Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:41, 27 July 2014

Archives

• v
• t
• e

Previous requests & responses
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, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132 This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Other links
Teahouse (for new users) Help desk Frequent requests Talk Third Opinion Incident Noticeboard

One word dispute on the article for the dwarf planet Pluto

Pluto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This probably sounds absurd, but I've been having a dispute with a few other editors over a tiny part of the very first sentence of the article for Pluto. There is a group who claims that absolutely and positively that Pluto is the largest object in the Kuiper Belt (which they have also redefined in the face of the larger scientific community, but that's another issue). I first tried changing the line to "largest KNOWN object", but that was removed repeatedly, and I was charged with launching an edit war. I gave up for a while, but in May I added a 'citation needed'. Which has been removed a large number of times, without any citation added. I believe that constitutes a violation on it's own.

My contention (and that of some others who have been intimidated away) is there is no way to make that claim. We simply do not have enough data, short of going there in a manned ship, and surveying that entire section of the solar system. In the article for the Kuiper Belt, there is an illustration near the top that shows a *huge* gap in an area of the belt that we cannot survey, because of background noise from the heart of the Milky Way. Articles on optical and radar astronomy all make the statement that when dealing with distances that great, the accuracy and completeness of surveys are questionable. They claim that the probability of something larger out there is extremely remote, and Occam's Razor gives them grounds to make that absolute statement, without any citation needed. One thousand years ago, the principle of Occam's Razor told everyone that the Earth is the center of the universe.

Could someone help restore some scientific accuracy to this? Will102 (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@StringTheory11: One of our newest Admins may have an opinion on this subject. (Hope I didn't put on the spot :P ) Mlpearc (open channel) 16:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

BTW, the users Serendipodous and Kheider have been engaging in a rotating edit war against this over the past few hours.Will102 (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

First of all the Kuiper belt is 50AU across (if we do not include the scattered disc which extends much further). So a manned mission to the Kuiper belt is pointless as the Kuiper belt is better surveyed from Earth (or near-Earth) with large telescopes and automated surveys like we have had for 10+ years. Secondly, radar astronomy is worthless for discovering new asteroids or KBOs. We also do not know for a fact that there is not a 1.1 Jupiter mass planet 30000AU from the Sun and yet Misplaced Pages claims Jupiter is the largest planet with no disclaimers. -- Kheider (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

that is not a valid argument GimliDotNet 18:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Please, I need help from somebody in a hurry. The user Kheider has just reported me for edit warring on this, even though I placed the original 'citation needed' in the article, and all I have been doing is reverting it's placement. He is claiming that the "consensus" overrides everything, even though the rules clearly state that self-reverting does not count. These guys are ganging up on me, and I don't have enough experience to know how to fight them off. Kheider has filed false information to get me removed from Misplaced Pages.Will102 (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

You made 4 reverts in 24 hours. That's a clear violation of WP:3RR. If you misunderstood and believed that adding citation needed tags weren't covered by the rule, I would reply to that edit warring discussion thread and make it clear that you didn't realize, that you now do realize, and that you'll stop reverting. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 18:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Please either explain to me how replacing the citation is not self-reverting, or tell me where there is an exception to the self-reverting rule. All I did was self-revert my 'citation needed'.Will102 (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Self-reverting means this, and only this: reverting an edit you made yourself. When someone else reverts you, and then you revert that other person, it is not a self-revert. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 19:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

How do we get this to proceed?Will102 (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Tokorozawa, Saitama, Japan

Hi there, I was hoping you could edit people born in Tokorozawa. Chisato Okai from the J-pop group °C-ute was also born in Tokorozawa, and i'm pretty sure she still lives there. I know alot about the Hello! Project girls. If you need help on them, please feel free to contact me at (Redacted) 178.117.184.210 (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Please do not include contact details in your questions. We are unable to provide answers by any off-wiki medium and this page is highly visible across the internet. The details have been removed, but if you want them to be permanently removed from the page history, please email this address. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 23:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

