Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:09, 29 April 2011

Hello JamesAM, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Here are some recommended guidelines to help you get involved. Please feel free to contact me if you need help with anything. Best of luck and happy editing! --Fuhghettaboutit 03:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Getting Started Misplaced Pages Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Misplaced Pages Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Misplaced Pages rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikipedians Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Ditto

Welcome to WP, James! I put in my two cents on the Sidri article, and I also added some details to the few articles you created, most notably Cameron Hodge and S'ym. Nightscream 04:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! It's cool to see people improve on those articles to make them really solid. I especially like the image you chose for Cameron Hodge. --JamesAM 05:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I thought that image had pretty lousy resolution, but it was all that GCD had, and since my scanner currently isn't working, using my own copy of that ish is not currently possible. But I guess that one'll do. :-) Nightscream 04:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ron Darling

Hi. Good info on your recent edit for Ron Darling. Do you have a source for that? —Wknight94 (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 01:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I haven't lived in NY in a few years so I'm not real familiar. There used to be two TV channels that broadcast Mets game, WPIX and the other I think was just called SportsChannel at the time. Are they more blended together now? Does Darling work for both? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You helped choose Wall Street Crash of 1929 as this week's WP:ACID winner

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week Wall Street Crash of 1929 was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help.

AzaBot 01:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

List of high schools in New Jersey

You may want to look at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/List of high schools in New Jersey. Spa toss 20:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Anna Willard

You might want to edit the first sentence, which begins with a different name. Cheers. Ben MacDui/Walk 20:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Medal Table order

• I'm moving this discussion to the talk page and let consensus decide.--88wolfmaster (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistent Ranking of Heat and Semifinal Results

I've written a reply at Wikiproject olympics, hope that clears things up for you. Basement12 (T.C)

Olympics Star

		The Olympics Barnstar
		Thank you for your assistance with United States at the 2008 Summer Olympics and other Beijing 2008 articles! --Jh12 (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bob McLeod (comics)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Bob McLeod (comics), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RMHED (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Bob McLeod

Sorry about that. Thanks for the correction. Nightscream (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The Notorious B.I.G.

I have left a reply here days ago. Have you watchlisted the page? Please reply below, or on the article's discussion if you prefer. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

John C. Calhoun

Regarding your comment, I agree that the old versions of the Indian Affairs section are much better written—however, it still suffers from uncited statements and POV problems. It could be used as a starting point, but only if one has access to a source for the statements—I do not. --darolew 05:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

lost points

Hi James, I think your LAPD points are lost. I gave an explanation on Transity's page. I'm sorry about that, especially since you're a contender for the DAB Hall of Fame this month. --JaGa 22:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Semper fidelis

Hi there... an anon had removed a significant chunk of material from Semper fidelis just before you made your recent edit to it. I did a reversion to restore the lost material, but in so doing may have undone your edits, in which case, many apologies. seglea (talk) 23:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Bentley (British Entrepreneur)

Another editor has created Andrew Bentley (British Entrepreneur), which has the same name as an article which was deleted earlier as the result of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Andrew Bentley (British Entrepreneur). My first reaction is that the subject is notable, but the article is a mess. I am reluctant to invest time in it, though, if the article is going to be deleted. Could you take a look at the references and decide whether there is enough evidence of notability to make the article worth salvaging? -- Eastmain (talk) 23:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Bentley (British Entrepreneur)

Another editor has created Andrew Bentley (British Entrepreneur), which has the same name as an article which was deleted earlier as the result of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Andrew Bentley (British Entrepreneur). My first reaction is that the subject is notable, but the article is a mess. I am reluctant to invest time in it, though, if the article is going to be deleted. Could you take a look at the references and decide whether there is enough evidence of notability to make the article worth salvaging? -- Eastmain (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Saltine cracker challenge

Hi JamesAM, at the AfD for Saltine cracker challenge you commented "Delete per nom. No cites to indicate that this is a notable cultural phenomenon rather than something made up one day." I've since improved the article to the point where I think it addresses your concern. I'll appreciate it if you revisit your recommendation on the AfD and update it as you feel appropriate. Thanks, Melchoir (talk) 09:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

James Frey

Hi JamesAM, I noticed the note you left in the history pages saying I had white washed the lede without even a verification of the edit summary. I'm sorry, I usually don't do edit summaries I'm still learning, is this something that must be done for every edit?

