Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:16, 10 February 2021

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Precious anniversary

Precious

One year!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC: updating MOS:DEADNAME

Thank you and well done for updating those options! Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you again for the suggestion! It was a mistake on my part to make the initial RfC narrowed to only a "footnote", but it was my first RfC and so I expected that it would be able to be improved. I appreciate your help with it. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Blinken

Hello,

I can show you numerous articles from secretaries such as Pompeo that we have added that they are the nominee for Secretaries, not to mention that every other appointee Joe Biden has announced has the fact that they are nominee in their infobox. This is how wikipedia has done it and for the sake of uniformity I think it should stay. Sneakycrown (talk) 09:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Sneakycrown, and thank you for bringing up this issue. Do you know if there has been any discussion about this at any point? This specific article was brought to the BLP noticeboard, and I am not exactly seeing the need for putting the information in the infobox before a person has been nominated, especially when that information falsely states that the person is the current nominee, which is not accurate. If you go to the BLPN, I explain a little more about my reasoning, and it would be helpful to get your response and examples there where the discussion can be seen by other potentially interested editors as well. Thanks again. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 09:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I'll go to BLP as well, but this has been a back and forth on numerous pages concerning Biden and it justs eems to be a big mess. If anything, here's hoping this transition makes the community come out with set guidelines for this stuff. In looking back at the Trump admin it was a trainwreck there too with Tillerson, some saying he should and adding, others removing it. Just like Blinken. Sneakycrown (talk) 10:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Sneakycrown, I definitely agree that having some guidance or even at least a centralized discussion to point back to would be helpful. I suggested the BLPN thread since that is the discussion I am aware of, but if there is a better place to discuss this, please just let me know. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 10:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

PLEASE, don't edit war about it. Bring your concerns up in an RFC at the appropriate talkpage & bring your argument forward there, as to why you thing the age-old practice should be changed. Just DON'T EDIT WAR over it. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

GoodDay, are you are talking about hiding clearly incorrect information from a BLP that was raised at the BLPN? Obviously we cannot list someone as a "nominee" when they have not been nominated yet. If you say that somehow using the infobox for another phrase such as "designee" is an "age-old practice", then maybe you should contribute to that ongoing thread on the BLPN that I have commented on already and also help to clarify the infobox template. Also, just so you know, RfCs are generally only appropriate after discussion has taken place. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Now, you're being disruptive. AGAIN, get a consensus for a change, if you disagree with the age-old practices in these articles. At the very least, if you're going to persist in removing such info from Blinken's bio, then remove the info at all such Biden nominee bios. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Multiple other editors have disagreed with you. You are the sole person removing content that was not even added by me, and instead restoring incorrect information to a BLP infobox. This article was brought up to BLPN for this exact issue, where at least four editors have advised against including the infobox at all. You are now trying to add incorrect information to the infobox as well, and yet you still have left no comments at BLPN. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Well then put it in all of them & not just Blinken. Just be consistent, please. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, I am here as a volunteer for the project and not obligated to follow your perspective. Use the BLPN thread or article's talk page to discuss your concerns, and stop restoring incorrect information to BLPs. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Since you were unwilling to make the effort. I went ahead & made such changes to the other bios articles-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for helping the project and commenting on the BLPN thread. Maybe with a little more discussion there, we can edit the infobox template to clarify all this for the future. Are you aware of any other discussions about this in the past that may be relevant? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Apologies

I would just like to apologize if I came off as rude at any point in the debate on infoboxes for BLP, it wasn't my intention, it's just been a headache and a half on all these pages considering what we came to the conclusion on that they should be added. As I said though, it wasn't my intent to come off as rude or snarky and if I did, I apologize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sneakycrown (talk • contribs) 22:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Sneakycrown, no apologies necessary at all. I don't think you have been rude in any way, and I certainly apologize if I gave that impression or have been rude myself. You probably have stronger feelings than I do about this since I just came to it through the BLPN, but I think you have been very helpful with trying to reach a solution to the issue and have left good comments on the BLPN. Hopefully we can add some clarification to the infobox template soon so that there is some type of guideline to point to and avoid this issue in the future. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Lodro Rinzler