While you are free to edit articles yourself, I would not recommend adding Chisato Okai to that article unless and until some reliable source stating she was born in or lives in Tokorozawa specifically is produced (the Okai article at present only states that she is from Saitama). As a living person, we must exercise great care with respect to content about her. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 06:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies (IHS)

Dear all,

The above article got some deserved criticism in 2009 and 2013. But now it seems the article has been improved. Please have a look. What do you think, can we remove the "multiple issues tag"? Thanks, Hansmuller (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Not in my opinion. There are still entire sections of that article, and vast reaches of material in other sections which appear to not be reliably sourced, and it still has a spammy tone. But that's just my opinion. The real test is to remove the tag and see if anyone reverts. If they do, then don't remove it again; discuss it on the talk page or, better yet, continue to fix the problems. Remember that improvement tags are not badges of shame, just notice that more work needs to be done. (And if you have a connection with the subject of the article which is so close that they feel like badges of shame to you, you probably shouldn't be editing the article. See conflict of interest.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

InMarq article

Dear editors,

I've recently created an article about a newly emerging InMarq platform as a service in Netherlands. The organization is at the early stage of development. There is existing research data and the platform itself presents a new concept for digitalizing retail industry.

I believe that there is a lot of valuable information that could be created on Misplaced Pages related to retail industry and digital content. I have a lot of respect for the services wiki editors do and refer to the collection of wiki knowledge on a daily basis. Please help from your point of view with editing the InMarq page. Thank you for your time and effort!

Hristos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hristos Heron (talk • contribs) 11:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

This article has already been deleted as not meeting our notability standards. Please see the community's discussion and decision at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/InMarq. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:EMERGING; Misplaced Pages is not a place to publicize things in their early stages, that might or might not become significant someday. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

How to publish an article in Misplaced Pages containing content that is common knowledge to a community but not openly discussed in public or books due to its sensitivity and thus lacks reliable sources?

Hello

I am currently writing an article with the hope of it being published in Misplaced Pages. The information in the article is about sexual practices that took place in the army of a specific country at a specific point in history. Though the sexual practices are common knowledge in this country, they are hardly ever openly discussed in public because they are taboo and because the actions of the army at that point in time are highly controversial. Thus there are few if any reliable sources. It is nonetheless important to share the information for the purposes of posterity. How could I get the article published in Misplaced Pages without citing? Is there a way to publish articles in Misplaced Pages and provide an introductory note which explains why the information lacks citations?

Thank you Monica — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monica Mbaraga (talk • contribs) 09:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You can submit a draft via Articles for Creation but if you really don't have any reliable sources you shouldn't expect it to get accepted. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 10:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Um, no. Contrary to Mendaliv's advice you should not use Misplaced Pages to 'share the information for the purposes of posterity'. That is not its purpose, and will achieve nothing beyond wasting everyone's time before it is inevitably deleted. If the material hasn't been published elsewhere first, it doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Right, there are other sites that are better for that sort of thing. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Would not the "common knowledge to a community but not openly discussed in public or books due to its sensitivity" sensitivity be the same here? There a tons of websites which will gladly host your article. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

While you three are all correct that there are better places to publish such things, I think it's rather BITEy to flat out tell someone not to even try just based on their own assessment of the quality of sources and an unfortunate phrasing of their intent. While it's clear in this case that there was nothing to be written about, it wouldn't have been the first time someone has submitted an article on a noteworthy (and notable) topic. Anyway, /rant. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 23:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The proposed 'article' has been rejected. For what is it worth, I have had a look at it - and at the editor's other contributions. It is utter gutter content based on personal experiences involving isolated incidents in un unusual setting that are far from reflecting reality. Judging by the author's other contributions he appears to have an obsession with masturbation. The editor added about 10 Afrikaans words to a list of South African slang most about "when a group of soldiers form a circle or a line and masturbate themselves till they ejaculate" the rest about some or other variant of the group masturbation event already mentioned, which another editor had the good sense to delete. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Frank D. Parent

