Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:51, 30 May 2014

If you leave a message here, I will reply here unless you ask me to reply elsewhere, to make discussions easier to read.
If you reply to a message here, please indent (start the line with ":") and sign your message.
If you are discussing any particular page, please provide a link to it - it makes life easier for me and anyone else seeing this page.

Template:DailyBracketBot

Archives

Archive 1 (Dec 2006 - Jan 2009) Archive 2 (Jan 2009 - Dec 2009) Archive 3 (Dec 2009 - Feb 2011) Archive 4 (Feb 2011 - Feb 2012) Archive 5 (Feb 2012 - Aug 2012) Archive 6 (Aug 2012 - Apr 2013) Archive 7 (Apr 2013 - Mar 2014) Archive 8 (Mar 2014 - ?) Archive 9 (?)

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

NHS categories

I don't think that we can put all NHS trusts in England into subcategories any more. Too many don't fit, and are not stable configurations. For example many teaching hospitals and DGHs also run community services. So do many Mental health trusts. But generally the community services are subject to a periodic tendering programme.

The only really clearly defined categories are foundation trusts and non-foundation.

Happy Holidays

Books & Bytes New Years Double Issue

Happy New Year, and welcome to a special double issue of Books & Bytes. We've included a retrospective on the changes and progress TWL has seen over the last year, the results of the survey TWL participants completed in December, some of our plans for the future, a second interview with a Wiki Love Libraries coordinator, and more. Here's to 2014 being a year of expansion and innovation for TWL!

Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of 400-600%

Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC

New pilot projects: Started the Misplaced Pages Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Misplaced Pages researchers

Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors

Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration

Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting

Hello

Hello, I'm Bladeor and was wondering of some of my edits being reverted. I understand that one on that Stephen Hawking book was against Misplaced Pages rules. I'm sorry I actively didn't listen to that one. However, I put the stub template on Turbo, Colombia because all it said was a brief overview and only information about the climate. There isn't any information about the demography, history, etc. I know some editors limit stub pages to like 100 or 200 words or something, but I think the article just didn't have enough information.

On the 2012 Buenos Aires rail disaster, I admit my mistake of removing a source. I just thought it was out of date, because February happened earlier this year. I didn't know of a guideline about something like that.

On the thing concerning the Dalal disambiguation page, it is a last name, and I realize that it should be linked to people who have the last name of Dalal or something. I do not see why you plainly reverted that one, rather than improved upon it or ruling against it.

If there is anything else concerning me, please contact me on my talk page again. Also, if you are going to revert any more of my edits, please leave a message on my talk page concerning that or edit your edit. Thank you. Bladeor (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Bladeor: I found Turbo, Colombia while stub-sorting, and I think it has enough content not to be a stub - and if you look at the page history you'll see it was labelled as a stub until Dec 2013 and then unstubbed. Anything short of a Featured Article will always have scope for expansion and/or improvement: stubs are extremely short articles with very little content.

Disambiguation pages disambiguate articles which include content specific to the title. Your link to name was more like a dictionary definition of "Dalal", so was inappropriate. I've now added a "See also" link which helps readers to find people of that name. If you like you could add the individuals with the surname to the disambiguation page. See WP:MOSDAB for more information on what is and is not appropriate on disambiguation pages.

When I see an edit I disagree with, I sometimes look at the editor's edit history in case there is a pattern of edits which need to be improved. I'll sometimes make comments on the editor's talk page, other times just make changes with, I hope, informative edit summaries. PamD 08:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of The Sunday Times Travel Magazine

Hi Pam Thanks for your New User guidelines. Much appreciated. I tried to make it clear that I was a staffer on the magazine, but will do the extra bits you've suggested. HOWEVER, I can't do that until it is reinstated. I tried to write the page as independently as possible, with no fluff or marketing speak, but it was still deleted by https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Randykitty, despite the fact that ALL of our competitor titles have pages.

