Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:33, 14 July 2011

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, MakeSense64, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Versus22 _talk 07:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Software prices?

Would you care to point to the specific instance in the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style backing up your claim that Misplaced Pages does not publish software prices? On the contrary, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, and the cost of any particular software package is highly relevant. The price alone generally tells you whether it's a consumer shareware-type application (like Fractal Time is) or an enterprise-level application that costs thousands of dollars per seat. --Cyde Weys 21:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You may want to check out the guidelines explaining what WP is not: WP:NOTDIRECTORY.See Point 4, quoting:

"... therefore product prices should not be quoted in an article unless they can be sourced and there is a justified reason for their mention. Examples of justified reasons include notable sales of rare collectors items, prices relating to discussion of a price war, and historical discussion of economic inflation. On the other hand, street prices are trivia that can vary widely from place to place and over time. Therefore, lists of products currently on sale should not quote street prices. In addition, Misplaced Pages is not a price guide to be used to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices of a single product across different countries or regions."

--MakeSense64 (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I still contend that there is definitely a reason to publish at least a ballpark figure of how much software costs, as that tells you a lot about the software. However, the article in question is about an idea moreso than the software, so the cost wasn't doing much for that article. If the article was just about the software, though, I'd definitely include it along the lines of "As of January 2009, the software was $19.99 per license" — that is useful information. And by giving the date, you aren't creating a directory field of sorts that has to be constantly keep up-to-date. --Cyde Weys 12:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have seen a long discussion on that topic here: Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_11#Price_guide_.28again.29, so I guess that's where you can have your voice heard on that point. --MakeSense64 (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. It looks like that discussion is a year and a half stale, though. Maybe I'll have to start a new one somewhere. --Cyde Weys 15:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Academics

Re your comment on the Elwell page, the bar does tend to be higher for academics, but not it seems for professors. A mini debacle I've had occasionally is over the notion that if someone has got the professor title in front of their name, there is a default position of notability. If you want to get a BLP quickly beyond new page patrol, make sure the person is called a professor - CSD-A7 won't apply. I don't agree with it - but there it is :) The plus side is that once academics are there, they're harder to dislodge as their work can be assumed peer-reviewed. This means that non-academics who produce worthy works, and those such as Mr Elwell, have a higher bar to jump when it comes to work and honour verifiability and General Notability Guidlines. Acabashi (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's the distinction I saw being made on the pseudoscience guidelines. Since psci lacks the peer review process that normal sciences have, the bar is put higher for psci to get notability. So being published or the head of an institution is in itself not sufficient in the case of psci. In those cases the general WP:BIO or WP:N guidelines can establish notability.

Maybe I will try to put this question on some relevant noticeboard.

Today I came across this one Marina_Bai. BLP with notability for only a single event. Although it is a rather funny story, this is probably one for deletion. How would I go about that? MakeSense64 (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh God not another one - Astrology is a hornet's nest. I've added a find sources in the talk page. If it was just the one source you could have gone for Articles for Deletion, but there is stuff in GNews, GBooks, and the BBC, so no chance I fear - I've added a sources temp anyway - if you want to improve the article with the cites go ahead - I won't as I've had my fill for now with Elwell. BTW did you see that the Deborah Houlding article has been worked on and much improved by User:Tomwsulcer - I might have mentioned it. You might have noticed that Clooneymark has reverted Elwell and added more stuff. You could bring up a question on noticeboards about the odd teacher location and notability threshold level of psci - it would be useful to see if Elwell's gong is seen as worthy of mention. I think your intimation that psci are in academia because there is nowhere else for them to go is a sound point - it confused me as you found out. Cheers. Acabashi (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sock

I asked for an investigation into Makepiece101 as a sock or meat puppet of one of the editors of the Elwell page - the account has been blocked see here. Out of courtesy, this information copied to other current editors of the Elwell talk page should not be referred to within the Elwell talk page. Acabashi (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, no problem. I understand. Didn't know that was even possible.

More strange things appear to be going on behind the screens. I don't know what to make of this:

I put my name on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Astrology/Members a couple days ago, and one of the editors on Elwell page followed me there within hours. You can see Makepiece101 followed suit (and pretending to be a sceptic). But now 5 more new members have suddenly joined there, in what appears to have been a very inactive project with few members for years. Coincidence? Or is this more forces being mobilized?

I have been learning a lot about WP in just a couple days.

Thanks for keeping me posted. I think I will sit back and watch the show for a while on Elwell's page, perhaps making some quick comments.

Every suggestion we have done so far has fallen on deaf ears, and I remember the saying about leading a horse to water. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I also note that two other users have been blocked at the very same time, and all were into editing similar astrology articles.

See here and here

Look at the articles they created : The_Sophia_Centre and Nicholas_Campion, WP standards ??

What to do with all this? As you say , it's a hornet's nest. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I did look at this project page and it was the fact that Makepiece101 was added and indented under a name that clinched it for me in my mind, after being more than suspicious with the talk page comments and edit summaries. I can see only three who joined the project after you - if I'm misreading it let me know. The blocking administrator mentioned a number of blocks carried out, and Nick Campion on the list would be another sockpuppet. However there may be more that were attached to the editor's IP address that are/were invisible to us at the moment. But, I think your suspicion about sock or meat puppets being mobilized is sound. Administrators are able to see all edits and editor accounts on an IP address, and can gauge any abuse through writing style, loggons and loggoffs, strangely proficient brand new editors, who happens to be always supporting who, or who happens to be following who around articles.

