Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:53, 19 December 2010

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

• WP:VPM

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

Original Research in "White Argentinian"

Moved to Misplaced Pages:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Original_Research_in_.22White_Argentinian.22 —Preceding undated comment added 00:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC).

Requests for feedback

WP:FEED - where users can request feedback on articles - is starting to fail, because older requests are slipping by without people responding; for examples, see e.g. Misplaced Pages:Requests for feedback/2010 November 15 or 16 or, well, any of 'em. Nav page here.

I used to do lots of these requests myself, but I'm on a wikibreak.

Wasn't quite sure of the best place to post this, but here seemed reasonable.

I'm hoping some more people can help providing feedback. But please note, this is a long-term ongoing issue; simply clearing the backlog will only help briefly; it needs editors to dive in every so often and help out.

Best,  Chzz  ►  00:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that the best solution would be to advertise this more widely in some way (I, for one, was unaware of this process before just now) and then, if that doesn't work, to simply ditch the process. Remember that we are all volunteers, and the the nature of this project is that only procedures that volunteers are willing to support will get used. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

How is this different to peer review? AD 22:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It tends to be much shorter, almost 'generic advice' - some tips in how to make the article better. Something that can be done in quite a short time (minutes) - whereas PR tends to be much more detailed and leading to articles becoming GA. The articles in FEED are mostly new, mostly new-ish users, who need basic guidance.  Chzz  ►  15:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think they could easily be merged. AD 16:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, but I'm open to ideas. I see them as totally different roles. When FEED is working well, some 30+ users per day get prompt responses to beginner-level questions which leands to improvement of many drafts before they go live, thus saving CSD. It can set a shining example of how helpful wikipedia is, to new users. PR is a lengthy, and much more complex system, aimed at more experienced editors, and often takes weeks or months to provide detailed reviews.  Chzz  ►  21:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I think WP:FEEDBACK is very important towards our goal of getting and keeping more new editors to fill our ranks, but alas I fear Phil Bridger is right, if the process is not being supported then it will eventually be relegated to the dump, which is very unfortunate. But maybe, if the ratio of requests to volunteers is too high on the requests side, maybe instead of trying to get more volunteers we could try reducing the amount of requests somehow, like tightening the criteria required to post? But I don't think merging it with WP:PR would work well, it's already an established process and mixing widely separate skill levels of editors would frustrate advanced users and confuse beginners. -- œ 18:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It's not failing totally, it's just struggling due to volume of requests and lack of people helping out. Please, anyone reading this, can you spare just a few minutes to look at WP:FEED and try to answer the basic questions that new users are asking there.  Chzz  ►  00:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You know what? A major source of all the requests is the links from the {{Userspace draft}} template and the Article Creator pages. Before those areas were revamped and the links added WP:FEEDBACK was not nearly as busy. I don't know if removing the links would be the best thing to do though.. it does seem like a step backwards.. but desperate times call for desperate measures I guess.. -- œ 01:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Another way we could approach this problem is listing the possible reasons why volunteers don't seem to be flocking to the process and what could be done to fix this. At least for me, I know one of the reasons why I sometimes avoid WP:FEED is because it gets depressing.. it demotivates me, seeing all those unanswered requests and so many low quality articles.. it just doesn't inspire me with much hope, and I'm afraid I lack the amount of patience Chzz has to thoroughly and efficiently deal with all the requests, especially when I believe each and every one deserves to be dealt with the highest quality and attention to detail. I can't help but set my standards way high in all aspects of Misplaced Pages work, but my laziness often overpowers my work ethic sometimes, but that's just me. Another reason why I think editors tend to avoid WP:FEED is because they see it as a waste of time to help users with a clearly promotional agenda. Many of the requests at WP:FEED are from SPA's in a COI who just want to put up their one article and have no interest whatsoever in staying and improving the encyclopedia. Why bother putting in the time and effort to give feedback and instruction to a new editor when it's obvious they just want to take advantage of Misplaced Pages to promote themselves? If anything, WP:FEED can act as a noticeboard of sorts, a way in which we can guage progress of new article creation and discover potential new editors while weeding out the advertisers. -- œ 02:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I used to post to WP:FEED, but then I gave up because many of the original posters never stopped back to check on the input or to act on the comments. Perhaps it would work better if the post to WP:FEED was also included on the article's talk page? That way it would have an indefinite life span.—RJH (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I'll be - been here 4 years and never seen that page before. I see this as duplicating Peer Review - we really really need to streamline some of these pages Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It's nothing like peer review - it's more a 'new editor requests help' type function. Might it be possible in fact to merge it with that more generic page, as new editors often ask there how to get an article 'uploaded' (that's always what they ask), and it often results in advice being given that the article needs more work, a source etc etc. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been trying it out since this was posted, and it's kind of fun. It's a good way to get new editors off on the right foot, and it's not at all difficult or time consuming. Typical experience: You click on the link to the article and do some simple clean up work. Then you go back to the FEEDback page and leave a message that tells them that they need to find some WP:Independent sources, and if it's not hopelessly promotional, give them a concrete, specific task that they do to improve the page. For example, I just explained how to create wikilinks.