Do you know how I can get it reinstated? Then I can make the changes you've suggested. Otherwise, do you know if Misplaced Pages / https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Randykitty will be removing all competitor pages, too?

Any advice gratefully received.

Cheers Jill Jillsg (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)jillsgJillsg (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@Jillsg: You need to talk to @Randykitty:, as she's the administrator who deleted the page, and I'm not particularly familiar with the procedures for COI editing, draft articles, etc - just a passer-by on her talk page who spotted that you were having a problem. I think she may be in USA so her time zones for editing won't match ours in UK, so you may have to wait for a reply - as is always the case, as editors have lives outside Misplaced Pages and aren't always online. On the surface it looks to me as if the magazine probably merits an article, but I had a look at your draft and it looked a bit like a business-to-business promotion: ordinary encyclopedia readers (as opposed to advertisers) aren't interested in how much your readers spend on their holidays, and the "best-selling" right near the start rang alarm bells: it needs a reliable source to support that statement, and probably shouldn't be so near the start of the article. It's difficult for someone closely, professionally, financially, involved in a publication to put together a neutral encyclopedia article about it. If you feel that the other magazine articles are inappropriate you could propose them for deletion at Articles for Deletion, though I have a feeling you need your account to have been around a little longer and done more edits to be able to do so. Point out to Randykitty which of the articles you feel are no more encyclopedia-worthy than yours was, and ask her about them. PamD 12:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@PamD: Ah, thanks! I removed loads from the draft when I submitted the actual article, and also added the source for the "best-selling" (the Audit Bureau of Circulation - the UK's independent auditors on this). The draft was quite fluffy, but I think the final was just the dry facts. Anyway, your help is much appreciated. And this time, I'm going to try to sign only the once, but suspect I will still mess it up ;) Jillsg (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@Jillsg: Nearly right - indenting takes a bit of practice! I've tidied up x2: added another line of indentation so that your reply is indented from my reply, and reattached the sig to the text. You can sign on a new line, or add a second para, but you need to do as many colons-worth of indent as the previous para to line up tidily! PamD 12:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Apols!

Apologies! I didn't mean to post in triplicate! I was just trying to figure out the signature thing (I'm still not sure I have), and didn't realise my earlier submissions had gone through. Jillsg (talk) 11:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)jillsgJillsg (talk) 11:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry - there's a lot to learn about editing Misplaced Pages: but it can be fun and potentially addictive! I've removed the first two, as you successfully signed the last one! Um, twice, I see. Ah well. PamD 12:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your work at RfD

Note for curious talk page stalkers: this relates to Misplaced Pages:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_19#Raiders etc PamD 06:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all your contributions to RfD. Hope you become one of the regulars. I probably sound very harsh on you but we have kinda a very vigourous arguing style there – always polite but as with any clique it tends to then evolve its own kind of language. So if I sounded harsh on you, please don't be offended: I will certainly sometimes disagree with you but thank you sincerely for your contributions and please do continue to join in, the more the merrier. I am not an admin or anything just a gnome so I tend to do a lot of the background checking when people list with their toys then don't do anything about it (I don't mean you). For me the hardest thing on Misplaced Pages is doing all the background checking, reffing and so on: writing the text is relatively easy. Please reply at my talk if you want to: no need to, the thanks are sincere. Si Trew (talk) 10:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@SimonTrew: (I prefer to keep a conversation in one place): Thanks for the thanks, but I still don't see your point. I made no change to the function of the redirect, so rather than "pulling the rug out from under you" it was more like cleaning it a little without moving it. If the rfd fails, the rd is improved. If it passes, then whoever updates the rd can fix, replace or delete tags as need be. I see no problem. As an rfd regular, what problem do you see? PamD 10:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@PamD: I also like to keep the conversation in one place: it's a toss of a coin which place it is, though!