Please let me know why this image was removed. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Frank_D._Parent&diff=next&oldid=329713444. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

According to the image page, here, the image was deleted in 2010 because it lacked a non-free use rationale. JohnInDC (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. How can that supposition be proven or disproven? Who made that determination? How can it be countered? Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I suppose an admin could look at the image and page in the form in which it was deleted and ascertain whether the image did in fact contain a non-free use rationale. But I'm not an admin so I don't know for sure. If it were me I would probably start with a note to the admin who deleted it back then (if they're still active), whose name appears on the linked page above. Also, if I were the original uploader I might just upload the thing again, making sure to include a proper rationale and see if this time the upload sticks. JohnInDC (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest you contact the admin who deleted the image, but Fastily is retired on enwiki. You might try WP:REFUND and agree to provide a valid FUR (it shouldn't be hard given Parent is deceased). It's unlikely that Fastily was wrong about the image lacking a FUR. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 22:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The "rationale" given was that the picture was "over 70 years old." No assertion was made that the subject was deceased, or that the picture had been published sufficiently long enough ago to be in public domain, or that the photographer (apparently unknown) had been dead long enough ago that copyright was lapsed in all countries. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Finding and fixing legacy red archive talk page links

On Talk:Graphoanalysis, the first two archives are redlinked since they seem to be pretty old. Can someone help find them and re-link them on the template? SamuelRiv (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. All that happened was that someone misconfigured the archival script, and really auto-archival was totally unnecessary... so I removed it. There are no missing archive pages. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 15:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Editing warring on Thane Rosenbaum page

On the bio page for Thane Rosenbaum, an edit war is brewing. On one side, a contributor is writing a very long bio that would seem to violate most standards, most importantly WP:NPOV and WP:Undue. On the other side, an editor (yours truly) is trying to include a very recent controversy about Rosenbaum and to adhere to NPOV. Can we get some direction here? It would be helpful. Thanks! Aemathisphd (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Right on the cusp of a war indeed; good that you sought some additional eyes. I'll comment at the article Talk page. I've also warned the other editor about COI editing - looks a lot like autobiographical work to me. JohnInDC (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The article needs some attention. It appears to be largely autobiographical, and, if my quick Google work on the subject is any kind of fair indication, fails altogether to indicate that the subject has been the focus of some controversy. I probably will not have time in coming days to give the thing a proper work over (even to ascertain how far off the mark it is) and ask that other editors give it a look too. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Two Articles of the same Person

Hello,

Cástulo Guerra and Castullo Guerra are the same Person. Maybe somebody can fix it. I would do ist by myself, but my englisch ist not as good as it should be.

--McSearch (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Probably would be best to just make the second one a redirect to the first. It was made two years later, and has basically no content, no sourcing, and says nothing the first doesn't. VanIsaac_WS 08:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, did it --McSearch (talk) 09:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Forezine (Anime Magazine) Recover

I need assistance to recover the deleted article Forezine (Anime Magazine) I am willing to listen on what should I do but if you will gonna delete it I will left with nothing and can't improve my contributions. It is a the first digital anime magazine that was published I hope you understand my side because it was a claim and people should know. Thankyou --Carlo ramos08 (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Determining consensus when nobody debates you?

Take a look at a question posed at Talk:War rape proposing to rename that article. It was posted 6 days ago. Nobody has responded. At what point, assuming that the proposal is reasonable and grounded in Misplaced Pages policies and the five pillars, does an unanswered proposal become a consensus and it's okay to go ahead and rename the article? Lugevas (talk) 02:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• You've established a case for making the change, and there are no objections, so it is time for a WP:BOLD edit.  This is not the same as establishing consensus to keep the change.  See WP:BRD.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• • And it got reverted, with the admonition that it should have gone through the WP:RM process. Frankly I agree with that. The change is one that has a decent chance of being controversial. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 11:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages help forums