I would think that any WP:Inclusionist or person interested in growing the number of editors would find this congenial work, and that anybody who posts here would find it very, very easy work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that both Misplaced Pages:Requests for feedback and Misplaced Pages:Peer review do both accomplish the same objective, to post requests for people to give feedback on an article. I think that these two projects should eventually be merged, although in their current state that would probably be suicide. As of right now, there are about 74 active peer reviews going on at Misplaced Pages:Peer review, and WP:FEED goes back all the way to 2006! Nevertheless I do agree that these two projects should be merged at some point in time. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 21:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course, we have lots of overlapping Misplaced Pages pages. And although these kinda overlap a bit, they do provide to quite a different audience. It's rather like comparing WP:HD and WP:NCHP.

Most of the editors asking for feedback are asking about their first article. Also, the typical response is a paragraph or two. Compared to PR, which is mostly for articles being worked up to WP:GA / WP:FA, and responses tend to cover several pages.

I am absolutely certain that WP:FEED can, has, and sometimes does, provide a very useful service to newer users seeking a bit of guidance.

I don't think that is the question; I think the issue is, that we're struggling to get enough people helping 'em out.

It does not need many people. Previously, when I was able to be more active, between myself and a few other editors, we managed to provide good feedback within a very short timeframe (usually a day or two of the request).

I don't think it needs a merger. All it needs is a bit of help.  Chzz  ►  17:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages author -- what?

I have personal appeals from Misplaced Pages authors pop ups. I looked up WP:AUTHOR and was taken to an explanation of famous people. I looked up the authors in wikipedia. One may be the son of Hindu deity or a Dutch member of parliment, the others do not have articles, leading me to question the substance of their personal appeals.

Maybe the banners mean "editor," but say "author" instead. I looked up the users. One user is an academic who writes about wikipedia, another takes me to a deleted user page created by the wrong person and the third does not exist.

I remain clueless. What is a "wikipedia author," and why do their appeals have substance when most of them don't appear to either have substance as authors or exist as editors? Or maybe I missed something completely? Thanks to all the wikipedia editors who can help me understand this. --Kleopatra (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a marketing gimmick developed by the fundraising team, it is not really a term used within the project. Nobody is the "author" of Misplaced Pages. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the term "author" is used rather than "editor" because, to someone no familiar with our jargon, "author" better gets the desired meaning across than "editor" does. Someone seeing "editor" for the first time tends to assume it means something senior and with authority, whilst an author is merely someone who writes things and doesn't imply a particular status. I've noticed the "editor" terminology being a problem in past attempts to explain the project.

As to the individuals - looking at meta:Fundraising 2010/Banner testing/Stats/Banner history, the people there are indeed active Misplaced Pages editors - they are (mainly?) active on non-English projects, however, which may be why you're not immediately finding them. Shimgray | talk | 00:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

If these people are the authors of wikipedia, people ought to and might want to find them as authors. Only one out of 3 exist.