I have this general uneasiness with anything being changed (on the redirect, if it is a redirect, or an article, if it were at AfD) while it is under discussion. At a GA review, of which I have done several in the past, if someone other than the contributors to that review changes it, it means one has to then review or delete those changes or incorporate them while the review is in progress. GA reviewers are encouraged to fix minor slips without mentioning them – just fix them and be done – but were someone to insert or delete a wodge of material it invalidates the review. And the same applies mutatis mutandis to redirects, which are in a sense a "GR" (Good redirect) review.

I know others feel differently, but I feel it makes it very difficult to argue one's point if the ground is moving under one's feet. Plenty of others, not just you, have different views and say I just tidied it up and so on: and I can do that, I am a gnome after all. It just seems to me wrong: maybe as a long-standing editor in real life (well I am a software engineer but have must of blue pencilled and written millions of boring words, most of which are probably in the bin) that once something comes to discussion we should discuss it before changing it.

I suggested before, a few weeks ago, that when Twinkle or whatever is used to bring something to RfD, it should tag the version number. That is how it works for {{translated page}}, for example, you tag the version numbers of the translation, so it is clear when it was translated and nobody can say "that's not right, it now says this" – probably does but it didn't when I translated it. Do you think it would be a good idea to suggest that to Twinkle etc to add version numbers on the template? I have no idea how to even suggest that or who to. Si Trew (talk) 11:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

By the way this {{ping}} thing is brilliant. For years we struggled with tying up conversations. That is a bloody masterpiece by the folks over at Wikimedia I assume they had to change the back end to accomodate it. It will become overused to the point where it is useless, but at the moment it is brilliant. My hats off to whoever designed, proposed, and built that. The template is not complicated but a couple of years ago it would just not have been possible. And for once they got the right name for the thing too! Si Trew (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@SimonTrew: Don't forget that the AfD template added to an article says "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed." (Example). I suspect that the AfD process, and its templates, has gone under far more scrutiny over the years than the RfD one. I think your view about editing redirects is out of line with the philosophy there. Changing the target of the RD would be the equivalent of blanking the article, it's that sort of change, but I see no reason to refrain from edits which are merely adding useful classification tags. I will continue to do so if I happen to look at a redirect which is at RfD and spot a missing category tag: I'm afraid I'm not convinced by your arguments. The ground isn't moving under your feet, I've just done a little tidying up around them. PamD 13:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The philosophy (at least if I have my way) at RfD is how do we make the encyclopaedia better?. Sometimes it is better to delete, to encourage creation of the article and let the search engine take care of it. Sometimes it is better to retarget. Sometmes it might go to an alternative target. I think RfD's philosophy, as mine, is "what would an intelligent but ignorant reader try to find when he types this in". (Sorry about the "he" but English is absolutely rubbish gender-neutral pronouns: and aslo I get fed up with people using "gender" when they mean "sex" but that is fighting a losing battle, gender is for language and sex is for living creatures). Since I seem to be the king of RfD at the moment, unwontedly, I might have a go at expressing that sentiment on the guidelines – other editors can soon enough take it out. Si Trew (talk) 06:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

One problem is that on Twinkle and XfD it is listed as "Redirects for deletion". Now, the title is "Redirects for discussion". AfD is "Articles for deletion", not discussion. So people bring things to RfD for deletion without saying Delete. My homework then – which I am happy to do – is to check up the links, check up the external sources and so on. But that mistitle as "deletion" with the analogue at Afd, Csd, et cetera is misleading. The D does not mean "deletion", it means "discussion", at least at RfD. I've turned a few into article stubs for others to improve or translated one the other week – even got one to GA – from a bad redirect. Si Trew (talk) 07:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@SimonTrew: Sorry but you still haven't said anything which explains why adding those classification tags to redirects while they're under discussion is in any way undesirable.

