with the severely backlogged AfC reviews. There are no formal requirements for reviewers, though you should obviously be familiar with Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines, with WP:NOT and WP:COPYVIO. There are also reviewing instructions available, and you may want to use the Helper script which can be activated via Preferences → Gadgets → Yet Another AFC Helper Script: easily review Articles for creation submissions and redirect requests. I don't use the script myself, so I cannot tell you much about it, but I believe it automatizes many of the tasks involved in reviewing, such as notifying the author or updating the list of accepted submissions. It may even clean up accepted submissions, but I don't guarantee for that. Huon (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Huon. I took a look at the requirements and they include having some 200 edits under your belt. I am over halfway, but still have quite a few to go. I think I will do a bit more article editing and then look again at participating in AfC reviews. I've copied your advice to my sandbox for future reference. (ProliferatingJade (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC))

Bit of a tangle at the AfC Help Desk

Hi Huon, could you take a look at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#Review of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/The Organization Workshop. The editor has got himself into a bit of a tangle with duplicate drafts, OTRS permissions, etc. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look and reply at the AfC help desk; Rafael Carmen is by now emailing me and seems to have sent the OTRS mail, though from what I see it's so vague that the OTRS people will find it difficult to ascertain which Misplaced Pages content it's meant to refer to. Huon (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Re : No copyright violation

Hi Huon,

This is the link to my article : http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Nikhilesh_Gupta And this is the page where you felt had duplication : http://indianactor.webs.com/

Unfortunately, the content is different. Somebody had used my wiki article to put up on the page which I have already asked them to take it down. There is no copyright violation involved. I had submitted my article almost 2 weeks back & have put in a lot of effort to put this together. This is solely my work.

Can you please ensure that it goes through ? Please !

Thanks, Ritwika (Ritzdotcom (talk) 11:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC))

"Small cuboctahedron"

I see that you created a redirect from "small cuboctahedron" to "cuboctahedron". I believe it would be more helpful if the redirect went to "small cubicuboctahedron". I propse changing it, unless you explain why I shouldn't. Maproom (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Not much of an objection from me. I just created it per a request at WP:AFC/R. Huon (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I noticed that of the 47 sections at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk, you've responded to 31 of them! Wow! Howicus (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Florence Mildred White

Hello Huon. Name correction. Thank you for changing the Title of my Article for Creation. I didn't expect a reply so quickly! I note your comment on 'Police Records' needing expanding and this will be done before I submit the article. Still on a bit of a learning curve, but advice always welcome.

109.149.206.191 (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

TimothyWF (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The Brothers, Egypt

Please look at Talk:The Brothers, Egypt. Thanks. Alex Vasenin (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Huon (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Kirsten L. Abrahamson page

Nimuaq's talk page. I had a discussion with the above noted editor who reviewed the article a couple of times. His last message to me was that he felt that it was ok to be published. Kanuk (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Nimuaq did comment on the need for cleanup. I fully agree with that sentiment - as I said I'm tempted to do some pretty radical cleanup myself. Huon (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for the speedily implementing an edit requested on IRC. :D Exercisephys (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! That was no big issue. Huon (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Weird Afc Cases

—Anne Delong (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: to flu shot cons

Thank you for your response. It's helpful, but please consider my following rebuttal.

Putting aside the less credible sources of the 12, why does a random Misplaced Pages editor have so much greater credibility for objective research than reputable media sources such as CNN, Washington Times, Forbes magazine, well-established experts/authors such as Dr. Mark Hyman, etc., etc.? Doesn't the latter have greater credibility for accessing the main journals and reporting about their entire balance? We aren't even allowed original research because we don't have the credibility for reporting it; a credible newspaper or magazine or author does have credentials. If a magazine says "thousands of journals have made (point)", is a WP editor supposed to track down the 1000s of journals in order to confirm this? A credible source doesn't have to list every reference they utilized for the article; there's a huge amount of trust we can place in entities who've earned it. There are so many studies about just about everything that anybody can make a case by tracking down specific evidence while leaving out other evidence. E.g., 2 articles I list point out that the CDC's advisory committee on the flu shot have a financial interest in promoting it. That tiny fact casts allllll the statements and research by the CDC in a questionable light. You might even say it discounts the CDC for being a credible source entirely by WP standards.

That said, the general medical community as a whole is itself intrinsically questionable, as the flu shot is something that the community in general sells. How is this general consensus by people selling something any different than a manufacturer of a medication or vitamin supplement assuring people that they're own research of their own product proves it works? I read two statistics that said that said 50% of doctors do not receive the flu shot (one of them said even higher than 50%). That (somewhat) discredits statements made by all those doctors, as their behavior does not back up their stated opinions to patients and journals.