I've already come across half-a-dozen articles mocking the Jimmy Wales banners. Is it really necessary, really necessary to use 2 out of 3 non-English wikipedia editors as appeals to English speaking wikipedia readers? Why would I want to read the banner, much less donate, when our editors aren't good enough to be making the pleas and don't even exist on wikipedia? --Kleopatra (talk) 06:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you volunteering to have your picture made and make an appeal?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 06:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Why not? But why not someone who has been editing for a lot longer than I have (or at least with a name), created a handful of featured articles, uploaded some great pictures, wrote everything you wanted to know about the biota of Australia, or hurricanes or battleships? Why not appeal to wikipedia readers and writers and show us one or two of the thousands of interesting people who create the things we come to read about every day on en.wikipedia. What a disappointment, an author who writes about wikipedia and two editors who don't exist. --Kleopatra (talk) 06:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, you answered part of your question when you said "people ought to and might want to find them as authors". People who edit anonymously might not want to be found. Is your focal point the actual appeal or finding interesting Wikipedians? If the latter is what you're after that can be accomplished differently.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 06:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

What? If the point of the appeal is that these "wikipedia authors" have status as editors, they ought to be editors. But they're not editors, they have no English wikipedia editing history, at least 2 out of 3 have no English wikipedia editing history, and the other one links to a user page that talks about her writing about wikipedia. So, if their status is they're editors, but they're not editors, what value does their appeal have? None. It's pointless. I have no idea what your comment about anonymous people not wanting to be found has to do with this. --Kleopatra (talk) 07:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think the funds appeal is for the English Misplaced Pages only? Corvus cornix_talk 07:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

For some stupid reason I assumed that the funds appeal for English Misplaced Pages was the English one, the funds appeals for the French Misplaced Pages would be in French, the funds appeal for Polish Misplaced Pages would be in Polish, the funds appeal for Chinese Misplaced Pages would be in Chinese.... --Kleopatra (talk) 07:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The text certainly would be, but the campaign is foundation-wide. A quick check of other Wikimedia sites confirms that the French Misplaced Pages uses a French banner while the Chinese Misplaced Pages uses a Chinese banner. Some of the smaller Misplaced Pages's appear to default to English, however. The Limburgish Misplaced Pages uses an English banner, as does the Hatian Creole and Hawaiian Wikipedias. --Jayron32 07:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

And they all have the same 3 editors? Of course the campaign is foundation-wide--why woulnd't it be? Where did I assume it wasn't? What does that have to do with the fact that English wikipedia couldn't seem to find 3 English editors willing to go to bat and plea for funds? Misplaced Pages couldn't find 3 English editors for English banners, 3 French editors for French banners, 3 Chinese editors for Chinese banners, a single Creole editor for the Hatian Creole banner? There's not one Hawaiian editor in all of Hawaiin wikipedia who thinks the encyclopedia is worth speaking up for? --Kleopatra (talk) 07:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

You might not understand my comments now but give it a year or two. Most users don't want to place info out there on themselves especially on this wiki. There are evil bastards who collect such info for the worst reasons. Going public has led to people on this wiki being stalked and harassed in person (especially females). Websites exist for making their lives hell. Your complaints amount to asking people to go public and I'm responding they (mostly) don't want to.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 07:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I, for one, have been threatened in real life. I once received a phone call by someone who did not identify himself, but made veiled threats against my wife by name and indicated he was calling because of something that happened on-wiki. This was years ago, long before I was publicly hive-minded, so he went through some significant lengths to dig up my real name, phone number, and wife's name. --Jayron32 08:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

There are hundreds of editors all over en.wiki who edit under their real names. However, I see I've touched nerves or provided opportunities that have nothing to do with my comments, so, I give the discussion to you for whatever topic you want and will got back to editing bugs and slime. --Kleopatra (talk) 08:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

(re to Jay) I wasn't going to mention that place by particular name but how in the hell did they get everybody's photos including yours? How do they get the info? I've avoided meetups because I expect they show up with cell phone cams.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 08:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It usually just takes some stalkerish google skills and some free time to kill. Connect username A to former username B, and see what info they've posted across the internet so that you can reach their real name. I became quickly paranoid about what I've left about, and have since tried to clean up and be mindful about what I post. Killiondude (talk) 08:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