You left a note on my "talk" page, indicating destructive edits; however I'm merely removing destructive additions. The articles are not sourced, as noted they were attached to one blogger's article that was then re-referenced by the other sources; this does not create additional sources - it only refers back to the first unsubstantiated source. Also as a WP:BLP these comments cause real harm to the page subject; and are being continued without evidence. Finally, you reference the talk section of the page, which includes many contributors agreeing that the content should be removed unless corroborated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbonaccors (talk • contribs) 02:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

We do have to be careful with accusations of a crime against a living person, but that material is cited to two reliable sources and three editors on the article's talk page have disagreed with your removal. Given your knowledge of apparently non-public information and single-purpose editing regarding this issue, do you have a conflict of interest regarding the article subject? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

No, I do not have COI with the subject; I know of him as an author - Misplaced Pages's policy clearly states "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. " thus this is not distructive editing; as it is a BLP the content must be removed until the matter is resolved as it is causing real harm to the subject while it is up. Additionally you state "the material is cited to two reliable sources" - this is not accurate; the only source was ThinkProgress blog, which is not considered a "reliable source", but a small activist organization. Additionally there was factually inaccurate information indicating "allegations that he forced a woman to have sex with him", when the article states " A woman told the organization he had pressured her into sex in 2013 even after she said multiple times that she did not want to sleep with him.". The article then goes on to state that the woman did NOT have sex with Rinzler. Content that states " Forced a woman to have sex with him" is considered rape; none of which is true or even alleged. This content is beyond "merely being informative" and is slanderous. It needs to be removed immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbonaccors (talk • contribs) 03:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I do not see anywhere in the sources that Rinzler and the woman did not have sex. In fact, that is directly contradicted by both the Publishers Weekly and Think Progress sources: "allegations that he forced a woman to have sex with him" and "A woman told the organization he had pressured her into sex in 2013". You clearly are not engaging in an honest discussion by making up facts. Also, Think Progress is generally considered either a WP:NEWSBLOG or a WP:NEWSORG, which means that it would be generally reliable for attributed statements per WP:RSP, which is why I suggested attributing the information in the article. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Do you want to fix the comment you left unsigned at the talk page? —C.Fred (talk) 03:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • C.Fred, I did it for the other user. They are obviously pretty new to editing, and there are also privacy concerns. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Gypsy Taub ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts, thanks for starting that. There seem like some serious concerns about the editor's conduct on that page, and I am going to leave a comment with addition information at ANI. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Mark Donnelly article myths

Hello. My name is Walt Johanson. I am a retired Canadian theologian. In my spare time -- as during my working career -- I write articles on cultural issues particularly those with religious overtones. I wrote the article, Mark Donnelly which you apparently redacted. I write to you requesting un-redaction of the Mark Donnelly article. The following is my justification for my request. One of my interests is Mark Donnelly. He is a living Canadian cultural icon with religious connections that inform his cultural activities, particularly his love of Canada and hockey. As a person, he is of interest to me because I have an undergraduate degree minor, "Religion and Culture". I studied this at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. Regarding the Misplaced Pages article "Mark Donnelly", I'd like to inform you that I am not Mark Donnelly nor am I affiliated with him, contrary to what some observers of the article have written. The article is not hubris by Donnelly. Would you be so kind as to reinstate the Misplaced Pages article I wrote about Mark Donnelly as it was posted prior to yesterday, December 4, 2020. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Walt Johanson Lexbahn (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I removed unsourced promotional material from that article, and it would not be appropriate to add it back. Considering you have made no other edits except to that page, it may be good for you to become better acquainted with our policies here. I am going to leave a welcome message on your talk page that has some additional information and helpful links. Please take care. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Carlos Maza