Obviously the medical community in question is enormous and contains much objective research, but how much? 1/3? 1/2? 2/3? The article is about 99% pro- flu shot. It's not just the ratio of pros to cons in the short "side effects" section, it's the enormous skyscraper column of text of the article that pits against the 1% cons (or whatever). The controversies outlined by the more credible though granted secondary sources I list, create enough bulk for a quite substantial cons section to balance the 99% propaganda. If you look at the talk page there are multiple other people expressing the same thing I am, that the article is not balanced by sheer weight ratios.

For a good example of balance of controversy, consider the mobile phone cancer article. This is a very similar topic, yet it has an enormous article dedicated to the controversies and cons. Note that the WHO's statement that mobile phones cause cancer has been debunked by recent conclusive studies. This gives the minority that opposed the WHO with little or no medical journal evidence credibility for gauging the truth in such matters, and lessens the credibility of the WHO to make statements denying dangers of what it's reporting about or has investigated itself. Together with the financial interest of the CDC, this casts all the statistics in the flu shot article researched by the CDC and WHO, i.e. all this research you say is credible, in a questionable light. Hence, when uninvolved and objective parties like XYZ news source report negatively, this in some ways and cases (clearly not all) is more objective/credible reporting than the top dogs' statements.

Thanks for any reply. Squish7 (talk) 06:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I could reply in detail here, but I don't see how a private side discussion will be helpful - we should centralize the discussion at Talk:Influenza vaccine. Huon (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I started to think that too. I've copied our discussion onto the page with a note where it came from. Please feel free to reply there (it's the second to last section, my suggested section for the main article being the last). Squish7 (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:OWB

Hi, Thanks. But those issues do not bother me at all. I know how that will go, so do not even pay attention; I looked now and NY Brad said it pretty well. But thanks anyway. History2007 (talk) 10:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

So good of you to respond to my request. Thanks for the advice which I've acted on. Much appreciated. Kim Traynor | Talk 23:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Blak Prophetz

Hi Huon, It was good to chat to you yesterday, unfortunately my page has been deleted, even though we found reliable resources some dude just erased the whole page http://en.wikipedia.org/Blak_Prophetz. Candy H (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

For all I can tell you didn't add the sources to the article. The lone online source we found might have helped, but it wouldn't have sufficed on its own, so we would have needed evidence of the print sources.

In some ways what happened to the article was fortunate. It was speedily deleted, which is easier to overturn than a deletion via the discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Blak Prophetz. In particular, reposting an article that's the virtually same as one deleted via a deletion discussion is itself a speedy deletion criterion. On the other hand it may well be concluded that the deletion discussion, to which the deleting admin referred in his deletion comment, had reached a consensus and should be considered as valid in favor of deletion. (As an aside, while deletion discussions technically are not a vote, it's customary to leave just one comment per person marked keep or delete - all others should be marked comment or something like that.) You can repost the article, but you should make doubly sure that it shows evidence of significant coverage in truly reliable sources. My advice would be to go through the Articles for creation process where you create a draft that experienced editors will review. That may take weeks, but when a reviewer accepts the submission and moves it into the mainspace, chances are much lower that it will be up for deletion again. If you have activated the email feature you can ask the deleting admin (Jimfbleak) to send you a copy of the deleted article, but it may be better to write a new article from scratch based on the new sources. If that's any consolation, the Mentos fruity 3 article you pointed out in the deletion discussion was also speedily deleted by the same admin. Huon (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Huon, No problem..It would appear that there is a very thin line of the meaning of the term Reliable Sources as mentioned before, many people who have submitted articles and had them deleted or speedily deleted from statements stated by so called established writers who do NOT have a real insight or interest in the subject of the article, Yet their investigation is somewhat based on 'first glance'. My Mentos Fruity 3 article was swiftly labelled promotion because it would have caused the accuser to have had to accept that there is outside evidence which unfortunately would have upset his pride and the article in question would have shown him truth. Remember, I'm new and "inexperienced' therefore my voice will be powerless within the realms of older members or staff. As a student with an interest in British Hip Hop music I wanted to submit and increase the knowledge of the movement which occurred in the UK but this lock-down reminds me of the banning of black history in Africa, oh and yes I was there and involved not that it matters I read African books in secret in my youth.

I'm not happy that my article has been deleted because I believe that the term consideration for deletion or speedy deletion is not a process but a Rank There is no discussion, just accusations by these so called experience contributors, yet assistance or real help is zero.