(re to Berean) It's not hard, really. To be fair, though I have never revealed my identity on Misplaced Pages, so am still covered by WP:OUTING, someone could find me pretty easily since I have been using the Jayron32 handle online since 1994. It doesn't really bother me, since I don't actually fear real, physical danger because of my online activities. But I was making clear that it does happen quite often that people get VERY pissed about what one does at Misplaced Pages, and will sometimes go through great lengths to intimidate. --Jayron32 15:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I've never edited under my real name, but I am rather open about it, reveal it on my userpage, and freely giver out my email, which follows the first.last convention. After talking in the IRC channel about a Christmas trip to my parents during the same time as Brandt was curiously obsessed with me, my layover in SeaTac was spent being verbally harassed by three of his little minions. That was three years ago though and nothings happened since. -- ۩ Mask 06:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

About {{Recent changes article requests}}

There are some blue links inside the template. I once informed administrators to replace them with articles I requested on its talk page in October 2010, but the links are not changed! So I put a notice here to let more Wikipedians know this.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I will replace them with the red links you mentioned. The rest will be removed. -- œ 01:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The blue links should not be removed. They should be replaced with red links on Misplaced Pages:Requested articles, Misplaced Pages:Requested lists, Misplaced Pages:Most wanted articles and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles and their subpages.

I suggest that Spurion, Inventor's paradox, Symphony No. 5 (Glass), Civic Union, Lee Academy, Kochen-Specker paradox, Minami-Setaka Station, Kharwar, Worlebury camp, Castle Ditches, Gamma Comae Berenices, Mercurius Gallobelgicus and Wound care be replaced with Robert Eisner, John G. Gurley, Edward S. Shaw, News Media Corporation, Andrew Jackson and the Bank of the United States, The Urban Review, Misocapny, Misoxeny, mmconfig, Mulindi, Rwanda and Rapid Alert System for Non-Food Products, Giovanni Caicedo-Tascon and experimental animation. And Forced normalization should be replaced with experimental sociology.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Also Gurdwara Nanaklama should be replaced with Subedar Major Bhullar.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Buttons and more buttons

What's it with these buttons? Perseus (t • c) 21:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Click this button.

Expand an article.

Click this button.

Reference this BLP.

Click this button.

Copy edit an article.

They're buttons, and you click them and are presented with a random article to fixup. What's the problem with that? Many editors are looking for work to do, these provide a cute way to present them with random articles which they can do work on. What's the harm? --Jayron32 21:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

If anyone is really looking for work to do, Requests for feedback is very understaffed. Providing some feedback to a new editor may well turn someone into a regular, who could then help out with many of the tasks.--SPhilbrickT 23:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

How about adding a button for Requests for feedback then? Roger (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Grameen Foundation Australia

Hi, could someone check that there is such a thing as 'Grameen Foundation Australia'. See, by example, User:Maiiina but it is also mentionned in Grameen Foundation since a (very) long time (?!). I am not able to find something I can trust about it... -- Xofc (talk) 12:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC) (WP.fr)

See: ASIC record, ABN recordABN history Jojalozzo 17:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Xofc (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Those damn "Please read" notices

Is there any way of getting rid of those annoying "Please read: A personal message from..." items which pop up a couple of seconds after a page loads? You start editing a page then find you're editing the wrong line. It happens every damn time and it's thoroughly annoying,t o say the least. There's a click box under the notice, but it doesn't do anything. Every other message that's put at the top of pages by WP, you can simply hide. These, you can't, and it's driving me up the wall! Grutness...wha? 09:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Special:Preferences, Gadgets, "Suppress display of the fundraiser banner". PrimeHunter (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Really good thing would be a "Suppress the fundraiser"... Is this turning into the gimme-some-money-pedia? I haven't logged for some months (a couple of years?...) I simply point that using WP is getting quite annoying, it looks like a permanent fundraiser. - 2.82.177.86 (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, thank god. These have been pushing my buttons for days. Hmmwhatsthisdo (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks PH - that did the trick. And yes, 2.82 (whoever you are :), I'm still here, though not as much as I used to be by a long way. Grutness...wha? 22:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the missed opportunity here is that I don't mind seeing the banner, but I made a substantial donation and really think that my reward could be a way (a code?) to enter into the banner and suppress it. The next time there's a fundraiser, go ahead and take me through that cycle again. I understand it takes money to run WP well, I don't mind the occasional appeal, and I would hope that a broad swath of the public would give a little, but let me turn it off easily for the current drive. -- Scray (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Are people are missing the close button or are they annoyed that it comes back after 1 week? — Dispenser 02:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Tried the close button dozens of times. It doesn't work - not in Safari, at least. Grutness...wha? 04:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