Hello. I noticed you reverted my edit to the Maza BLP: . And, for some reason, you reverted my American YouTubers Category edit? Would you mind explaining your reverts more in-depth for me? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I was just leaving a comment about the content you added on your talk page, and so please feel free to respond there. You should not be adding information and then citing it to a source that doesn't support it and even contradicts it. Removing the category was a mistake on my end, and I have restored that. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

wallyfromdilbert, Hello. I'm sorry if you felt like I being disingenuous in my arguments. That was not my intention. I truly believed my edit was appropriate and non-contentious. I genuinely want to improve the article (especially the personal life section). Do you have any recommendations? Perhaps we can spend a little time working on the article together? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, I appreciate your sentiments. Considering that several people are concerned about a lack of context for content being added, I think it would be beneficial to include that additional context from sources when adding information into the article, and certainly not to include only half of the information from a single sentence. If your content is reverted or you are not sure about it in the first place, then discussing it on the article's talk page is probably the best place because other interested editors can then be aware of the discussion. Feel free to ping me there if you would like my input as I sometimes miss talk page discussions. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/ICGA Journal

Hi, don't worry, your nom was not that bad at all. WP:NJournals is really only used for academic journals, so don't feel bad about missing it. It's designed to make it easier for journals to pass the bar, as they rarely meet GNG, while at the same time not making it so easy that even bad (predatory) or rather obscure journals could get through. It absolutely was appropriate to withdraw the nom. AfD is a special part of WP and it may take a while to get the hang of it, but it is, of course, important to keep non-notable stuff out. --Randykitty (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Randykitty, thank you for the advice! AfD seems to be one of the more complicated areas, and so I figured I would miss something. I don't quite understand some of the topic-specific notability standards, such as for academics and journals, and so I will try to avoid those areas and leave it to people with more experience. Thank you again! – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• If you're interested in those areas, the thing to do is to follow AfDs in those fields and see how others handle these issues. And after you build up your expertise, you can do valuble work, because especially journal AfDs often have only very little participation, so new editors in this area are very welcome! --Randykitty (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Randykitty, I definitely need to follow more AfD threads to learn more. While I think I am getting a better grasp of GNG, it seems harder to learn about the more specific guidelines because they do not come up as often. I will probably need to just spend some time focusing on AfD since it's harder to pick up on those specifics while only occasionally looking through AfDs. Many of the people at AfD also seem so knowledgeably that it can be intimidating. Hopefully I will have some time in the next couple of months to get some more experience myself. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

RE: Karen Barad

RE: "I was not able to find any support for the change in pronoun usage when searching online. Do you know if Barad has made a public comment about this or if there are any sources that refer to Barad using "they"? If there is an issue with available sources, then it may be preferable to change the article to use just Barad's last name throughout the article rather than any specific pronoun. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)"

see Footnote 2 on paper pg 4/ pdf pg 5

- Barad lecture at Barnard College- See Tina Kampt's introduction @ 2:36 4:21 4:25 etc 69.119.128.4 (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.egosnet.org/jart/prj3/egos/releases/de/upload/Uploads/TIA-2019_st-10_Harris_Ashcraft.pdf
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMVkg5UiRog&ab_channel=BarnardCenterforResearchonWomen

Thank you! That is good enough for me. I restored the singular "they" pronouns. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Blinken & the others

TBH, at this point. You should be reported for edit warring & possible WP:OWN issues. This pig-headed behaviour on your part, is disruptive. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

GoodDay, there is an ongoing discussion at BLPN. I suggest you continue that discussion there and also review WP:NPA. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Plot edits

Here's the thing. I would really appreciate it if you stop re-editing my version of the Goldeneye 1995 Misplaced Pages plot.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Snake0124 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Snake0124, please read WP:OVERLINK and stop repeatedly wikilinking words like "angry" , especially when multiple other editors have reverted you. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank You for Your Feedback

Hello, I was just leaving this message to say thank you for your feedback about my previous post. I'm new to wikipedia, and it was definitely a learning experience. Thank you for making this a comfortable, and enlightening community. I really appreciate the time you took to help me become a better user.

Williamsam38 (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)AW

Williamsam38, no worries. Please feel free to ask if you have any questions you think I can help answer. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Presumptive nominees

As far as I can see, there was no consensus in favour of "presumptive nominee" (or any other option, for that matter) at the RfC on Biden nominees. Thus, I am somewhat perplexed as to why you are persistently changing the infobox at Antony Blinken to reflect your preferred nomenclature. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The two options favored in the discussion were "presumptive nominee" or similar wording, or removing the infobox completely. Only two people supported having "nominee" before Biden is inaugurated. I personally favor simply hiding the infobox until the nomination is official, but I was trying to compromise. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. So you read the RfC to support "presumptive nominee"? Personally, I read it as "no consensus", but I can see how it could be interpreted differently. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

AleatoryPonderings, I think it is no consensus between "presumptive nominee" or holding off on the infobox until after the inauguration when the nominations are made official, but there does seem to be a consensus against just "nominee". That was my interpretation, but do you see it differently? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I see a consensus against "nominee", but no consensus for any particular alternative to "nominee". So I don't think the RfC justifies changing "nominee" to anything else. I suppose changing it to "presumptive" or commenting out would be equally justified by the RfC. So it seems like we agree on interpreting the RfC.

The question is what edits the RfC justifies. In my view, the lack of consensus means there's no particular reason to change "nominee" to anything else. Ultimately, it seems like these will just inevitably go back and forth until the inauguration, since we don't have a consensus for any particular alternative … AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

As per WP:ONUS, the lack of consensus would mean that the infobox should be excluded until there is consensus to include. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Why then, don't you impose this on the other related bios? What makes Blinken different from the others? GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The RFC-in-question was archived today, with apparently no decision. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. The thread is ]. Thank you. —BazingaFountain42 (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!!

Hi Wally! I just wanted to say thanks for all you do, especially in helping with bios and at BLPN. Your arguments are usually very compelling and I think the work you do there is invaluable. May you have a Merry Christmas, or whatever holiday you celebrate, and a Happy New Year! Zaereth (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Zaereth! That means a lot coming from someone I admire as much as you, and I thank you for your work on BLP as well. I have learned and will continue to learn a lot from you. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Pastor Troy Page

I am Pastor Troy's representative. I am working to position the content in a way that is not editorialized or citing gossip/uncredible/opinion sites. Using terms such as "homoophobic" are opinion based conclusions and understand that including the content on his page is warranted but should be positioned in a constructive and non-opinionated voice. It also does not need to be cited in multiple place on the page. Can we work together to do that? The first way I had it seemed to be in that voice, not sure what needed to be cited as it already was unless I broke the link.

Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acalipeach (talk • contribs) 21:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Acalipeach, in my opinion, your edits have been disruptive and not constructive at all. All you try to do is to remove the crap Paster Troy did. The metarial stated at his page is sourced enough so no need to bluntly remove it nor state it as you did (pretty much delete it all). And no his homophobic rant was not an opinion.Garnhami (talk) 08:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Acalipeach, you should review the information I just posted to your information about conflicts of interest and follow those procedures. You should not be removing sourced content from articles simply because you disagree with it. The most appropriate place to discuss the issue further would be on the article's talk page: Talk:Pastor Troy. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Logan Lucky

Please see Talk:Logan_Lucky#Identity_of_the_writer. -- 109.76.215.235 (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The removal of opposing statements from Last Week Tonight @Narendra Modi

So I should then make a separate Misplaced Pages page called "List of rebuttals of Last Week Tonight by John Oliver" and place this content over there and then link this new Misplaced Pages page to , that will sort your issues out. Good Day, Ranamode (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

P.S. Can one copy and paste tables from one place to another?

Ranamode, the issue is not where you are putting the information, it is the fact that the information is undue and original research. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

3RR at Jamie Raskin

Hello Wallyfromdilbert,

Do I really need to issue you a formal warning about warring on Jamie Raskin? X4n6 (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

X4n6, considering you are brand new to the article, it would be nice if you could contribute to the article's talk page before putting in additional section headers contrary to the guideline at WP:OVERSECTION. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)