Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:36, 23 May 2013

Archives

Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

Thanks for dropping by! Please leave new messages at the bottom of the page. Messages here will often be read by a number of people. If you would rather discuss an issue privately, you can email me. I typically reply here, and, if I do, I will typically tag you in the message. If I haven't gotten back to you in a week and/or haven't gotten to something I said would, feel free to leave a reminder.

Wikicup Table

How come the table hasn't updated for several days? My submissions have been assessed now since I updated two days ago but the table isn't updating for anyone.  — AARON • 09:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

My score isn't updating this time.  — AARON • 16:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Question about points/editors

I've noticed that some users are on 500+ points already into this round, and one for example has 300 points for GAs. I've had some GAN's waiting for a very long time, and currently have 5 nominated. Are there some sections of Misplaced Pages which have high turn arounds of reviews? Because the Music articles are hard to get reviewed, no-one seems to be doing them atm, thus we take a lot longer to collect points. I was wondering if some people are asking others to do reviews for them. It's just something I've noticed recently.  — AARON • 10:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a rule could be that you can only review outside of the area in which you nominate. I have recently taken on a History article, the first time I have ever reviewed outside of Music, and it's taking a while because I have time constraints but it's actually really interesting and refreshing. I'd be fine with not being able to review music articles and only doing other topics.  — AARON • 11:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Or making sure that reviewers take a on a mix and not just one topic, because some topics definitely get reviewed more often and faster than others.  — AARON • 12:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Call the Shots

You have missed a bunch of errors in the GA review, the two entries for "year-end charts" are sourced by Charts Plus which is listed at WP:BADCHARTS, meaning it should not be used in any article because it is not affiliated with the Official Charts company. Discogs (which is used twice) is not a reliable source either because the content is user-submitted. The lead is far too long and shouldn't be 3 paragraphs per the instructions at WP:LEADLENGTH. And the Youtube source is also poor considering the video is user-submitted. Till 15:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Problems with images

Hi, do you know anyone who is an Admin. in Commons (other than User:Infrogmation who hasn't replied to me yet)? I have a problem- a pro-photographer friend of mine who donated dozens of photos in use tried to upload some of The Atlantics, and Martin Cilia, only to have someone in Commons decide they were copyright violation and that someone just grabbed them from the web somewhere. Can you help, or know anyone who can? Her name is Mandy Hall- one of her photo is the one of Jeff Beck in the infobox here! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Martha Logan FAC

Hi there. I've addressed some of the comments you've made. Do you mind taking a look? Steven Zhang 04:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Nietzsche and Asian Thought

On 20 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nietzsche and Asian Thought, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 2004 a special issue of the Journal of Nietzsche Studies was published which aimed to build upon the scholarship of 1991's Nietzsche and Asian Thought? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nietzsche and Asian Thought. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Connie Talbot

Thanks for your recent edit. I was sad to see what John had done and happy to see it undone.1archie99 (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I am sad again. Let me know if I can help.1archie99 (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I received a warning also. Considering the source it is a badge of honor. The only voice he listens to is his own. I notice that he removed all of your additions to his talk page.1archie99 (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup table and points

What's happened to LivingBot? It hasn't updated the table or individual participant points in almost 3 days now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

This is your only warning. Do not add or restore poorly sourced material onto a living person's article again. If you do, you will be blocked. If you have qualms about WP:BLPSOURCES, there are venues where you may discuss them. Reverting tabloid material onto a living person's biography is not the way forward here. I don't relish the idea of blocking you or the drama that would inevitably follow, but be in no doubt that I will follow through with my promise. Please find another way to deal with this matter rather than by restoring the material. The fact that the article concerns a child only makes the matter worse. Please think again about how you are approaching this. --John (talk) 13:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

John, you are involved by the fact you are taking a position on the page which happens to be conflict with J Milburns'. If you feel that anyone on that page does something blockable then I suggest you post a note on the appropriate noticeboard and I am sure it will be reviewed. If you take matters into your own hands and block someone yourself, then it is clear you are using admin tools while involved and the actions will need to be reviewed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No, Casliber, you are as wrong on this as you are on us not needing reliable sources on a BLP. I am not involved by virtue of enforcing our most important rule, on an article I have never substantively edited before. My block threat very much still stands. It would be terribly sad if I had to block an established editor, but don't kid yourself that I wouldn't. I would. I would always ask for community review after making any controversial block of course. I very much hope none of this will be necessary here, as it is much better if we can come to a compromise without anybody getting blocked. Incidentally, in the future if you want to contact me it would be better to do so at my talk than another user's. It's sheer luck that I happened to notice this. Cheers, --John (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

You have no right to talk about compromise when you refuse to engage in discussion on the article talk page and threaten to block anyone who reverts your edits. No one is saying that reliable sources are not needed on BLPs, it's just that you have a ridiculous and unreasonable understanding of the phrase "reliable sources". J Milburn (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Your Cheatin' Heart

