Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:52, 26 March 2011

March 26

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Misplaced Pages again, as you did at User:DieSwartzPunkt, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 74.36.101.187 (talk) 08:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

S-Video article

I note that you have reverted an edit from Doniago on the S-video article. Have you read the accompanying interchange on the article discussion page and even on Doniago's own talk page? More importantly, have you had a look at Doniago's editing history? Particularly, look at the large blocks of bad faith reversions carried out by Doniago, often 10 or 12 at a sitting, but averaging more than 50 (that's not a typo - more than FIFTY!!!) every day. And that without mentioning the tag bombing. 86.176.69.42 (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I did have a look. Crikey! It's a pity I blundered into that war. One of the problems with a publicly accessible organ such as Misplaced Pages is that it inevitably attracts the fuckwits in the world. If was feeling charitable, I might say that Doniago was being unnecessarily pedantic. However, that edit history demands that charity don't come into it. Sadly Misplaced Pages guidelines prevent me from saying what I really think (however chlidish the user is). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 09:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

86.176.69.42, If you see this you may care to see Doniago's latest attempt to go whimpering to an administrator to support his ignorance of other people's views. I would have posted this on your talk page but you seem to have a dynamic IP address. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Re Doniago, tags and references

Firstly if you have a complaint you want to make about Doniago please do so, maybe at WP:RFC eg Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct or contact an administrator, however, I am not an administrator, so apart from leaving messages on talk pages there is little I can do. In Doniago's defence I note that there are many types of editors on wikipedia - some spend time creating large articles to GA standard, others only correct spelling, do categorisation etc etc. Unreferenced articles, and articles which require work do exist and tags exist to bring that to attention - I don't blame sewer workers for smelling bad..

As for Doniago's edits I looked at the first link on their edit history I found - this does not appear to be a bad edit - it removes much speculation, and overly long details. Other edits appear valid , here's one of content removal which again - seems valid (trivia, notability, sources). There doesn't appear to be a pattern of disruption - this doesn't mean that everything they have done is good.

As for the S-video article - It's good that you have worked with other editors and achieved a consensus on what should and should not be in the article - avoiding trivia and cruft - that is clear from the article that you have been successful in that respect. However the article does need references - and it is substantially unreferenced. Note that wikipedia is not static and so improves - this means that articles that may have once been generally acceptable need improvement. Much of the material in that article appears to be easily referencable, and should be referenced. For example in 7 pin The reader is refered to the manufacturers data for pin outs of any specific graphic card. is not up to standard - pin outs exist (I gave one on the talk page) - in giving a reference for the pin out it's quite likely that other aspects of the "7-pin" section can be reference from the same source. There are definitely websites and books that cover comparisons of signal quality so that can be referenced. It's really not acceptable by current standards that the section S_video#Overview isn't completely referenced to reliable sources - that's the basics of the article - it's doable.

If the S-Video article were on the whole well sourced, and a tag had been added I could understand a complaint. Looking at the "9 pin section" I see this

Again, there is no standardisation between manufacturers as to which pin does what (also given that there 2 known variants of the connector in use). As can be seen from the diagram above, although the S-Video signals are available on the corresponding pins, neither variant of the connector will accept an unmodified 4-pin S-video plug, though they can be made to fit by removing the key from the plug. In this latter case, it becomes all too easy to misalign the plug when inserting it with consequent damage to the small pins.

This isn't encyclopedic, appears to contain WP:OR ,the diagram does not give the pin outs so the statement S-Video signals are available on the corresponding pins doesn't seem to be proven, as well as possibly contradicting the earlier statement that there is no standardisation. ?? I'm only surprised that this wasn't removed or challenged. I can see a few sections (historical info on products) that may be relevant but difficult to source but that doesn't excuse the rest. Talk page consensus is not enough, verifyabilty is also needed.Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

If you do decide to make a complaint about Doniago or other action please let me know as I would have comments to make, both positive and negative.Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)