Also, I don't think that the controversy should be mentioned in the lede with such harshness. I've been reading a lot about him (and literary scandals in general) and he did make up or exaggerate parts but the major elements (being a drug addict and describing it in such accurate detail) were true. TONS of memoirs have their credibility questioned btw. They just don't get caught. I think it should be mentioned in the lede but only as something like "A highly publicized controversy over credibility surrounded of his first book." I'm gonna make an article about literary controversies. SO many books we've read and have no idea their credibility has been questioned or lost... Frey should not be a sacrificial lamb of literature, forgery is much worse. The article obviously has to address the scandal in detail but it should be balanced. Misplaced Pages articles are supposed to be more neutral. The way it is right now it mostly focuses on the negative (you know the book was a bestseller before Oprah?). Articles aren't to skewer people and this article is the worst example of this I've ever seen on my beloved Misplaced Pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StewartNetAddict (talk • contribs) 21:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Stewart. Yes, "it is considered good practice to always provide an edit summary." See Help:Edit summary for information of edit summaries. Note that it's especially important to use edit summaries when you're making a change related to a content dispute. If an issue has been disputed in past, editors should justify their changes regarding that issue. Also, if you don't include an edit summary on a controversial issue, other editors may think you're trying to slip one by. I should note that there's a typo in my edit summary. I meant to write "let's not whitewash" but somehow I left out the "not" so it sounds sarcastic.

Our job is to write articles that are backed up by facts. Our job isn't to speculate on what "other people" might do. If other people fabricate memoirs that doesn't mean that we should whitewash Frey's article to remove the properly cited, proportional facts behind what he did. It merely means that once we discover what other people have done and have the cites to back it up, we put that info in their articles. When the article was being editing by numerous experienced editors, they arrived at a consensus on what should be in the article. Unfortunately, after coverage of Frey died down and experienced eyes weren't watching it as often, people came in to whitewash. These editors had virtually no edits on non-Frey articles. They made big changes without using edit summaries. They removed materials as smears when it was very, very well-cited. They hurled personal insults.

If a person is notable for both things likely to be perceived as good and things perceived as bad, the article should reflect that. In Frey's case, prior fame for making the best-seller list was massively dwarfed by his fame for being a fabricator. That was the consensus of the experienced editors. When efforts were made to whitewash the article, I put a lot of effort on the Talk page to document how much coverage of the controversy dwarfed prior coverage. That proof was not rebutted (they just hurled insults at me).

Frankly, my opinion is the opposite of yours. I think the page does a good job of reaching the proper balance and if it had been whitewashed, that would be a travesty. The article isn't POV. It doesn't call Frey a jerk. It simply documents what happened. If that makes people feel badly about him, that's not the editors' fault. A bio page should serve the truth. Fans should change pages to boost their heroes. Dwight Gooden was my favorite athlete when I was a kid. I don't try to strip out the discussion of his problems with drugs and the law (including a mention in the lede), because that would go against my duty as a wikipedia editor. The content should be determined by the facts as shown in reliability sources, not by the vigor of each person's fans in removing info they dislike. It would be a bad double-standard if Frey's page minimized things just because he has vigorous supporters. Your proposed lede would be unnecessarily vague. Frey has admitted that portions of his memoir were untrue so we don't have to pretend its unknown. --JamesAM (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Hi James, if you would like to comment, there is a discussion at BLPN regarding this article , thanks Off2riorob (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello James, I did not mean it as a "personal attack," I'm sorry it came across that way to you. I knew you would see it so I didn't think to send you a notice.

I've been away for a while but am eager to get moving on a major project of creating and adding to every article related to literary controversies and then later other creative controversies.

I had started with Frey's page and you reacted angrily when I edited the 'lede' (please correct me if you feel I'm wrong and that your tone was civil.) I did see the talk page and it's precisely why I wanted a third party to mediate. I was shocked by the Frey article. Again, correct me if I'm wrong but it appeared to me that you fervently wished to preserve the extremely negative slant of the article. At the very least, the "See Also" section - which I greatly objected to because it linked to only two other writers, ones who completely fabricated books....books about the HOLOCAUST!- remains removed from the article.

