User talk:Nealparr: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 12:00, 6 February 2008 editMediationBot1 (talk \| contribs)3,850 edits A request for mediation which you are a party to has been rejected← Previous edit		Revision as of 13:09, 6 February 2008 edit undoLucyintheskywithdada (talk \| contribs)2,222 edits →Plagiarised infobox: new sectionNext edit →
Line 71:		Line 71:
	\|}		\|}
	<small><center>This message delivered by ], an automated bot account ] by the ] to perform case management.<br>If you have questions about this bot, please ].</small></center>		<small><center>This message delivered by ], an automated bot account ] by the ] to perform case management.<br>If you have questions about this bot, please ].</small></center>

			== Plagiarised infobox ==

			Neal,

			I hope you don't mind me asking but you plagiarised an infobox I was working on to make one of your own with a quite different purpose. Is there any chance that you could change the colour and image etc so that they are not confusingly similar?

			Thanks. I appreciate that imitation is a fine form of flattery but really I am not looking for that sort of attention. --] (]) 13:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:09, 6 February 2008

~~R E~~ T I R E D

Note: This user is not retired, just tired. To help make his experience at Misplaced Pages more productive, he has provided the notice above to inform other editors who collaborate with him. Bears hibernate in winter and bite when you poke them with a stick. This user does not want to be a bear so please respect his weariness when collaborating with him.

Given the dysfunction that now prevails in Misplaced Pages, and the fact that effort on Misplaced Pages is anonymous, unrecognized, and unrewarded, the most appropriate course for experts on a topic is to avoid all stress inducing aspects of the project. They should treat the project as a fun hobby and stay away from potentially stressful activities such as resolving disputes or enforcing policy.

These hobbyist-experts ought not to concern themselves with the success or failure of Misplaced Pages. Perhaps Misplaced Pages will squander the labor of talented volunteers. Perhaps Misplaced Pages will alienate knowledgeable contributors by giving too much leeway to agenda-driven editors. Perhaps Misplaced Pages will dissipate the good will of readers as inferior and biased articles increasingly predominate. Such matters are of no consequence to the hobbyist-expert.

Be a WikiSloth. Spend time with your family. Write real papers and real articles in the real world. On Misplaced Pages, enjoy yourself.

OK, let's shoot the shit as grown ups for a moment.

Hi Neal,

OK, let's talk it. What happened and why? I really dont understand. And for someone that is considering putting themsleves forward to adminship, you really did go far beyond the protocols.

My concern is not even for my edits or templates, but you even deleted another template that was none of my doing.

Please, no more ding-dongs back and forward over user pages, let's keep it here or make a dedicated page for.

When I asked you what your interests in the subjects were, I was sincere. I just could not understand how or why one would delete a spiritist/spiritualist or spiritualistic template from, e.g a page on clairvoyance.

I like infoboxes. I find them useful in making lateral connections across the wiki. Obviously others don't ... but we could have worked to refine the template or its usuage on a talk page first and flagged up the page move in the right place.

So, place, I am offering you a handshake on this one. I do feel that you went beyond reasonable and it did become abusive. Even if I was an idiot, or perhaps just inexperience, I think for a potential admin you could have handled it in another way. As you wish to become an admin, I offer you this feedback, that what frustrated me the most was the inaccuracy with which you were hearing what I was saying, e.g. making it out to be something entirely different what what I said, did or intended. Please, ask first; shoot later.

Thank you for conceding the point re spiritualism within philosophy but ... again please ... what on eath was such a big issue that you were willing to throw away your good reputation? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

We can talk about it on the article's talk pages as needed. I don't really see any reason to discuss it here without third-party involvement. I'm still blocked (strange that you aren't since it hasn't been 48 hours), or else I would have already responded to your comments at the article pages. --Nealparr 19:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, it appears that I can edit now. I'll respond at the article talk pages. --Nealparr 19:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I moved your template to Spiritualism small. It has nothing to do with what I set out and am intending to do. It is as if you cannot hear or understand what I am saying at all. I think it is a duplicate of the one at the bottom of pages. In all humility, you are forcing your POV on the basis of a limited understanding of the subjects at hand.

I am concerned Neal because you are still editing WAY out of your depth. I flagged up your comments on Bon practise being TIbetan Buddhism. If you knew anything about Tibetan Buddhism you would know that Bon has nothing to do with it.

To me what you are attempting to do is hammer topics back within the limits of your understanding rather than go with and learn more about the world from others. This is why I am offer to sort things out directly with you rather than mess up talk pages. I have no idea why you have such a beef about this topic ... why? Ditto i question your edit summary.

I am genuinely concerned that you have no access to academic sources of information and are reliant on Google. This is just not the starting point for some serious contributing or just discussion.

You are attacking my work with a machine gun of acronyms and wiki policy ... but to me it all seems like one big distraction from the real issue.

So, firstly, in order to discuss, can you or can you not access those academic sources given? Thanks. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Again (what is this, the fourth warning now?) stop talking about me, questioning my point of view, questioning my familiarization with the topic, and now questioning my access to sources. You don't know anything about me. Stop acting like you do. If you want to actually discuss the topic and the sources I'd be more than happy to. I have no reason to discuss myself with you. The questions of whether I have access to academic sources, when I responded directly to your sources and showed you where the sources are online, can stop now.

On another irrelevant note, the weather is quite quite nice today.

Talking about the actual topic, and the actual sources: I replied to the Bön question here. I replied to your edit summary question here . --Nealparr 20:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Feedback on paranormal info box

Seeing this new info box you created for the first time at the PK article, my honest reaction was that I thought the title "Paranormal beliefs" sounded like there was a religious or psychological disorder connotation being ascribed to the topic. Wouldn't just "The Paranormal" work, since that's where the link goes anyway? If you ever consider changing the title, that gets my vote. "Paranormal phenomena" might also work. I added the Category:Paranormal phenomena to the simulated ghost photo used in the template on its Wiki Commons page. There's a famous photo there of medium Eva Carriere that I uploaded that might be another choice for the template. I have no problem with a retitle of the info box appearing at the top of the article. Currently, I can understand other editors eventually deleting it from See also because most of the links in the box aren't really PK related and so there's no reason to "see also." 5Q5 (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(Reply received on my talk page) The changes to the info box (now titled "the Paranormal") look great! I've moved it to the top of the PK article and will support it continuing there. 5Q5 (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I added a picture to the box on the PK page, but I couldn't get the caption element to work in the template. It may work better without a caption, but I couldn't test it. I wonder what the font size would be. Could that be why it wouldn't display? 5Q5 (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/What the Bleep Do We Know!?.

For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 12:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Plagiarised infobox

Neal,

I hope you don't mind me asking but you plagiarised an infobox I was working on to make one of your own with a quite different purpose. Is there any chance that you could change the colour and image etc so that they are not confusingly similar?

Thanks. I appreciate that imitation is a fine form of flattery but really I am not looking for that sort of attention. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)