I've added a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Plurals_and_disambiguation to alert disambiguation geeks to the discussions on plurals, as they may have views on Primary Topics etc. PamD 07:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we should agree to disagree. But it is because it is tring to hit a moving target. It goes quicker now even at RfD, but generally it goes about seven days and in the mean time if it is changed then one person is discussing one version of the article, another another.

Let's say for the sake of example that the redirect List of lakes on the planet of Mars exists (soddit, I bet it does) and then it was redirected to Mars and someone suggested it should be redirected to Mars Bar. We would have to discuss that. If someone then comes in and does the gnoming – and thank you for – while it is under discussion then it invalidates the discussion. That's what I mean. Maybe don't express it well. Si Trew (talk) 10:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@SimonTrew: I don't think it invalidates the discussion at all: the discussion is about where the redirect should point, not about whether or not it's got a few classification tags added to it. But we're clearly not going to agree. You carry on in your way, but I'll carry on in mine. (On the rare occasions I look at an RfD!) PamD 12:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

My Y key doesn't seem to work too well. But exemplia gratia: the {{inuse}} template. I use this occasionally when translating, but it is not observed much because everthing is instant, nobody takes time and consideration any more, so it is basically redundant. Si Trew (talk) 10:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Umm ... not sure how this fits in. Did you mean to add it somewhere else? PamD 12:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

No, no, I was giving the example of {{inuse}} basically says stand off for a couple of hours. Misplaced Pages goes too fast now because everyone gets mobile phone texts an so on and they don't look before they leap. I make my errors slowly, like planting a garden. Si Trew (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah. But I don't see this as an error - if I see something needing fixed and I've got time and inclination I'll fix it there and then and not think "Well, in a week's time I must remember to go back and see what happened to the RfD and add those tags if still appropriate". But you and I differ as to whether adding those tags damages the RfD debate, and neither of us is going to convince the other. You're suggesting that I don't consider my edits carefully, that I don't "look before I leap": that's mildly offensive. Let's call a halt. PamD 13:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean anything offensive. Thanks for all your hard work – and I truly appreciate it which sounds patronising. I hate that things that when spoken would sound reasonable sound so harsh when written, and that is my fault, so I am sorry about that. Usually when I am making a sarcastic comment I am actually making it against myself but without the ability to kinda do a tongue in one's cheek or a litle ironic smile or raised eyebrow it an come across the wrong way and I have to learn that. In articles of course I would never make jokes like that but in discussions I frequently throw in a one-liner or something so that people realise I do actually have a sense of my own faults.

We obviously have different editing styles, but then it takes more than one person to make this encyclopaedia better, and I am glad you are one who makes it better. I don't know how better to put it.

I certainliy did not mean to offend you, and sorry that I did. I thought twice before replying as I don't want to cause you misery; but I wanted to offer my apology for offending you. It was by accident but it is not my business to go around offending people. Sorry. Si Trew (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Specifically when I said "they look before they leap" I was not referring to you (hence the "they" rather than the "you": do you want me to do "thee" and "tha"?). I hope everything is fine in Yorkshire – most of my family live there. I think it is just a misunderstanding, but it is my fault and I say sorry. 13:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Padutirupathi

I appreciate the inclusionist intent, but an (admittedly quick) search has been unable to find any RS upon which to justify even the existence of the article, let alone its extent. Meanwhile, there are WP mirrors (such as Books LLC) turning the unfounded content into pseudofacts. If you want to keep the content visible, please do something to find reliable sources beyond just tagging the article. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@LeadSongDog: I came across it while stub-sorting, and in the state you'd left it the title had no apparent connection to the lead section. There were also several external links in the chunk you'd commented out, and it had been tagged as having no sources. This seemed excessive. Yes, there's a vast amount of bloat in the article, and it needs trimmed drastically. I'll see what I can do. (I thought I'd added a ref this morning, but had forgotten to hit "Add cite" after "Preview cite"). PamD 21:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@LeadSongDog: I've tidied up some of it, tagged unreferenced sections, and left a note at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Temple_in_need_of_cleanup. PamD 22:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's hope then that someone can find something about it. It's incredibly frustrating that the editors who create these things without citing sources just disappear afterwards. If this is a real topic, it would be a shame to have to AFD it. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter—May 2014

Did you know?

