Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:11, 15 February 2007

Irony

Your username renders the circular nature of the debate at Talk:Barrington Hall particuarly ironic, no? MastCell 19:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There's certainly no shortage of irony there. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Disruption

I really would prefer not to have to make an ANI report about you, so I am going to ask you very plainly not to blank the section you keep blanking again. Even amongst those who "agree" with you, there was established consensus to leave the section with fact tags while the source was being discussed, and there is established consensus that one of the items is not disputed at all. Note also that J. Smith does not appear to dispute the validity of the source now (although I had to remove his comment). Escalating from fact tagging the section to deleting it during discussion appears especially unhelpful, I think. Deleting the whole section again without discussion after new information was provided appears equally unhelpful.-Cindery 20:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Privacy, anonymity, and WP:BLP

I advise you to read the WP:RS discussion about this, which links to the ANI discussion about this. At no time are you even permitted to speculate about whom I might be, or what relationship I have to a notable person. You can directly quote me, that's all.-Cindery 22:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Cindery removed your comment from ANI citing BLP. I have reverted her but perhaps you might consider reviewing your comment in the light of her unhappiness. --Spartaz 22:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Milo, you need to write your comments sans speculation about who I am or whom I am "in contact" with--you may quote me, that is all. That means you probably need to read the discissions, if you want to use a quote. I think iwould also be helpful for you to discuss why you blanked the section after 1) there was agreement even among disputanst to leave it with fact tags 2) why you blanked it after J. Smith did not object to the identity verification of the source, which was the issue.-Cindery 22:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

The administrators noticeboard is not the place to settle disputes. Please see resolving disputes for how to do that. However, there are merits to be found in the issues you have raised, and they will be taken under consideration. Steve block Talk 23:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm happy to keep an eye on things, but you really need to let this go now. Steve block Talk 23:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Some people make a specialty out of provoking others, as a means of thinning/distracting the opposing ranks in a content dispute. But it appears as if there's an admin on the case, and continuing the dispute is only going to drag you down to others' level. Easier to preach than practice, I know. MastCell 23:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think you should consider filing an RFC on Cindery. I'm certainly open to co-signing. Steve block Talk 12:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Ping, are you willing to co-sign an rfc? Steve block Talk 16:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Message Boards

Hi, I couldn't figure out how to start a discussion about an issue I had, but how is my community message board bad? I am not running it for commercial purposes. Its sole purpose is to start some community discussions in the area. I love to post messages on forums and I thought it would be a good idea for individual cities to have their own discussion group. I wasn't spamming, I was just trying to get my links out so that people knew about the site. My intentions are harmless; I just want people to be able to have discussions about their local community. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nuorder (talk • contribs) 15:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Message Boards 2

So, there is no way I could add the link? I just want people to discuss the city. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nuorder (talk • contribs) 17:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

User:71.57.0.70

Feel free to email me if you have any further difficulties with them. I would be happy to assist you. Regards, alphachimp 20:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a new log-in and have been unblocked as long as I refrain from 'you know what.' I would appreciate if we could come to agreement on allowing some of the external links that I have placed in Arlington Heights, IL and Arlington High School (Arlington Heights, IL).

First of all: my 'spammy links' are not the only contributions that I have made to Misplaced Pages. I stopped using my original user name for a couple of good reasons. I contributed to those articles (2) under the former user name. Secondly, I hate spam, so when you accuse my links of being spam, lets just say you cause the release of a few catecholamines, dilate my pupils, increase my heart rate ... OK let's stop their before I get accused of 'you know what.'

Now let me ask you why you categorized my links as spam? The Misplaced Pages Spam (electronic) Article and Forum spam probably define the spam that you are trying to fight as follows: That would be entries that try to increase search engine visibility in highly competitive areas such as weightloss, pharmaceuticals, gambling, pornography, real estate or loans, and generating more traffic for these commercial websites.

is a website about Arlington Heights, Illinois as a community and about the closed high school formerly known as Arlington High School. There are affiliate and banner ads placed on some of these pages, but if you thoroughly look at the site you will notice that the high school content has minimal ad placement. There are ads on the site, I agree. That is how the expenses for the site are covered. Any reasonable person can view the site and see that it is not a spam site trying to promote viagra, diet pills, pharmaceuticals or gambling. Oh, but guess what? There is a horse race track in town, so I take that back there is a page on horse racing and gambling -- and . FYI ... I never linked to those pages from Misplaced Pages.

We can put this to bed if you let me link to on Arlington Heights, IL and Arlington High School (Arlington Heights, IL). I think I am also justified by including a few deep links on the high school page related to homecoming and archives for the years that the high school was open. By the way, you eliminated the Arlingtoncards.com links on the Arlington High School (Arlington Heights, IL) article but you left the external link to . Some of the content and all photos on his article on Arlington High School were given with permission from the Arlingtoncards.com site. He has an excellent website. Both and have been positively reviewed in the Daily Herald.

Next time you start deleting links or taking any action, please think about my motto: 'Don't hurt innocent people.'

--T54 15:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)T54

Primatech

Why would you revert a link to an article that doesn't exist? It is common practice on wikipedia to link to articles that are likely to exist in the future. --Measure 23:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

COI

Hi MHM -- I would like to continue the COI discussion. Do please respond on the talk page. Sdedeo (tips) 23:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"Notability" reverts

Please consider going to the talk page as opposed to doing blind reverts that do not meet consensus. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• ...says the person responsible for most of the blind reverts. Very ironic. Anyway, Milo, the reason I'm on your talk page is that you asked about deleting that disputedtag tag (and its cousin, a disputedsection tag). I tend to agree with you in that they're mostly used for the now-well-known style of reasoning that "I don't like it, therefore there is a dispute". But it does have the occasional productive use, and it was on TFD in the past and got kept. Perhaps we should reword it, or make a clear statement when the tag is or is not appropriate? >Radiant< 15:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd totally be up for tweaking the tag or the information that goes along with it. I'll put both on my watchlists and take a look. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain the consensus you claim exists on the talk page to the revert you just made? Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Heroes edits

Milo, I'd appreciate it if you just...trust me. Trust my judgement and don't systematically revert my edits because they don't meet some arbitrary criteria. Believe it or not, I'm generally just trying to help, and what I do "without reason" now, will always make sense in the end. That's it. No need to reply. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

COI edits

Hi Milo -- please let us drop the metaargument and continue the discussion of COI on the talk page. If you do not wish to discuss further, that is fine, but since you and I are the only people involved in this particular debate right now, I will edit if you do not continue to engage. Sdedeo (tips) 16:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ed

Woops. Sorry, I was going to report him this morning but I asked him to stop on the talk page. I didn't notice you'd reported him already, hehe :) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought it best if I merged my comment into your 3RR report so there isn't a dupe, so I did it. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

That box you added at the top of the article is really a good idea. Hopefully people won't continue readd the information. I'm totally fed up with having to revert everytime. Wonder how I didn't think of something like that earlier. Cool! – PeaceNT 17:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I bet we still get people trying to add it again anyway. Hopefully it shouldn't have to stay up too long. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

re: copyvio tagging

Good morning. I agree that it would be nice to have been able to tag the copyvio content instead of merely blanking it. Unfortunately, the primary copyvio tag I usually use is {{copyvio}} which is specificially worded for the scenario where the copyvio is a direct copy of some other site. It doesn't apply to this situation (excessive use such that the content no longer qualifies under fair use) and I'm afraid that adding the tag would have created more confusion than clarity.

I do know of several templates that work for non-fair use for images but none for text. If you can point me to such a tag, I will gladly start using it.

And if you can't find an appropriate template either, maybe we should draft one. Thanks for your help. Rossami (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit, I'm not a copyright expert, which is why I'd try and get others involved. If long plot summaries are truly a copyright risk, it would make sense to have a new template to flag that. Otherwise, you could always solicit additional opinions at the copyright talk page, the WAF page or elsewhere. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

3rr response edits

Hiya, I was wondering why my minor editing for language didn't take, until I had the bright idea of checking the history of the 3rr page. Might I ask why you removed my edits to correct my own grammar, speling and emphasis?Arcayne 20:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That's odd. I didn't do it on purpose, looks like an edit conflict but I'm not sure why it overwrote your version instead of telling me about the edit conflict. Sorry about that. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ed g2s

Here ya go. That post and the one right below it.--Woohookitty 16:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I just protected the page. When I see people talking through edit summaries and not on the talk page, it's time to protect. Otherwise, what'll happen is that even if Ed gets blocked, the war will probably continue when he returns. Need to try to get everyone to agree. --Woohookitty 16:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it. FYI, those warnings were from those filing the 3RR report, not a result of it. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't removed any images. ed g2s • talk 16:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's an example: . --Milo H Minderbinder 16:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a redlink - the image has been deleted, check the history before making assumptions of bad faith. ed g2s • talk 16:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

At the time you removed it from the article (12:21, 28 January 2007), there was an image there, not a redlink. The image was deleted later: 22:03, 7 February 2007. Could you quit making accusations of bad faith, not checking the history (which you're guilty of yourself) and such, and please answer the question? Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

EVP

You are welcome to remove all of the references to the AA-EVP, me and the book my wife and I wrote. I have every intention to do all I can to keep the facts correct for EVP. Misplaced Pages is a public forum, and as such, there is a clear obligation that its contents be as correct as possible. So far, there has not been much evidence that you all are able to do that without oversight from someone who know what EVP is. Tom Butler 00:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I am going to try to start an Arbcom case--the POV pushing and edit warring at that article are insane, as well as the continued insistence of the COI editor. Have you prepared one before, or been involved in one?-MsHyde 02:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It might come to that, but I'd recommend giving it a little time. There have been admin reports for COI and 3RR so someone may step in. Looking at the sources, there may be a case made to just delete the article as not notable since there only seems to be one mention other than fringe sources. Let it play out for a couple days, step back and see if other editors step in. --Milo H Minderbinder 04:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You Asked For An Example

Milo, in an earlier exchange we had on the COI Disscusion page you asked for an example of the COI circumstances I was talking about. The entire exchange is quoted below but immediately here was your question.

I'd be more concerned about the hypothetical "COI party puts crucial info on the talk page but nobody at AfD notices" situation with an example showing it exists.

I have an article in the AfD category. It is entitled Prometheus Process. It was created and worked on for about a month in good faith before the COI was raised. The COI is clear, acknowledged and I have not participated in the article since. During the initial COI/AfD round, I attempted to provide external references to show NPOV, verifiabilty, and notability. They essentially went ignored and un-acknowledged. In the second AfD round, I added information the the article talk page Talk:Prometheus Process to provide additional references about the article and its subject matter. It contains almost 60 independent links relative to the subject and also provides free access to other reference material.

Yet, this morning when I check out the status of the articles AfD page Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Prometheus Process, the only new entries are recommended deletes, where the rationale is Its all about the Contributor, not the contribution. with no acknowledgement or explanation that the information on the article's talk page doesn't support NPOV, Verifiability and notability. Since I cannot participate in the AfD discussion, I have no way to draw attention to the material on the articles talk page. I could engage the other participants directly, but once they've made their vote, they can easily just ignore any of my comments.

COI and AfD Guidelines Do Not Provide Level Playing Field For NPOV Just looking at one pair of statements in the current WP:COI and WP:AFD guidelines show how COI can be used very effectively to suppress NPOV discussions of any article.

In WP:COI it says: avoid participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors

In WP:AFD it contains the statement: A five-day public debate and discussion on the merits of the article and its best treatment. Applicable to all articles where deletion is unsure, seriously contested, or may need debate, and all borderline or controversial cases.