If an editor carries on doing this kind of thing there would be, no doubt, a permanent block on their account. If it is shown that an editor is garnering forces for their point of view from other legitimate editors - usually through talk pages, but possibly through Wiki emails too, this would be grounds for a block. Sockpuppetry and Meatpuppetry are two of the worst "crimes" that can be committed on Misplaced Pages as it can, amongst other things, be used to skew articles in favour of a non-neutral point of view and bully other editors, and is frequently used by those who wish to push their own point of view regardless of others.

Acabashi (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You are right, only three tried to join after me according to the page history. Makepeace101 had removed the "inactive members" section (which I have now restored) , and that's why there were suddenly 5 more names below mine in the list.

The common denominator here seems to be astrologer(s) from the UK, who are basically controlling "their" articles on WP in every way possible, not caring about WP standards at all, and trying to irritate or push out any dissenting editor that comes along.

Maybe they don't know that links from WP do not add to search engine rankings, and to the extent that these BLP are often (near) orphan articles, are also getting relatively little traffic.

Given that astrologers need a reputation of honesty and trustworthiness to do their work, it is stunning to see what kind of strategies are being deployed here, just for the sake of keeping an advert style article with more external links up.

We will see what's up next. MakeSense64 (talk) 04:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

all astonishing. I think I prefer my quiet little geography hobby!! Possibly because I dont come up against this kind of thing usually, Im not really sure what to say regarding Elwell edits, so Im now staying very quiet and would really appreciate advice? It still reads very "peacocky" to me and certainly not a neutral point of view but since our editor friend hasnt listened thus far I cant imagine him changing his mind and listening now. Panderoona (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes it's better to sit back and let the dust settle for a while. One critical sentence was added as soon as I suggested it, but given the rather large body of critical articles about Elwell it is not getting due weight imo. Adding criticism section would be much better, but how to get across that the criticism section is normally not written by the editor who is most obviously a strong proponent of the subject of the article?

I can easily imagine that geography articles are a lot more peaceful. I see you have done a great job in that regard.

MakeSense64 (talk) 05:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

An editor has been blocked for multiple accounts. I suggest that all other editors of the page take the week-end off. Acabashi (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, looks like this new editor (3 days) has gone with it page

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Took the Algol matter to the NPOV noticeboard

I don't know if there should be some formal protocol for advising you that I took the Algol matter to the NPOV noticeboard, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Algol_-_feedback_on_whether_.28and_if_so.2C_to_what_extent.29_pseudoscience_policy_affects_the_content_of_this_star_page. Zac Δ talk 15:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It is always a good idea to ask for outside opinion if you have ongoing disagreement, and it is considered good form to let other involved editors know on their Talk page. Not just me, but also the other editors who have commented on the matter. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Seeking a better working relationship

First, anyone is free to tag my biography page – god knows, it probably deserves it. However, to do it twelve hours after I had reverted one of your edits, looks like an act motivated by personal revenge. This is WP:HARRASSMENT and not worthy of a WP editor. I don’t plan to report this incident, but ask that you strive to be less emotionally motivated and more objective in your editing practices.

Second, on the Astrology Discussion Page you wrote:

“The only thing I notice when astrologers propose a lede for this article is this: they consistently try to paint astrology as a 'study', probably because that sounds better. The statement that it is pseudoscience is always pushed out to the end of the paragraph. Why? Probably because at least some people do not read the lede completely and skip to the further sections rather quickly. So it looks like an excercise in making a frog look pretty. The purpose of the lede is not to make a good impression for astrology. ...”

When you refer to astrologers promoting astrology as a ‘study’ rather than ‘divination’, you can only be referring to me. As I stated on the Astrology Discussion page, I consider it important to focus on the content and not try to second guess the motives of other editors: WP:FOC. However, I feel that here I can reply in a similar analytical manner and if it feels uncomfortable, you are welcome to delete it.

I believe that your comment quoted above says a lot about your motives for editing and the basis of your argument. Given your history and pattern of removing legitimate astrology text, tagging pages of astrologers and astrology groups, polarizing arguments, inciting other editors and obstructing astrology editing (BTW this is a polite description); I can safely say that you have a serious dislike of astrology that goes beyond scepticism. So your belief that ‘study’ sounds better than divination a term which in your view will not ‘make a good impression for astrology’, indicates that your support for divination is based on emotion rather than a rational search for truth.

I am genuinely sorry that you feel that way about astrology, but giving priority to your emotions wastes a lot of good editing time. I am not saying that all you are doing is vandalism, as many pages need improvement. Personally, I would prefer to work with you towards creating better WP pages. Robert Currey talk 00:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If you doubt that your biography page Robert Currey was tagged fairly, then you can always ask an outside opinion on it on a noticeboard.

I have been going through all astrologer pages on List of astrologers, over the course of several days, and you can see that in my edits, because I tagged many articles and did some cleanup. Then I started doing the same on , also over the course of several days.

I tagged your page when I came across it.

If you think tagging has anything to do with revenge , then you may check out WP:TAGGING

It makes no sense to go on referring to an editor (me in this case) as having a history of obstructive editing and so on. If that is the case then you can make a complaint on the page devoted to it and some administrator will look into it. But, he will then also look in the history of the complainer(s).

Continuously referring to an editor in negative terms on Talk pages all around, without bringing any Diffs, that is campaigning against that editor. That is more likely to be seen as WP:HARRASSMENT than my tagging an article that lacks in almost every respect.

Editors on WP are not expected to be without opinions. But continuously paint another editor in vague terms like 'has a history of..' that's not acceptable on WP. It is considered WP:BAITING.

So either complain, or back off on that. I will be back on Monday, so you have plenty of time to consider. MakeSense64 (talk) 04:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• 21st-century astrologers