The subject is fascinating to me and dates back even before Shakespeare & Holinshed. It's in publishing, the news, academia, and now new media. There's hoaxes, fabrication, plagiarism, false citations, fudging facts, illegal impersonations, and so much more. One article I will make is on memoirs that have been completely made up, memoirs whose authenticity has been questioned, and memoirs like Frey's in which elements were invented but the heart of the book remains intact. Frey's portrayal of addiction was and is noted for it's realism because it was real.

I do not agree with selling a book with fictional elements as a "memoir" but this article makes Frey look like the poster child for literary controversy despite the relative mildness of his deeds compared to oh, countless journalists who fake entire stories, outright plagiarism and the entirely fake "memoirs" about nothing less than the genocide of 6 million people.

Regarding the negativity, there are various positive aspects of Frey's story, for example the fact that the book was a bestseller before Oprah, the fact that hardly anyone returned the book for a refund, just to name two, are not included in the article.

So before embarking any further on making and adding to articles involving literary controversies I requested a third party precisely so I could focus on content, as you say you would like to do as well, instead of bickering and arguing (I felt that I had been attacked by the tone of your response to my edit...) Thank you for the note explaining that you don't wish to get dragged into fights. I most definitely don't want that either.

What I want is to get started making these articles as comprehensive as possible and also as fair as possible (they're human beings.)

It's a great topic. The confusion alone surrounding the origin of the quote, "Good writers borrow, great writers steal" is wonderfully fitting and ironic- It's been attributed to dozens of different people... StewartNetAddict (talk) 09:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You wrote "there are various positive aspects of Frey's story, for example the fact that the book was a bestseller before Oprah, the fact that hardly anyone returned the book for a refund, just to name two, are not included in the article." That's incorrect. For instance, the lead paragraph states that both his memoirs were bestsellers. (I think I used the journalism term "lede" incorrectly.) And the "Lawsuit settlement" section explicitly notes, "only 1,729 readers came forward to receive a refund for the book." Those cited, verified facts which may reflectly positively on Frey have consistently remained in the article. The problem isn't keeping that well-cited information; rather it's the selective stripping of only that well-cited information that described the fabrication (and has therefore been labelled "negative"). Since we mention his bestseller status in the lead, we ought to mention the scandal. I think they're both lead material (although I'd argue that the fabrication is actually the larger of two sources of fame).

The "See Also" section was added a mere two weeks before you made your edits, so it doesn't seem to me to represent some broad long-term, multi-editor systematic bias against Frey. I don't have a strong opinion about it, and didn't fight its removal. But I don't think its as troublesome as you do. Frey is associated in the public consciousness with memoir fabrication, so that seems like a relevant "See also" link. Herman Rosenblat is particularly relevant because he also appeared on Oprah. If I recall correctly, several news articles/commentaries explicitly linked the two (i.e. does the combination of Frey and Rosenblat show a laxness in Oprah's research staff in examining the books the show chooses to feature). Notice that the editor who added the "See also" section is an experienced one who even has rollback rights. And that's a pattern: content accused of being anti-Frey has been added or preserved by experienced editors who have a demonstrated track record of contributions.

You wrote about "and memoirs like Frey's in which elements were invented but the heart of the book remains intact. Frey's portrayal of addiction was and is noted for it's realism because it was real." Honestly, I think there's a much, much stronger argument that that analysis violates NPOV than what I sought to preserve. Specific acts of fabrication by Frey are well-cited, verified facts. Frey has even admitted to them. The notion that Frey the heart of truth in his books remains intact is opinion. If that were to be included, it ought to framed something like "so-and-so has argued that the heart of truth remains intact in Frey's memoirs despite the fabrication of some facts" followed by an appropriate citation. It should then be balanced by notable contrary opinion, if any.