If there was any neutrality in research then Misplaced Pages should not have deleted an article which clearly points to a valid website source(s) which shows real and physical newspaper cuttings http://www.blakprophetz.com/the-history.asp which would and could have been verified had the request been made. It would appear that Misplaced Pages accepts decisions before requests or suggestions or even that of HELP and would rather provide the allowance of a Keyboard Warrior to point the finger from which authority can be granted based on how many aliens they can shoot in space invaders.

The process needs looking at in my opinion as Misplaced Pages's methods of communication is complicated and not easy for the average none geek understand. There are far too many references to hyperlinks with more links to hyper links which confuses and bamboozles the average person. Hence the common phrase, manuals are never written by people.

To think I was called "viciously insulting and wrong on the facts" is amazing. "May the man in the orange T-Shirt have a Barnstar biscuit I think he feels left out". If all of what I wrote in my deleted article is deemed wrong and none factual then this opinion in itself is somewhat biased as the only power such a statement has is within the realms of this website itself as in the real world, Mentos Fruity gum exists and so does an actual advert with that song. I've just told Misplaced Pages that there's something out there it doesn't know about but for some odd reason someone with a barnstar biscuit says it doesn't. So I now you know that I'll never qualify for a brown Barnstar sticker.

Anything that's on paperback and Not in electronic form on a website like the Rolling Stone or Fox News will and could be deleted by dudes on a keyboard. If my account is not deleted from my vicious and insulting comments, then I shall submit another article with the help of someone who walks outside into the real world every now and then. Thanks Huon, sorry for the long paragraph but as much as some people may not want to believe it, There are people out there that disagree with this process in Misplaced Pages. Candy H (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Rollback

Any reason why I shouldn't give this to you? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

None that I'm aware of, thank you for the offer. Huon (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again! Huon (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

SPI

FYI: This SPI case may relate to an IP 140.211.82.5 which had interacted with you somewhere and it was not obvious at all. History2007 (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I interacted with User:Minorview sometime last summer, and while I found them rather hard of hearing, at that time I wouldn't have guessed they were Humanpublic. The IP apparently just added a broken image link to an article which I reverted, but in retrospect it's rather ovious that it is both Humanpulic and Minorview. Socking on an ArbCom case seems a rather bold idea. Good riddance. Huon (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I had not even seen that diff. But I have a feeling these are not the only puppets and there are others, because when applying, Humanpublic sounded lost and asked for advice, etc. while the same IP had shown familiarity with Wiki procedures before. So my feeling is that there are other accounts. I am not sure if Blake'sMistress is one or not because has too few edits, but I have a feeling there are others out in Oregon (where the 2 IPs are) and there may also be WP:MEAT cases. Anyway... History2007 (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

By the way, you did revert the IP (which is Human's obvious IP) but these accounts edit so closely that it is hard to remember what happened. History2007 (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Breakfast

Hello, Huon. You are invited to join WikiProject Breakfast, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Misplaced Pages's coverage of breakfast-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Coolboygcp (talk) 05:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Petermdy001

Hi Huon, the article I am contributing is flagged as considered for deletion. I am aware that it is because of no citation. We have one local newspaper article that described the school. However it is not online source. Could I upload the photo to wiki and put that in citation? Another sources are School's Paying Homage Ceremony photos on facebook page. These photos show that the school really exists. As I stated in the discussion of deletion of the article, our country internet penetration is low and it is just opened to foreign media. Therefore it is hard to collect sources that are online. What should I do in order to keep the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petermdy001 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

A single local newspaper article is not enough to establish the school's notability. Facebook pages are not reliable sources and thus do not contribute to notability at all. You would have to show that it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable, published sources. Such sources need not be available online, but you should provide enough information to allow our readers to look them up in a library. I do not think middle schools usually satisfy this standard; that's not an issue of internet availability. Huon (talk) 03:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk pages

I saw you commented on the development of the John Call Cook article. The improvement of an article should be discussed at the relevant talk page, not at the article itself; I've thus moved your comment to Talk:John Call Cook#Empty section. I hope you agree that keeping the discussion out of the article proper is rational and not detrimental to the article. Yours, Huon (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Please explain how moving the explanation to the comment of the article's incompleteness, is rational. The article could be much more, that is clear. So either the Empty section bullet should be in Talk (by your logic), or my response should be on the main page responding to the Empty section bullet. As it is, there is no apparent response nor explanation for the Empty section bullet, to the casual reader, when there are very good reasons for the incompleteness. The issues of your biased actions and poor judgment Huan, are presently under appeal, and for that reason alone, you have absolutely no business editing any of my work. All of your edits to my work are in the dispute resolution process. How you can do this at this time, is further evidence of your lack of qualification to be a privileged editor. I am moving the response back. CACook7 (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)