Thanks for the comments. I reduced the lenght of the track to meet the 10% requirement.--GDuwenTell me! 14:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup points inclusion clarification

Hi! A fellow Group A competitor included this article as part of his submissions. However, when I check back the history, all of his edits to the article consist of adding just two sentences. In total, 142 characters (with spaces) were added by him. Now I know he also added several refs, but the most important part of DYK is the prose portion; typically, anything less than a 5× expansion fails. Does writing 142 characters in a 4285 character-long article (3.3%) constitute "significant work" as per the rules of the WikiCup? I'm not trying to be picky; all I want is for the spirit of the rules to be followed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Found another problematic DYK article of his. From the history showing his contributions, it shows that he added the infobox, no references and 7 characters of prose (out of 2699). —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

• Foundation elections: Trustee candidates speak about Board structure, China, gender, global south, endowment

• WikiProject report: Classical Greece and Rome

• News and notes: Spanish Misplaced Pages leaps past one million articles

• In the media: Qworty incident continues

• Featured content: Up in the air

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

 — AARON • 09:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup

Hi there. Yes, why not? What is your definition of significant? The things I contributed, IMO, were substantial enough, and not just minor edits. I'd be happy if you specifically point out the "articles on question". Thank you. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, most definitely. I add sources and I add information and I claim credit for them. I actually rarely just copy edit articles as that's boring. You see, I believe that it is not whether you made three thousand or three edits to a page, but whether the information was vital or just rubbish. I do understand that Wikifying alone is not counted. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

7 characters of prose out of 2699 (0.25%) is certainly not significant, especially for a DYK (which counts prose only). I acknowledge that adding an infobox helps enhance an article, but not when it has to go through DYK process. I'm actually quite surprised that a DYK credit was awarded to this editor to begin with. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

(This is in reference to Brooks Mountain.) Bloom, it's not just seven characters- Bonkers also added the height of the mountain, along with a source for that fact. While I agree that this is a long way from the other extreme of writing the whole article, I'm afraid that I don't really buy your arguments about how DYK is just about prose. DYK is about recognising strong new articles, and strong new articles would typically feature infoboxes, key data and solid sourcing. It is clear that Bonkers alone did not bring the article to DYK, but what is in dispute is whether his contributions were "significant". J Milburn (talk) 11:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

For collaborations, it's really about the team effort, I find, and not so much of a solo gig. I know, it would be unreasonable for me to claim credit if I just added a pathetic comma or a pathetic cat, but this is creditable. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

With all respect, J, you're the judge so you make the final call with some discretion. Thanks, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

See also. @bloom, If you're surprised about me, you'd be also surprised about Blofeld being credited (not a prob with me though). ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to have a muse on this. I have a lot going on right now, but I'll try to get back to you both within a few days. J Milburn (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Will do! Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

"DYK is about recognising strong new articles, and strong new articles would typically feature infoboxes, key data and solid sourcing." That's not what the eligibility criteria 2a says — "Articles must have a minimum of 1,500 characters of prose (ignoring infoboxes, categories, references, lists, and tables etc." I'm not nitpicking small DYKs here and there; I just don't want the WikiCup to award "cheap" and "free" points for minimal work. From what I ascertain, the WikiCup is here to recognize significant contributions to articles and is "won by skill of editing", not by how many DYKs one can churn out with the least amount of work. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

That's the normal DYK guidelines; have you considered the WikiCup DYK ones? Whether it's significant or not is up to the judges' discretion and it's the spirit that matters. Like I said, my contributions aren't exactly minute and they provide vital info to the article. It's not like if it's a collaboration between three, each has to do 5,000 characters of work. Doesn't work that way. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Adds 7 characters to a DYK article. "My contributions aren't exactly minute." IMO, that quote is meme-worthy to say the least. :) —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

(cont.) To put things in a larger perspective, I actually indirectly turned down an offer to take a GA to an FA. I hadn't worked much on the article compared to others and it was already close to being FA-quality. I actually considered it at first; it was an easy way to get a free 100 points (and my first FA) with most of the work already done. I wouldn't have to put the same time and effort into it as I would by taking a non-GA to FA. Taking it to FA would certainly not be against the rules. However, it would be clear gamesmanship on my part – not illegal but unprincipled. Quoting the scoring page, the WikiCup is suppose to be "just a bit of fun — at the end of the day, we're all here to improve Misplaced Pages." This whole incident has left me wondering – has the purpose of the Cup changed to become a quest solely to accumulate the most amount of points at any cost? If this is indeed the case, I will reluctantly and respectfully request my withdrawal from the WikiCup. I think I can speak for most fellow WikiCup participants when saying I wouldn't like to be participating in such a toxic environment. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

We have fun if we don't stress over things like that... Leave it to the judges. I'm perfectly fine to removing entries. Don't fret, wait for their call. For now, happy editing. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Happy editing to you too. And may the best man win. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm best man at a chum's wedding so I guess I win. LOL. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 15:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Haha. You clearly beat me out hands down in that department – I've never been a best man (although I hope someday I will be). —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)