The existence of "countless journalists who fake entire stories, outright plagiarism and the entirely fake "memoirs" about nothing less than the genocide of 6 million people" is not an argument for removing info on the fabrications from Frey's article. Rather, it's an argument for including such information in the articles about those other people. In my experience, editors try to do that consistently. It's not just Frey being singled out. For instance, look at the article on journalist Jayson Blair. Or look at the article on How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life by Kaavya Viswanathan. Viswanathan had just graduated in college and was profiled in the New York Times for her novel. So had a lot of media attention before the plagiarism was revealed. The prior positive attention isn't just cause to minimize the negative aspects. Frey didn't have a long, storied career before A Million Little Pieces. Kissing a Fool isn't a film that drew significant critical or box office acclaim. So a fabrication scandal that undermines his main prior claim to fame (the two memoirs) is a pretty big deal. Compare Frey to Dan Rather. Rather has had a long, storied journalistic career. He has covered thousands of stories and appeared on television broadcasts of major networks for thousands of hours. Calling into question a particular story he broadcast would only be one part of the numerous stories that Rather covered. Yet in spite of that, the "memo-gate" controversy was considered significant enough to make it in Rather's lead paragraph. Judged by that standard, Frey's fabrication is proportionally much bigger. Frey doesn't have nearly as long a track record and what is under fire are Frey's two biggest commercial achievements.

You wrote, "I knew you would see it so I didn't think to send you a notice." In fact, the only reason I saw the discussion is because another alerted me that I was mentioned in a discussion and might want to reply. If not for that editor's note on my Talk page, I would never have realized I was being disparaged on that page. Ideally, we should discuss article content rather than the character of editors. But it's hard to avoid rebutting when I think I'm being attacked personally. --JamesAM (talk) 07:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

New Page Patrol - Disambiguation bot

I'd appreciate you contributing to the consensus for the New Page Patrol disambiguation bot at Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/WildBot Josh Parris 03:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Service awards proposal

Hello, JamesAM! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards. If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 18:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello JamesAM! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 22 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Bernard Gilkey - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Piping, thanks!

Wow, I was totally unaware of this! Thanks for the edit. . Tb (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Torment (comics) deletion nomination

This article is nominated for deletion. Please comment here for consensus on this article. Thank you. Spidey104 18:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Name linking from infoboxes

Hi, I saw that you removed a link from a bio infobox to an anthroponymy article here. The reason for the link was stated in the edit history, but the relevant discussion has since been archived to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Archive 6#Is it appropriate to link from surname instances to surname articles?

That discussion did not reach a conclusion. As you removed the link, I hope you won't mind me asking whether you know of a definite policy against such links?

In the absence of any guidelines, I'm inclined to put the link back, but perhaps in one of the "name" entries in the infobox rather than its title. - Fayenatic (talk) 11:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Jim Neversink - thanks

Thanks for correcting the Calexico link in Jim Neversink! I try to be pedantic about these things, but it's hard, so thanks a lot! SkaraB 12:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal on Hell's Kitchen (U.S.)

I am proposing a serious change to the Broadcast section of this article. Please take a look and provide feedback. Thanks Hasteur (talk) 01:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive

Hi there! I thought you might be interested in the December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We're currently recruiting help to clear a massive backlog (22,000+ articles), and we need your help! Participants in the drive will receive barnstars for their contributions! If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks! Guoguo12--Talk--  01:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

LGBT articles of Brazil

Hello! I am Brazilian and I need of you to correct my translation edits, because you are from an english speaking-country, please help me in the Same-sex adoption in Brazil, Changing legal gender assignment in Brazil, LGBT rights in Brazil, Recognition of same-sex unions in Brazil, Age of consent in Brazil, Prejudice in the Brazilian LGBT community, and Criminalization of homophobia in Brazil. 23 December 2010 (UTC)

a special Wikicookies for James

Thanks you so much for your kindness and your work in Women Ice Hockey. Thanks for correction in the pages. --Geneviève (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Service award level

There has been a major revision of the the Service Awards: the edit requirements for the higher levels have been greatly reduced, to make them reasonably attainable.

Because of this, your Service Award level has been changed, and you are now eligible for a higher level. I have taken the liberty of updating your award on your user page.

Herostratus (talk) 07:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Misplaced Pages. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Misplaced Pages contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Misplaced Pages user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! -129.49.72.78 (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)