The cite menu offers quick access to up to five citation templates.  If your wiki has enabled the "⧼visualeditor-toolbar-cite-label⧽" menu, press "⧼visualeditor-toolbar-cite-label⧽" and select the appropriate template from the menu.

Existing citations that use these templates can be edited either using the "⧼visualeditor-toolbar-cite-label⧽" tool or by selecting the reference and choosing the "⧼visualeditor-dialogbutton-reference-tooltip⧽" item in the "Insert" menu.

Read the user guide for more information.

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor team has mostly worked on the new citation tool, improving performance, reducing technical debt, and other infrastructure needs.

The biggest change in the last few weeks is the new citation template menu, labeled "⧼visualeditor-toolbar-cite-label⧽". The new citation menu offers a locally configurable list of citation templates on the main toolbar. It adds or opens references using the simplified template dialog that was deployed last month. This tool is in addition to the "⧼visualeditor-dialogbutton-reference-tooltip⧽" item in the "Insert" menu, and it is not displayed unless it has been configured for that wiki. To enable this tool on your wiki, see the instructions at VisualEditor/Citation tool.

Eventually, the VisualEditor team plans to add autofill features for these citations. When this long-awaited feature is created, you could add an ISBN, URL, DOI or other identifier to the citation tool, and VisualEditor would automatically fill in as much information for that source as possible. The concept drawings can be seen at mw:VisualEditor/Design/Reference Dialog, and your ideas about making referencing quick and easy are still wanted.

• There is a new Beta Feature for setting content language and direction.  This allows editors who have opted in to use the "Language" tool in the "Insert" menu to add HTML span tags that label text with the language and as being left-to-right (LTR) or right-to-left (RTL), like this:  <span lang="en" dir="ltr">English</span>. This tool is most useful for pages whose text combines multiple languages with different directions, common on Right-to-Left wikis.
• The tool for editing mathematics formulae in VisualEditor has been slightly updated and is now available to all users, as the "⧼math-visualeditor-mwmathinspector-title⧽" item in the "Insert" menu. It uses LaTeX like in the wikitext editor.
• The layout of template dialogs has been changed, putting the label above the field.  Parameters are now called "fields", to avoid a technical term that many editors are unfamiliar with.
• TemplateData has been expanded:  You can now add "suggested" parameters in TemplateData, and VisualEditor will display them in the template dialogs like required ones.  "Suggested" is recommended for parameters that are commonly used, but not actually required to make the template work.  There is also a new type for TemplateData parameters: wiki-file-name, for file names.  The template tool can now tell you if a parameter is marked as being obsolete.
• Some templates that previously displayed strangely due to absolute CSS positioning hacks should now display correctly.
• Several messages have changed: The notices shown when you save a page have been merged into those used in the wikitext editor, for consistency.  The message shown when you "⧼visualeditor-toolbar-cancel⧽" out of an edit is clearer. The beta dialog notice, which is shown the first time you open VisualEditor, will be hidden for logged-in users via a user preference rather than a cookie.  As a result of this change, the beta notice will show up one last time for all logged-in users on their next VisualEditor use after Thursday's upgrade.
• Adding a category that is a redirect to another category prompts you to add the target category instead of the redirect.
• In the "Images and media" dialog, it is no longer possible to set a redundant border for thumbnail and framed images.
• There is a new Template Documentation Editor for TemplateData.  You can test it by editing a documentation subpage (not a template page) at Mediawiki.org: edit mw:Template:Sandbox/doc, and then click "Manage template documentation" above the wikitext edit box.  If your community would like to use this TemplateData editor at your project, please contact product manager James Forrester or file an enhancement request in Bugzilla.
• There have been multiple small changes to the appearance:  External links are shown in the same light blue color as in MediaWiki.  This is a lighter shade of blue than the internal links.  The styling of the "Style text" (character formatting) drop-down menu has been synchronized with the recent font changes to the Vector skin.  VisualEditor dialogs, such as the "⧼visualeditor-toolbar-savedialog⧽" dialog, now use a "loading" animation of moving lines, rather than animated GIF images.  Other changes were made to the appearance upon opening a page in VisualEditor which should make the transition between reading and editing be smoother.
• The developers merged in many minor fixes and improvements to MediaWiki interface integration (e.g., edit notices), and made VisualEditor handle Education Program pages better.
• At the request of the community, VisualEditor has been deployed to Commons as an opt-in. It is currently available by default for 161 Misplaced Pages language editions and by opt-in through Beta Features at all others, as well as on several non-Misplaced Pages sites.

Looking ahead:  The toolbar from the PageTriage extension will no longer be visible inside VisualEditor. More buttons and icons will be accessible from the keyboard.  The "Keyboard shortcuts" link will be moved out of the "Page options" menu, into the "Help" menu. Support for upright image sizes (preferred for accessibility) and inline images is being developed. You will be able to see the Table of Contents while editing. Looking further out, the developers are also working on support for viewing and editing hidden HTML comments. VisualEditor will be available to all users on mobile devices and tablet computers. It will be possible to upload images to Commons from inside VisualEditor.

If you have questions or suggestions for future improvements, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting a note at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback or by joining the office hours on Thursday, 19 June 2014 at 10:00 UTC. If you'd like to get this newsletter on your own page (about once a month), please subscribe at w:en:Misplaced Pages:VisualEditor/Newsletter for English Misplaced Pages only or at meta:VisualEditor/Newsletter for any project. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) 22:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2014

• News and notes: "Crisis" over Wikimedia Germany's palace revolution

• Featured content: Staggering number of featured articles

• Traffic report: Doodles' dawn

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Bracket Errors on 26 May

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Weetwood may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• (Liberal Democrat, ]) and Judith Chapman (Liberal Democrat, (]).

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:R to disambiguation page

It could be better named, perhaps, but this Rcat is intended only for redirects with (disambiguation) in the title. It doesn't belong on redirects like Orioles or Red Wings. See Category:Redirects to disambiguation pages for correct uses. Not a big deal, just thought I'd let you know the name is a bit misleading; there isn't an Rcat the goes on any redirect to a disambiguation page. --BDD (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Alfred Bendixen

I have known Alfred personally for many years. The information that I correctly cited is accurate. Have you spoken to him before you changed to info? Chaos4tu (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@Chaos4tu: No, I've never met him or spoken to him, though I created the Misplaced Pages article on him after creating one on the American Literature Association. You did not give any sources for your information, and some of it contradicts what is on the Texas A&M website. Misplaced Pages does not accept personal knowledge or "Original research" as a reliable source for its information, especially about living people.

You wrote that after his doctorate in 1979 "he decided to take a break from literature and began writing and publishing articles on gardening. ... Returning to literature, after accepting a position as Professor of English Literature at California State University, Los Angeles, ...": his official webpage at the university says "after serving ... nine years at Barnard College (1979-1988). ... While at Barnard, the women’s college of Columbia University, Professor Bendixen became one of the pioneering scholars engaged in the recovery of works by American women writers, producing several collections that have enlarged the literary canon, ...". The university webpage lists him as a current member of staff, with contact details and office hours. The two don't tally, and Misplaced Pages has to use the more apparently reliable source. If you have sources which show that he is retired, and that he spent 9 years outside academe working on horticulture, then please add that information, citing your sources. PamD 22:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

for being my talk page stalker! Please keep it up! Ευχαριστώ! Magioladitis (talk) 11:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)