And every-time you change browsers, computers, accounts or projects, back it comes! Luckily I only use my named account on more than a couple of projects. Rich Farmbrough, 11:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC).

Presumably, the way to do this is to elect a WMF board that devises a way of funding WP more sustainably (for example, by not paying $150K to one staffer), and gets rid Jimmy Wales and his insistence on using these to self-servingly up his own profile, and highly fictionalised status as "found". Or had you something shorter-term in mind? Smartiger (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Criminal–Crime-noted-for

Notice: I've posted a discussion on the wp:MERGE page's discussion page asking about how to determine when to create separate articles about both a criminal and the crime for which s/he is noted and when to combine them.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

File:MyOldDutch-chorus.ogg

Apparently the temporarily uploaded image contains a template from the Wikimedia commons called {{Pd/1923}}, but no such template exists on Misplaced Pages. It should probably be created in case another such image is uploaded. mechamind90 07:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Newbie Questions...I Need Help!

Two issues that I cannot seem to figure out through t14:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Whysosirius (talk)he maze of Misplaced Pages info:

1. I have a photo that I have been given permission to use by the photographer. She authorized use via an e-mail to me and I cited that when I posted the photo. Not good enough; the photo was removed for copyright issues. Can anyone help?

2. This should have been very easy to find but I'll be danged if I can. My page is almost ready to be launched. How the heck do I do that?

1. Please follow the process set out at WP:IOWN to send the copyright permission to Misplaced Pages - note that it must be a release for all purposes, a Misplaced Pages-only release is insufficient.

2. See WP:SYMUD for guidance and please read WP:BAND for guidance about the notability of bands. – ukexpat (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Request to all admins

Not sure where is the best place to drop this request, so I'm doing it here. When closing a discussion and putting your summary at the top, please please please avoid using internal links (like ]), because once a section is archived it becomes burdensome to find the originally-referenced section. Instead, please use absolute hardlinks (like ). Thanks! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• … which of course cause unpleasantness for people using the secure HTTP server, since it drops them onto the insecure servers. There is an ugly and not futureproof way to get {{oldid}}, which generates hyperlinks that stay on the same servers, to do what you want. {{oldid2}} is better in this regard, but it hasn't been modernized to use {{fullurl:}} and its syntax is not fully intuitive. Uncle G (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • {{oldid|Example#Section 1|123456789|}}, looks like it works to me. — Dispenser 04:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Some archive bots (*cough*ClueBot III*cough*) will actually go through and fix most internal links to sections that it breaks. It cannot fix external links to the section (). -- Cobi 10:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Google indexed a vandalised version

Google search has indexed a vandalised version of Misplaced Pages (as in the article about Misplaced Pages). A search for this shows a snippet from the lead which says something offensive about Misplaced Pages being "for Jews". Is there something that can be done? Brambleclawx 00:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject newsletter guide page and centralized bot distribution (both currently missing - are they needed?)

I've just finished drafting the third irregular newsletter for WikiProject Sociology (here). Some time ago I realized that we have bots capable of delivering newsletters, but to my surprise WP:Newsletter took me to Signpost, and instead of one dedicated bot, it seems we have various bots "working" for different projects. Signpost uses User:EdwardsBot (which says nothing about on its user page about that function). MilHist Bungle uses User:BrownBot, which, clandestinely, advertises itself as a newsletter bot for WikiProject Films. I sense MILHIST intelligence department at work :) Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Anime and manga/Newsletter seems to be delivered manually... Other newsletters I listed at Category:Misplaced Pages news (a category I just found, and that I am sure is not 100% comprehensive). This brings me to my points:

