Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:41, 16 November 2012

If it is more appropriate to comment on another talk page please do so and let me know. If possible can you please supply links to the topic in question. That will make it easier for me to follow up your comments. And please use a neutral tone when posting on this page otherwise the comments will be ignored.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Been waiting

To have the opportunity to balance things a little, and http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Pastoral_farming&curid=3170195&diff=521630247&oldid=521338320 it happened - thanks for that, the pedantic over-stated nature of the editing in the agricultural range of articles gives me the bee gees to put it politiely, thanks again, have a good day SatuSuro 06:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Another thanks at AUSMIN - it was a direct copyvio from the dfat website (I have been finding a few recently, direct word for word and no one does anything to them, odd) - and was in a hurry - thanks for the fix... SatuSuro 06:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

No sweat. We all do our bit. It popped up in Category:Articles with missing files - which has a huge backlog on which I am currently working. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

cripes sucker for punishment - bet you get no thanks for that sort of work :( SatuSuro 06:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Am forever battling vandalism, good faith bad edits, a lack of care, mistakes from experienced editors, software glitches, bad scripts etc. Sigh... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

MacPaw and CleanMyMac pages

Hi, Alan. Could you please explain how come you find CleanMyMac and MacPaw not notable enough to be present on Misplaced Pages? I thought that since the CleanMyMac competitors such as Ccleaner, MacKeeper and CleanGenius are present on Misplaced Pages, CleanMyMac is worth of that too. The companies similar to MacPaw, such as Zeobit and Software MacKiev are also present on Misplaced Pages.

I will not hide the fact that I created an SPA on Misplaced Pages, but I'm trying to follow the rules and make my articles as neutral and unbiassed as possible providing as many external links as I can. Can I ask you to help me improve my articles instead of simply proposing to delete them? SimplyMax 10:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

References do not necessarily confer notability. While some editors may argue that the articles in question are acceptable under the general notability guidelines others will say that they they are not suitable articles for Misplaced Pages for a host of reasons. Note that the existence of similar articles is not a case for retaining the ones in question. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

All the pages you mention are part of a systemic bias in Misplaced Pages. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

My experience is that usually GNG is successful, but GNG does leave itself open to being overruled, i.e. editors decide that even though it meets GNG it still is not notable. Also, OTHERSTUFF can be used successfully if a precedent is met, i.e. if one of the otherstuff articles is comparable, and survived AFD/another challenge to its notability. But merely saying that another article of the sort exists wouldn't be a successful OTHERSTUFF since the other editor can say "We'll I'm nominating this for deletion too!" - I started Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computing#Notability_question at the computing project so other editors can take a look WhisperToMe (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Not my own work

I have replied to you on the wikEd Talk page. Cheers! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 10:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Question about adding a picture to an article

Hello, (or Giday!)--

Thanks for your help on the article (Danny Click) I have been trying to put in place on Misplaced Pages. My latest effort has been an attempt to upload a picture, both because I think the article would be better with one, and because I'd like to move the article above its current "C-class" rating, and a photo of the subject is listed as one of the criteria for that.

I submitted a photo yesterday, and I'm wondering how long the process of approval might take. It's not showing as an upload under "my contributions," so I'm assuming it hasn't been reviewed yet.

Happy to answer any questions I can about the photo I uploaded. My apologies for uploading it twice--still trying to figure this whole process out.

Best,

--David Dodd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddodd (talk • contribs) 20:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• You must have done something wrong because you do not show as having any uploads. There is no 'approval' process to upload. You can do it, and then add the image to the article if it is a free license image. Nobody has to 'approve' the image. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• As Hammersoft has pointed out you may have done something wrong. Try the upload process again and see what happens. Also, have a read of the info at WP:IMAGES for further assistance. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks! Still learning... 198.102.103.18 (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)ddodd

