Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:56, 22 March 2009

Hi!

Misplaced Pages needs experts. I do hope you'll be willing to contribute. Feel free to post messages to my talk page, for example if you have any questions about how to do things on Misplaced Pages. Or just to say hi. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to echo Coppertwig's sentiments; it's really great to have experts on Misplaced Pages, and I really think it's a real shame to get driven away by this. When I got started, I tried to edit within my own area of expertise (I hold a degree in linguistics), but got driven away by the frustration. But I came back, and I have really found the community atmosphere here appealing. While I can understand if you don't come straight back, I do hope you'll give it consideration in the future! —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 21:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC

Advice

Does the following WP statement about attempted outing really mean anything in Misplaced Pages?

"Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily posts this information, or links to this information, on Misplaced Pages themselves. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm in "the real world". This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Misplaced Pages editor. It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives. Edits attempting to out someone should be promptly reverted, and a request for oversight made to permanently delete the edits from Misplaced Pages." Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Your votes

Stop. You are not eligible, as you have been notified. We are alerted every time you vote, and we will remove them as we have to. Regards, — neuro 01:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Neuro, my understanding is that he's allowed to vote, but his votes will just be indented so they don't "count". I actually advised him to proceed, per discussions at WT:ACE2008 (see the above thread). --Elonka 01:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Since you have added four more votes to ArbCom candidacy pages today, after being made aware of them several times and being offered the opportunity to comment by making indented votes, I am forced to assume that you will not consent to following the election policies put into place regardless of how many times we ask nicely. Therefore, this will be your final advisory, from me at least, about the policies. You are not permitted to make votes to these pages. The policy is not clear this year on whether users are allowed to comment, so I'm offering the benefit of the doubt by indenting votes rather than removing them. Thus far, your votes have been indented by other users, wasting a significant amount of their time. If you wish to make any further comments in support or opposition to ArbCom candidacies, please prefix them with a "#:", rather than a "#", so as not to affect the numbering and to make it obvious that you wish to comment. If you fail to do so and continue to circumvent election policy, you may be blocked or topic-banned from the election subpages for the remaining duration of the election. ST47 (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hang on a sec, this is not what was agreed at WT:ACE2008. My understanding of the consensus is that he was allowed to vote, with the understanding that it wouldn't count towards the numeric count, but he would at least be able to make comments. --Elonka 19:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That's why ST47 asked him to prefix the comments with :# so that his words remain, but do not contribute to the count. The result is the same, but it prevents other editors from having to take the time to do it. لennavecia 19:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the votes should be indented. But it's a bit extreme to threaten a new editor with a block, just because he's omitting a ":". Let's just indent for him and not worry about it. The threats of block and ban are not needed. --Elonka 20:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, Mervyn Emrys has been getting a really raw deal on Misplaced Pages ever since he started. He's a PhD, a professor of political science, but he got off on the wrong foot at the beginning. He wandered into the crossfire of some other dispute, and had another editor attempt to "out" his real-life identify. So Mervyn Emrys attempted to start a new account, but then that account got "outed" as well. So he's retired the other account, and tried to just edit as Mervyn Emrys. With expertise in political science, he decided to try and weigh in at the ArbCom elections, but then was told his votes wouldn't be counted. The irony is, that if we would count the contribs of both his accounts, he does have enough edits. And to add insult to injury, when he tried our automated utility to tell him if he was eligible to vote or not, it told him he was eligible to vote. So he voted, and then got chastised for voting because he's not eligible, even though he had been told that he was eligible. So we talked this over at WT:ACE2008, the consensus (as I read it) is that he's allowed to vote, but his votes just won't be counted. But because he's not adding the right punctuation on his votes, Mervyn Emrys is now being threatened with a block?! I don't blame him for getting angry and frustrated here. He's being yanked all over the place with conflicting information, and has been repeatedly bitten ever since he started. So please, could everyone just chill out? Mervyn Emrys, this is directed to you too, could you please try to take a deep breath, as well? I know that this situation is frustrating, but yelling at admins is not going to help de-escalate this dispute. The best way through this, is for Mervyn to be allowed to post his (polite) comments on the voting pages. If he indents wrong, well, we'll fix it for him. It looks like Mervyn Emrys has an enormous amount of expertise to contribute to the project, and I'd really like to see if we could get past this dispute, and help him learn the ropes here. --Elonka 20:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I repeat, until the message from ST47 above (a short while ago), NOBODY ever told me I should indent my votes. See comments at UltraExactZZ at WP:ACE2008 under "Eligibility." It says somebody else will indent my votes. It does not say I should do so.