• do we need a policy on newsletters? I agree with WP:CREEP, but at the very least, it would be nice to have a community discussion on whether projects can send newsletters to 1) all signed members, 2) to all Wikipedians who are part of project-relevant Category:Wikipedians subcategory (for example, last SOC newsletters went out to Category:Wikipedians interested in sociology), and how to give people and opt-out option if they don't want to receive them
• even if we don't need a policy, a good practices guide would be nice, perhaps with an easy "create a newsletter for your project how-to", and a section on bots that can automate the process for you (I am not looking forward to sending another 100 or so newsletters manually). While this is quite a foreign territory for me, locating all the newsletter-delivering bots and getting their operators to talk shop and perhaps create an official newsletter-delivery bot, with how-to add your newsletter to it, and standardized opt-in/opt-out procedure, sounds useful.

Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

We don't need a community-wide guideline to tell any particular group of editors how they ought to communicate with each other.

However, you should feel free to post how-to information and/or your best advice at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Council/Guide (or one of its subpages). Perhaps Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Guide#Use_bots_to_save_work would be a reasonable place for a link to a newsletter-delivering bot. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Units in 1910 London to Manchester air race

Several editors have attempted to clarify the units used in the article 1910 London to Manchester air race. However, they keep being removed by the most frequent editor.

I see the following claim:

• Featured content represents the best that Misplaced Pages has to offer. These are the articles, pictures, and other contributions that showcase the polished result of the collaborative efforts that drive Misplaced Pages. All featured content undergoes a thorough review process to ensure that it meets the highest standards and can serve as an example of our end goals

The choice appears to be between delisting the article or persuading the most frequent editor to allow improvements. Would anyone else like to try? Lightmouse (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• According to the sources quoted in the article a prize was awarded for making an aeroplane flight one hundred years ago between two named places subject to certain time constraints and limitations on the number of stopovers. The prize was awarded and the mileage, flight time and number of stops/location of stops quoted. The quoted figure for the flight was x miles. A "war of words" has then ensued with one side requiring confirmation of whether the miles were measured in miles or nautical miles and what the equivalent number of kilometres would be. This is patent nonsense. Straight lines could be drawn on a modern map between the starting point, the named intermediate stopover point and the final point; and a mileage figure obtained. This derived figure could be compared against the mileage figure quoted in the source; and an estimate made as to whether the "miles" were nautical or not, but such a comparison is fraught with uncertainties and it would be WP:OR. Whilst such a comparison could easily be carried out, it could not be used to prove that the wining flight involved flying along those two straight lines; it cannot take into account the effects any head winds, tail winds or cross winds on the aircraft; and it fails to consider whether such flight data was every collected and still exists. The "argument" seems to be that, firstly, if the flight were done today GPS could be used to collect such data; and it could be collected in accordance with wikipedia's manual of style. Secondly, since it can be done today (and wikipedia exists) those who did the flight 100 years ago "should" also have done it that way. One side seems to think they should have done it and the other side sees the absurdity of such a "mind set". Data should be considered in historical context and current usage should not be back projected as a Straight jacket on to prior generations. Pyrotec (talk)

I agree with you that the values are approximate. Misplaced Pages is full of approximate values with helpful conversions. The question of nautical versus statute is a secondary issue. By default, ordinary people will read a distance in 'miles' and assess it against their experience of distances in statute miles. Similarly, conversions of the unqualified term 'mile' will default to statute miles. As you suggest, it's likely to be near enough and that's better than nothing for metric readers. Multiple editors have tried to make this article accessible to metric readers. But continual removal of km values by the most frequent editor is unfair on ordinary readers. Lightmouse (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Consulting vs. Actual Paid Editing?

(Please see this archived thread for context)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Summary:One of my staff brought up the idea of Misplaced Pages consulting as opposed to paid editing

As you may know, we have ceased all our previous paid editing practices of our firm. We see the intrinsic COI problem that invariably exists. However, one of my staff brought up the idea of Misplaced Pages consulting as opposed to paid editing. The idea was to do webinars, consultations, et al, to help people learn how to compose wikipedia articles, but not do any actual editing, posting, dispute resolution, etc., on behalf of the client. The client would have to do all writing, editing, publishing, h/erself. I want to ask the Misplaced Pages community what it thinks about this. This is an honest question; whatever the community thinks, we'll go with. And we have no intention of violating Misplaced Pages policy again. Thank you.