One only needs to raise a COI issue, force the article into the deletion category and the current guidelines eliminates any contribution by interested parties. In fact, the phrase "articles related" is so vague that COI can be raised easily with little merit. Once raised however, getting the article into the deletion process is easier because the the contributor and other interested parties with real or percieved COIs have been eliminated from any debate. The phrase "public debate and discussion" and "seriously contested" in the AFD guidelines may sound collaborative, but are not given the COI guidelines because the COI guidelines eliminate some of those in the public who might want to discuss, debate and contest the merits and deletion with facts, references and clarifications. This effectively suppresses any real debate of the NPOV of the article.--Mike Cline 12:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If an article goes to AfD, involved parties shouldn't participate in the AfD discussion, it doesn't mean they can't still make comments on the article talk page. If people are biased against a company, they're probably more likely to keep an article and leave in negative information about the company. Are you aware of any cases where articles were deleted purely based on POV? Whether an article exists certainly shouldn't be decided by editors with COI, as far as I'm concerned, that's potentially worse than editing an article. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Milo, my concern may actually be one of tactics, it is not that an involved party decides on the deletion, but merely contributes to the body of information used to evaluate the deletion decision. If indeed an involved party can freely, and without being labeled COI, identify all the relevant information neccessary to evaluate an article's notability, NPOV, etc. on article's discussion page before making recomendations to keep or delete the article AND those commenting on the AfD page have in good faith reviewed and continue to review all that relevant information on the discussion page, then "public debate and discussion on the merits of the article" has been allowed. However, should COI guidelines discourage even the hint of discussion by involved parties on the disscussion page or anywhere else for COI or any other reason and that deletion decision makers don't refer or review the articles discussion page during the deletion process, then the real public debate is stifled. It is really just too easy for someone involved in an AfD discussion to say "I can't find anything" relevant to this article, when they don't know where or how to look for it. They take one shot at it and that's it. The presence of a negative does not prove the positive. I hope you see my point.--Mike Cline 16:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC) I find it unlikely that in the case of an AfD, none of the editors participating, and no editor supporting keeping would either point to the talk page, or copy relevant information either into the article itself or the AfD discussion. This seems like a solution to a problem that doesn't exist - can you provide an example of this hypothetical problem actually happening? --Milo H Minderbinder 16:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Milo, I must admit that I do not, in the least, understand what you just said. 1) DO or DO NOT editors, mediators and senior contributors participating in an AfD discussion review and refer to information on the disscusion pages of the articles under consideration? 2) If they do, is it evaluated from an NPOV perspective regardless of who contributed it?--Mike Cline 16:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Editors should do both. And if relevant info is posted on the article talk page, I think it's likely that an "uninvolved" editor will either point it out on the AfD or copy it there (or put it in the article if it's appropriate). I'd be more concerned about the hypothetical "COI party puts crucial info on the talk page but nobody at AfD notices" situation with an example showing it exists. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Milo, thanks I appreaciate your thoughts on this.--Mike Cline 21:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I would appreaciate your thoughts on this. In good faith, all I desire is that the article's subject be included in Misplaced Pages because it can be written from an NPOV, it is notable and verifiable according to WP guidelines. If it is not, then I would like someone to point out why?

Thanks --Mike Cline 14:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I was very surprised by your deletion vote on the Prometheus AfD page, especially the comment that most of the references were written by people who invented the term. Did you look at the references under the links section grouped under "Prometheus Process Related Case Studies". All that material is independent 3rd Party stuff, that I nor my company had any direct involvement in creating. Why are these types of references not suitable to show the notability of a widely used business process? I would think that independent articles partially crediting the award of the Baldridge National Quality Award to a specific Business Process would provide notability, but I may be wrong! Please address this for me.--Mike Cline 17:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

reverting Barrington Hall

Thanks for the reminder. I have not touched that article since yesterday and have no intention of getting into another pointless edit war with User:Hipocrite. Once consensus is established (if ever) we will work from there. Thanks again. Cheers. L0b0t 15:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Query

It appears you're getting perilously close to RFA cliche #1 :) as such, perhaps you'd be interested in a nomination? >Radiant< 12:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Cliché 1? What's that? And are you talking about RfA RFA? --Milo H Minderbinder 13:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Look it up in the WP:G. I was talking about WP:RFA. >Radiant< 13:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm very flattered, I wouldn't think there'd be any risk of mistaking a newbie like me for an admin. The idea of trying to become an admin interests me, but I feel like I don't have enough time and experience under my belt yet, particularly with writing articles. If in a few months you still see me plugging away and feel the same way, feel free to ask me again at that point. Thanks for the offer, it means a lot to me. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

EVP

See http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Elonka

Comment from Elonka: Have you tried an actual RFC yet? If not, I highly recommend it as a way to bring in some fresh eyes. It would also be helpful to try and boil down the dispute into a single sentence/question, so that it's easier for outside people to comment. I have to admit that I spent about an hour reading the discussion, and I couldn't entirely tell where to weigh in, because the core issue was difficult to identify. For example, pick a specific change to the article that keeps getting reverted back and forth, cite both versions on the talkpage, and ask for community input on which version to use, or for help in coming up with a compromise version.

Thoughts? --- LuckyLouie 19:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Creating a workshop version is a consideration. IMO, the article as it stands is a vestige of the Tom Butler-designed rewrite that occurred a few months ago when WikiProject Paranormal took on the article as a "collaboration of the month" project. At that time, a decision was made to write the article from a scientifically credible POV, using AA-EVP sources as citations. IMO, it went downhill from there. You are correct in assuming that the article may stand for some time as it is, due to a consensus of pro-EVP editors. However at some point, fresh eyes will arrive, note the POV problems, and the battle will begin anew.

Are there other articles about controversial fringe-science-paranormal topics that we can look to as a guide? Specifically I was thinking of Dowsing. There may be others. --- LuckyLouie 20:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)