Earlier today I took some pains to edit and shorten the comments at my earlier INVALIDATED votes, and added a few others with shorter comments. I had no plans to add any more before ST47 jumped on me. This is all just too much. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the person encouraging him to vote after it became clear he wasn't eligible should apologise for that advice. Verbal chat 20:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Perhaps your commentary would be more helpful if you read and registered the comments you're responding to. A silly little thing called consensus determined he could vote, but not toward the count. The issue is over punctuation, Verbal. Personally, if he was forced to create another account because an editor outed him and then decided to just go back to this one after the second account was also outed, I think the editor should be able to vote if the two accounts are confirmed as being the same person. لennavecia 20:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Need I say, that I agree with Jennavecia immediately above: "I think the editor should be able to vote if the two accounts are confirmed as being the same person." Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Mervyn: Please see User_talk:Lar#Mervyn_Emrys (you can respond here since there is more discussion here). I am a Checkuser and I would be willing to run a check on you to establish that there is an other account (I'd suggest you contact me offline and tell me the name before I run it) and then state that I found another one and that the combined accounts are over the 150 mainspace mark, if in fact they are. I cannot promise that will resolve anything but it may help. On the other hand, if you do not want such a check run, that's fine too. Just let me know your wishes and if I can assist you, I will. Best wishes. (and thanks to Elonka for bringing this to my attention... much appreciated!) ++Lar: t/c 04:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Followup: I have posted at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008#Eligibility_of_Mervyn_Emrys. Please advise of questions or concerns. ++Lar: t/c 04:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Your votes have been reinstated following Lar's CheckUser results. --Tznkai (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats!

This user helped promote High-level radioactive waste management to good article status.

I see that High-level radioactive waste management has been promoted to Good Article status, making it one of the top articles on Misplaced Pages, in the top 1% of article quality. Well done! I am confident that this is but the first of many such achievements for you.  :) You can now see that the article is listed with others at Misplaced Pages:Good articles.

If you'd like to list this achievement on your userpage, the usual method is to place {{GA-icon}} next to the article title, which places the small icon. Some users also add a userbox to their page. If you like the box that you see above, you can add it to your user page with the following code: {{User Good Article|High-level radioactive waste management}}. Another option is to use {{User Good Articles|1}}, which looks like this:

This user has helped promote a good article on Misplaced Pages.

Then you can upgrade the number as you promote more articles. Mix and match, do as much or as little as you like, it's entirely up to you.  :) Congrats again, --Elonka 01:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

It is noted on the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that the SPLC publication Intelligence Report which was questioned by two users "has been named at least twice by the Society of Professional Journalists in their Green Eyeshade journalism excellence awards " and may be used as a Reliable Source. It is also stated there that a link to an audited financial statement on the home page of the audited organization may be used as a Reliable Source concerning the organizations finances, so it seems the objections of the two editors in that regard has no substance. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a specific link to each of the above assertions; with that the material can be reinstated. arimareiji (talk) 09:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Done that, thanks. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"A specific link to each of the above assertions" was with respect to your two assertions that Misplaced Pages policy says that it's a reliable source. Not to the references to the SPLC by SPJ, which aren't directly pertinent. arimareiji (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In sections on Intelligence Report and Audited financial report. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's be fair now, this is sources

That was supposed to be "Let's be fair now, this is sourced". Sorry about the delay, I've had some real world things taking up more of my time than usual the last few days. I see your point about concerns about the SPLC's business conduct more properly belonging on the SPLC's page on not on the page of the fellow that runs it. At the same time wouldn't you agree that since this is, as far as I know, his life's work it is worthy of mention. How would you feel about a sentence along the lines of "At times, the SPLC has been criticized for what some perceive as financial impropriety"? In the vein of making the article more concise, and this would be your call, it looks like there is enough material to make a separate article out of the Morris Dees Justice Award. Also, as I look over the article, I'd like to expresse my concerns regarding the sentence "in this respect Dees was apparently successful, because those candidates were rejected by voting members." If Dees came in 16th out of 17 candidates do we really know if he was responsible for those other 3 not getting elected? Did the head of the SPLC really draw votes away from immigration reform activists? - Schrandit (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, Dees WAS successful in the election, in a funny way, because in his campaign materials he asked voters NOT to vote for him, and not to vote for the three FAIR candidates either--and that is what voters did. Dees didn't draw votes away for himself, but drove them away to other candidates besides himself. But if that sentence bothers you, you can reword it. Not a biggy for me.