Sunflowergal34 (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Eric Bryant, Director, Gnosis Arts Multimedia Communications LLC

• This is not really the appropriate place for an RfC, but asking the clients to write about themselves is still a COI. However, simply showing people how to use Misplaced Pages/start articles/etc. is a good thing, and COI doesn't mean someone is banned from writing about their company, but it would be pretty difficult still to get the whole NPOV idea and whatnot into shape and avoid promotion, accidental or intentional. It might be worth thinking about consulting a company to write about things they may know about but something that is less likely to be seen as promotional (like a zoo writing about some species of animal or a computer company writing about some sort of technical innovation). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Where is the appropriate place to ask for comment on an issue like this? Also, what about an online training course, with a series of modules, that walks people through, step by step, on how to conceive, write, edit, compose and publish a quality Misplaced Pages article? We would sell the course. It would be like self-paced, online course. We would do no editing, no writing, no publishing, no arbitrating - just purely, "This is how you add an image; this is how you make a citation; this is where you go to ask for help; etc." Is that still a COI?
• Also, one of my staff brought up what I thought was a good point today in a staff meeting. They said, in effect, "Doesn't really everyone have some sort of conflict of interest in editing/writing an article, in the way Misplaced Pages defines it?" Their point was if someone is going to write about, say, the Beatles, or edit the Beatles articles, they would most likely be either a fan, or a supporter, or a rep of a PR firm, or a friend, i.e, it is likely going to be somebody who cares about the Beatles. Caring about a subject creates, in one sense, a COI - doesn't it? How is this different than a paid editor? A paid editor cares too, only, for a different reason. This is also a COI, when you think about it, was her point. Admittedly, it is not as egregious as an outright paid editor, but still, you can see the point.

• Ignore this argument, for the moment. As I reread it, it isn't convincing. I think that the COI is sort of on a continuum where way over on the left is outright is paid editing, an obvious COI. Way over on the right is some hypothetical person editing an article on a subject s/he doesn't even care anything about or have any relation to whatsoever; then, the majority of cases, somewhere in the middle grey area. No? Sunflowergal34 (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC) Eric Bryant, Director, Gnosis Arts

• So, her question, was: In what circumstances is an article written by someone devoid of a COI? It would seem to me to be relatively few. It would have to be edited/written by someone with no personal affinity or contempt, no special relationship to the subject, no monetary interest ... They would have to be just, basically, editing it for the fun of it, for the enjoyment of it, which I suppose is possible, but how would you know the difference in the majority of cases?
• Anyway, I'm not leaning in the wiki education direction, either, just so you know. I don't even want to be bothered with all this nonsense, truth be told. It's just my staff is worried as heck about their jobs and they're putting a lot of pressure on me to do something.

Sunflowergal34 (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC) Eric Bryant, Director, Gnosis Arts 19:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It certainly does happen. It isn't even unusual. WikiGnomes just copyedit every article that comes up when you hit the Random Article button or check for wikilinking on every Did you know... article or just help out someone else's article because they ask for help or admit poor command of English. New page patrollers may check every new article and might edit quite a few. I sometimes translate articles just to keep my language skills up with no interest in the article subject at all. Rmhermen (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's unusual, but it's also not particularly common. Musicians write articles about music, health professional write about medicine, coders write about software—sharing your expertise is the backbone of the project.

On the other hand, the opposite also happens: I've done a lot of work because I read an interesting source and wondered if Misplaced Pages happened to cover the subject. See, e.g., my recent work at Pine Manor College, which I hadn't heard of until a few days ago, and everything I've ever written about transsexuality, triggered by reading this article and discovering that the Misplaced Pages article was pushing an anti-academic, pro-activist POV—the point of view, as it happens, of a long-time Misplaced Pages editor who is disparaged by multiple sources for having posted pictures of a researcher's children with sexually explicit captions on the web. (All of our articles on transsexuality, BTW, are almost entirely written by transwomen, another sign that sharing what you know is the backbone of the project.)