• Still no luck after two further attempts. Ddodd (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)David Dodd
  • If you describe the process that you are doing I may be able to help. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• • Thanks. I am using the Upload page, working my way through all the boxes, and the progress of the upload gets to 100%, after which I try clicking on the image link, but no upload seems to have occurred. I am uploading from a file on my own computer, and checking and filling out all the required boxes. Ddodd (talk) 23:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Ddodd
    • Odd. There is nothing in your upload log for Misplaced Pages or Wikimedia Commons. Are you getting any error messages? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Nope. No error messages. Just a generic instruction to click on the file name to see if the upload was successful. 198.102.103.18 (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)ddodd

Elysian Fields redlinks

Please leave the previous and next route parameters for the LA 3021 infobox on article Elysian Fields Avenue. Pages are being added for the missing Louisiana state highway routes, and once 3020 and 3022 are added, there will be nothing on 3021 to link to it. Someone will have to manually add this again, and this is an unnecessary extra step. This parameter appears on all Louisiana state highway pages. Thanks. Britinvasion64 (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The article popped up in Category:Articles with missing files, one of a number of roads related articles in that category. I think it would be better to add the links I deleted after all the missing Louisiana state highway routes are added. That would be better for readers and for WP maintenance. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not better for the following reasons: 1) the missing parameter will cause the article to be orphaned from the rest of the project once the surrounding articles are added as nobody contributing to WikiProject U.S. Roads has the time to check hundreds of articles from needless omissions; 2) the above causes confusion to the reader, while a redlink does not; 3) you are CREATING a maintenance issue and unnecessary work for people contributing to the project. Leave it alone. Britinvasion64 (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Sustainability

Hi Alan - hiving off the bibliography was a good idea I reckon: keeps it as short and simple as poss. I guess any major topic has its key Bibliography is this the way of dealing with it now?Granitethighs 05:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't gone through it to see how applicable the entries are. Also, I want to go the the References section of sustainability article to see if they have a corresponding entry in the Notes section. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

• News and notes: Court ruling complicates the paid-editing debate

• Featured content: The table has turned

• Technology report: MediaWiki 1.20 and the prospects for getting 1.21 code reviewed promptly

• WikiProject report: Land of parrots, palm trees, and the Holy Cross: WikiProject Brazil

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 11:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban

On October 10, I was asked about this edit that violated your topic ban. At the time I declined to do anything, thinking it might have been a one-time mistake. On October 14, you made the following edits which also violate your topic ban . The point of the topic ban is clear: you should simply ignore all issues of categorization outside of article space.

Because of the edits linked above, which were made after your previous block, I have blocked this account from editing. There is a standard sequence of increasing block lengths: 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month. Because the last block was one week long, this block is set at 2 weeks. As you know, you can contest the block with the {{unblock}} template. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you think WP:IAR is applicable for the edits that you mention? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Editors asked you to stop removing categories in that way regardless whether it was against the rules, and eventually the community agreed on a topic ban because they found those edits so problematic (I didn't participate in the topic ban discussions). IAR isn't relevant, because even if the "rules" allow that sort of edit in general (and they do), the community directly asked you in particular not to do it, not because of any general rule, but as a specific decision about your specific edits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Given that many of my non-article namespace edits are not reverted (esp those that are not image or template related) do you think the wishes of a few editors is more important than what the community wants as a whole? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Unless it is overturned, the topic ban represents the wishes of the whole community, just like any other decision made after a public community discussion represents the entire community. At the same time, of course, consensus can change, and the topic ban may be lifted in the future by another discussion. I was not involved in the discussions that led to the ban, but I have read it and I believe that the normal process was followed. Moreover, the topic ban was upheld when you asked for it to be lifted after your previous block. That is why I feel the ban has community consensus behind it.

If I can offer some unsolicited advice for how to get rid of the topic ban: take it slowly. Most of your edits are to the main namespace anyway, so just stick to those for a few months and leave the rest entirely to other people. If you appeal the topic ban again, take the comments in the first appeal into account: the issue is not about whether it is "right" to remove the categories, the issue is with collegiality and how to handle disagreements when there is no firm policy to decide them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)