As for fundraising, it is not so much "impropriety" that is criticized (there apparently has been little to criticize) but Dees success at it that bothers some. If there was impropriety, SPLC would have lost their tax-exempt status with the IRS. He was a skilled direct-mail fundraiser before he got into civil rights, and knows how to do it effectively. And remember, the SPLC building was firebombed, certainly a signal success for his enemies, and he had to raise money to build a new one. When he did, that had to have been a major disappointment for his enemies. And Dees has periodically had to raise additional funds for security upgrades. That building probably has better security than the Pentagon, of necessity, of course. There is hardly anything that brings so much criticism as success, expecially in race matters.

Did you see my other message on your talk page? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

That is a damn interesting campaign tactic. The problem is that because we'll never know how many people were swayed to not vote (unless there was a really strange "none of the above" option on that particular ballot) so it has to be wrapped in the language of uncertainty and non-specifics. Do you know of any online sources regarding the number of people that usually vote in a Sierra Club election and how many voted in that one? I'd like to re-work that sentence/section to include that information.

As per the finances, financial impropriety is something of a legal term and as such I should stay away from it. I too read that article and yeah, it would be a falsehood to say the SPLC has embezzled any funds or directly deceived their donors but I feel to be balanced a sentence reflecting the criticism voiced in the Harper's article should be included. The wording doesn't really matter, just the inclusion of the fact that there has been criticism.

Per my talk page - yeah, someone is probably trying to dick with that article and if you want to put off the above mentioned until you've resolved that with the other party that is cool with me. Regarding internal caucuses, I just don't know enough about the Sierra Club or its history to comment one way or another on their notability. - Schrandit (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, unusual campaign tactic, but Dees at least is genuinely interested mostly in civil rights, and was straightforward about it. I agree about the "language of uncertainty." Incidentally, results for all Sierra Club elections since 1998 are given on the linked page I provided for that statement, and there is another statement saying 2004 was the largest turnout ever (or since). You can see some comparisons there.

Let's be clear: I have no objection to including "criticism" provided it is stated in a manner that does not give it more credibility than it deserves. There is a Wiki policy that says criticism--especially in biographies of living persons--should not be given prominence in an article about something else. This suggests that if it is minor criticism or "disapproval" criticism, it can be included but should be played down.

It is somewhat problematical that "balance" has so often been interpreted in Misplaced Pages to mean if something favorable is said then something unfavorable deserves equal space. Personally, I don't think that is what "balance" means. That seems like an invitation to slander, or at least unfairness, and unfairness is not balance. It opens the door and gives license to persons who are biased on the basis of personal prejudice or ideology. How does one "fairly" criticize Mother Theresa? By saying she was short? Or George Washington, by saying he had wooden teeth? Some people and organizations really are laudable, and others are not. Tearing everybody and everything down equally does not seem balanced to me. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for the layout work on Southern Poverty Law Center. Its much cleaner and no longer a jumbled mess! Thanks for sticking your neck out in a hot topic and helping improve the article! ```` 198.70.210.143 (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

David Easton

Thanks for your feed back, and sorry for the mess. Because two things were not correct here, I assumed the third was incorrect as well. My mistake. I hope you and me can find some time to express Eastons importance in the aricle some more. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Lynton K. Caldwell

Thanks for all your work on this article. I've put it through as GA. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

:)

It's all good. Schwael (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Wengert article

Hi Mervyn Emrys - I've been popping in on the Wengert article. There is one remaining claim that I think should be independently sourced: the sentence that begins "These publications were eclipsed somewhat later in his career when he advanced a seminal theory of the 'politics of getting'..." What would be needed is a citation that supports this being described as a seminal theory and/or one that eclipsed his earlier contributions. DO you think you can come up with something on that? If you can, I would feel this was almost all of the way there for GA and you could re-submit it (if you're game! :-)) If you're ready to have a shot at that, we should get User:Coppertwig to have a look and see what s/he thinks, too. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think I can come up with a reference after a visit to my library. A day or two perhaps. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Added text and references to article as suggested. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not make a separate page: List of scholarly publications by .... This is almost certainly not sustainable. Add the most important of them to the page for the author. Nothing ever gets lost here--at least, almost nothing. I am about to simply add them back from the version in the edit history.--you might want to trim slightly, or divide by category. If you really want a separate page, discuss here first. DGG (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I see there is some confusion about this. I think the talk p of the article is a better place to discuss this. Anyway, they're in the edit history once its decided. DGG (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Mervyn Emrys. You had asked me a question a few days ago and I don't think I answered yet. The answer is that in my opinion, the reviewer indicated that the only things essential for GA review were the things mentioned in the sentence at the end with the word "decisive" in it. I.e. nothing about details like punctuation, just a couple of content issues. By the way I did go to the library on the weekend and looked for material, but didn't find much. I got a copy of a biography from a database called something like "Academics Online" or something (I don't have it with me right now) which mostly lists a bunch of the positions he held at various times. Plus one sentence mentioning him in a review of a book by someone else. I searched the articles on the New York Times obituary pages for about 9 days after he died and didn't find anything. (I didn't look at the little notices, just the articles.) I've renamed the page to Norman Wengert; his son has a different name so I don't see any good reason to object. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the other stuff is covered by changes I've made and refs I've added for evaluative statements. I think the distinction he made, if any, is more evident to you than it was to me, but I don't want to argue about it. What more needs to be done to the article before it gets renominated? I'm not seeing much. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we're done! I just covered in the last few minutes a few of the things that had been listed in the GA review. (Feel free to revert if you don't like how I did it.) Optionally, re "Never shy about poking holes in other people’s balloons": this is not a problem as it stands now, but in my opinion something like this could be expressed in the form of a quote from a source, if you have something good, to add colour to the article. We can't state opinions directly, but we can quote opinions (within reason). I suggest re-nominating. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I do appreciate all your efforts. I think it far exceeds any reasonable expectations for a Good article. Then, I thought that before.... The balloons phrase was a paraphrase but I saw it so long ago I'm not certain where to find it, and its probably not worth looking for at this point. My concern now is about who may review it. It sat for a couple weeks on the nominations list last time before suddenly disappearing. I'm not looking forward to going through anything like this again if it turns out to be the same reviewer or a buddy who didn't like things I said about the review. Neither you nor hamiltonstone can do it after making so many changes yourselves. So, I hesitate, undecided. Any thoughts? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I encourage you to go ahead and nominate it again. If it would help you feel better, you might want to wait a few weeks before nominating it just so that you might have gotten your mind off it and started thinking of other things, so that what happens in the review won't seem as important. I don't know whether that would work for you. Probably just nominating it right away is the way to go. I agree that we've done a bunch of stuff that wasn't really required for GA, so I figure we probably should have exceeded the expectations. However, you have to accept that there are no guarantees about what will happen and be ready to accept whatever is the outcome of the review. There may be a noticeboard or wikiproject where it could be appropriate to post a general notice asking people to come and review it; perhaps it would make sense to do that after waiting about a week if nobody has reviewed it by then. At the moment I can't think of what would be a good place for such a notice. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Tanton

I suppose you're referring to the edit where I changed Category:Immigration to the United States for Category:American anti-illegal immigration activists. The latter category is fairly new, just created in January, and there are still many articles that fit within it that haven't been added yet. Perhaps there should be a complementary category, Category:American anti-immigration activists. In any case, Category:Immigration to the United States is awfully broad so the "activists" category seems more appropriate. But if you have another idea I'm not wedded to any particular solution.   Will Beback  talk  01:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Categories are created like any page. Tanton probably doesn't self-identify as an anti-immigration activist, and contentious categories are disputed. Frankly, I'm surprised that the other category hasn't drawn protests.   Will Beback  talk  02:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Regarding your comments on User talk:Twang: Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

What? There was no personal attack in that edit. Just a warning. Twang provided no content to talk about, just gratuitous criticism of a page to which that user made no contribution whatsoever. But if you continue to stalk me, perhaps you will not like the consequences? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticizing pages is normal, usually productive Wikipedian behaviour whether one has edited the page or not. I can see how your edit could be construed as a personal attack. There's an art to criticizing the behaviour of other editors without, in the process, doing anything that might itself be criticized. It can be quite difficult, actually; I'm still learning how. One thing I've found is that it's a good idea to focus on specific examples of behaviour, described in neutral terms and backed up with diffs, which violate specific policies or guidelines; for example, you could just give a diff by the editor and mention the policy, with no further comment. Generalizations about an editor's behaviour are more likely to be interpreted as statements about the editor.

Please assume good faith. It looks to me that SarekOfVulcan has good intentions here. As I understand it, "stalking" means following someone for the purpose of bothering them (as opposed to, for example, for the purpose of correcting their errors or pointing out their policy violations for the good of the project). I see no evidence of unpleasant intentions by SarekOfVulcan. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Come ON. There is NOTHING remotely attacking in my edit to Twang.

"Do you ever make constructive edits, or do you just cruise around criticizing the active efforts of others? How about you do something positive, eh?"

Where is there a personal attack? There is none. All I did was ask for constructive edits. Frankly, criticism without constructive action is only irritating, not productive. Criticism alone does not improve Misplaced Pages, it only aggravates other editors. How could any reasonable person interpret those words to be a personal attack? And SarekOfVulcan is apparently an alum of University of Maine who did not like my comments there about the appropriate way to describe a university as a "flagship" university without it being POV promotional hype. He's been on my case ever since. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

*refills the popcorn* This is getting good. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Re "Frankly, criticism without constructive action is only irritating, not productive." Different people have different personalities. For example, for me, it doesn't work very well to tell me "don't spend time working on A" or "spend time working on B rather than A". It works better just to tell me "work is needed on B." The first two tend to lower my morale and perhaps lead to me spending less time on B as well as A; they take the fun out of it. But for other people, those instructions might be very productive. It may be that for you, criticism isn't productive. (However, you may need to be extra careful not to do things that are seen by others as violating policies or guidelines, or else be willing to respond to criticism about that.) Many people find criticism irritating; however, criticism can also be productive and sometimes necessary. For example, here I put extensive comments on the talk page, and Jayjg responded "Thanks for the thorough read-through. I plan to make quite a few fixes, based on your comments!" Well, I wasn't sure whether he was going to respond positively or negatively, but he seemed to appreciate receiving my suggestions and not to mind implementing them. So in that case at least, criticism was apparently productive.

Perhaps for you, criticism of article content is irritating, while criticism of individuals or of their behaviour is fine. For most people, it's largely the other way around: criticism of individuals or of their overall pattern of behaviour is something that almost everybody seems to be rather sensitive about. Maybe it wouldn't bother you if someone said to you "Do you ever make constructive edits?" but I think almost everyone would find that question quite unwelcome. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that one who engages in criticism has a moral obligation to provide constructive alternatives, not just carping. But I guess there are no moral obligations here, just cops and anarchists. Well then, I guess all I can do is say as little as possible to anybody about anything. Noted: Comments are not welcome here. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and User:Sturmde made a threatening comment to disrupt my work on Misplaced Pages on Talk:University of Maine but User:SarekOfVulcan apparently thinks that is acceptable. Is there a bit of a double standard at work here? Looks like it to me. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Watson

this edit. Looking at the sources, greenpeace is a primary source, sea shepherd is a primary source. So we should go by the secondary source, the one unrelated to either one (Guardian.co.uk), rather than either one of the primary sources. This would be in line with WP:PRIMARY. Unless you have a reason why we should go with a primary source, rather than a secondary source, (against policy), I will revert your change, since it is against policy. The information should be based primarily on the secondary source, however providing the views of a primary source is appropriate, as I had done with my edit, which was based on the secondary and also included greeenpeace's assertions, in line with WP:NPOV, where both sides are presented, and in line with WP:NOR, where emphasis is placed secondary sources.--Terrillja _talk 18:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The information is about the founding of Greenpeace, and one might think that Greenpeace would be the ultimate authority on that issue. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)