On balance, I'd say that far more people contribute to an article because they have some personal connection to it than the other way around. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right, WhatamIdoing. However, although I edit in a field I am entering, I also edit extensively in a couple of areas outside of my field, where a lot of misinofmation abounds on the web. I don't contribute any more, though, in my primary areas of expertise, because wikipedia is not into experts. But, yes, people write wikipedia articles, generally, because they have an interest in the article. Also, many wikipedia editors misinterpret WP:COI to mean the article must be deleted. I see this at WP:AFD (a place where many editors don't follow and don't know policy and are advocating their pet side of the coin rather than writing an encyclopedia).

Sunflowergal, you brag that we only caught 10% of what you paid people to write. But the little I've seen attached to paid editing outings on wikipedia has been schlock. Badly written, poorly sourced press releases look exactly like what they are. When wikipedia readers click on those links from the top of a google search they will get that: a badly written, poorly sourced, second-rate press release. And, they will know that's what it is. Companies are paying for that? Companies will pay to learn to do that? Probably most good articles on companies are maintained by employees of that firm. --Kleopatra (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

@WhatAmIDoing That's my point. If most articles on transsexuals are written by women transsexuals, and some new research comes out that indicates that "transsexuality is really the cause of xyz disease," or "transsexuality is the cause of abc social ill", etc - do you think the "transwomen" (is that even a PC term?) who do most of the editing of these articles, are going to include it? (There is no research out there like this, to my knowledge; please, no one take this as any contempt toward transsexuals; it is ONLY an example). Of course not, is the answer. That supposedly "objective" information, will likely not be included by any transwomen. That's the point: to have a strong interest in a subject based on identifying in some meaningful way with the class of that subj, I don't see how COI can ever be avoided. So, I am a business owner; I identify with other (small) business owners. In the exact same way, the transwoman identifies with transwomen.

And @Kleopatra First of all, I wasn't bragging. If you read my entire confession, and the subsequent editing and participation since you'll see that 1) I'm very humbled by this whole thing and 2) I'm the only one in my firm (and I have ppl working for me all over the place) who is "for" this. You are mistaking "humility" with "groveling". I don't grovel before anyone, and I refuse to let anyone in Misplaced Pages treat me or my staff like a criminal. That is not bragging. I only mentioned that we've done a lot of articles to show just how much shutting this operation down hurts us financially. Not to brag.

(Cont'd @Kleopatra) Secondly, I would agree with you that some of the articles were schlock. But thry are no more schlock than a stub of two sentences that sits there for 3 years. Also, some clients only paid for "schlock" (you get what you pay for). All clients didn't contract long term, month to month, editing and revision to get the article to the point where it wasn't schlock. Sunflowergal34 (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Eric Bryant, Director, Gnosis Arts

A most mundane issue

I've been archiving my user talk approximately every 32K (the old article size recommendation). I know this number has been out of use for some time and my archive list has grown to 29 sub-pages. Can anyone offer an opinion whether it would be more helpful to have many short archived pages or fewer long archived pages? If my concern is overly pedantic, please be gentle in pointing that out :-\ Thanks Tiderolls 00:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally, being an awkward old bleeder, I've arranged to archive my talk page by month, on the basis that it may be easier to find stuff. This will probably bite me at some point (not least because at the moment I have to remember to set each month up in advance on the talk page: this needs fixing, but I haven't got a clue how). I wonder if in the long term, this may be a more rational approach, as ease of access becomes more important than technical considerations? Just a thought... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Advertising banner

Nobody likes being squeezed for a few more dimes more than me, but can we have a new banner please and not the jimmy wales one.

eg , I've confined myself to the ones containing humour.

Noticed how the eyes seem to follow you around the room.

Please can we have a message from proper celebrity or something, I heard william shatner works for peanuts.

Cheers. (but seriously please change it soon) I'm not the only one http://www.google.co.uk/search?=UTF-8&q=make+jimmy+wales+go+away

Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Pages automatically checked for accidental language links
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment