Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:20, 30 November 2008

Hello

I don't know if your page was deleted or what, but I find it distressing that your talk is still a redlink. Welcome! Enigma 04:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, you're the first person to comment here. Thanks! Switzpaw (talk) 04:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Impressive userpage, by the way. I looked it over before I created the talk, to get a sense of who I was talking to. Enigma 04:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Macedonia

Well, technically, that was for templates, but I agree that Macedonia is not confusing when it says "in other countries such as...". That edit was simply one of many disambiguations of Macedonia. Cheers, BalkanFever 02:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Palin Links

Thanks for Palin links Re:Hacker. I know I read somewhere that the info hacked was governmental in format...but I can't find it...probably a fringe source. Should I delete so that the reader isn't mislead? I don't want to promote a non-factual rumor.--Buster7 (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

GO CUBS!--Buster7 (talk) 02

42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Haha! Ok, Wired's ThreatLevel blog has had good coverage of this issue, and I believe that ThreatLevel has been discussed and approved as a reliable source. Here are some links with respect to the event:

• (Wired) How the hack transpired: Palin E-Mail Hacker Says It Was Easy
• (Wired) What was in the inbox: Group Posts E-Mail Hacked From Palin Account
• (Wired) Background on 4chan/Anonymous "hacker culture": Palin Hacker Group's All-Time Greatest Hits
• (Seattle Times) Controversy about Palin using her private email account for business, dated before the hack: Palin's e-mail secrecy an open secret in Alaska Switzpaw (talk) 02:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as the broader issue of notability goes, I think this is well sourced but probably undue weight for the Sarah Palin biography at this point in time. It's hard to tell with recent events. Switzpaw (talk) 02:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well said..

That was a little harsh, but I guess I can see your point. I didn't mean to imply a split decision or anything. It's amazing how quick a consensus was reached at MSNBC, that was a great learning experience. Thanks for your participation. Wikiport (talk) 05:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you started the RFC at a contentious time, and the fact that there was crossover at Talk:MSNBC muddled the whole discussion. I reverted your edit mainly because I didn't want people to be misled. Regarding MSNBC -- discussion was brewing there for quite some time, but yes, there was a catalyzing effect that got the ball rolling again. I hope you are sincere in your remark that it was a great learning experience. To be blunt, you have come across as disruptive and not-so-productive, though I understand your frustration with editors who seem very stubborn (though they do a service in maintaining article stability which is often taken for granted). Anyway, good luck in your future endeavours... Switzpaw (talk) 06:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I meant every word of my comment. Although some may argue this; opposing viewpoints are crucial to our survival. I make my living in "making an argument", but it is a breath of fresh air when people agree for the collective betterment. Thanks again, I'll see ya around campus. Wikiport (talk) 06:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

O'Reilly

Who are you agreeing with? RafaelRGarcia (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You. I'll modify my talk page comment to make it clearer. Switzpaw (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Palin

Please comment briefly: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sarah_Palin#Book_Banning Right now, the article only says she inquired as to censoring books, without even saying why. That's oversanitizing the article. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

I was sincere in my apologies for the misunderstandings, and I hope that the air is clear between us. I see that you have actually answered one of the questions I posted on my talk page.

I would request of you that if you notice an error in any of my actions on Misplaced Pages please let me know. I do not act out of ill intent, and much prefer collaboration and compromise to the feuding I've endured the last few days. Thanks. (Wallamoose (talk) 03:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

I don't want to do the Misplaced Pages drama shit. If I say "readers can read this other article," I mean just that. It's a bag of worms to try to cover a separate article's topic in one article. You saw that first-hand. If you say you're too lazy to read the other article or references, I'm going to take you seriously and give you a synopsis. I don't want to discuss opinions on an unrelated topic. In my experience, that's where Misplaced Pages goes to hell. I believe in taking editing seriously, even if it doesn't seem controversial, and I'm going to do what I can to make sure that a certain standard is upheld. Don't take it personally, okay? :) Switzpaw (talk) 03:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you for explaining. (Wallamoose (talk) 05:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

Persistent IP-hopping vandal

I've now blocked their entire covering netblock. Please let WP:AN/I know if they evade this, and appropriate action can be taken. -- The Anome (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Switzpaw (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert with him. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Olbermann's comments -- comment summaries

Switzpaw, as one of the more conscientious editors in this joint, could you take a look at the last four comment summaries (#36 -- #39) in List of Keith Olbermann's special comments and give me your opinion of them? Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

THANKS. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes; that would be the editor who is very concerned with other people's civility. As you've probably seen now, we had a debate on the Olbermann's special comments talk page a couple months ago. Far from insisting on neutral, third party sources, he insisted that the MSNBC website was the only place to go for comment summaries. Not knowing too much about Misplaced Pages's formal guidlines (I still tend to rely on my own sense fairness) I finally said OK as long as it was made very clear to the reader that each and every summary was coming straight from MSNBC (and was thus puffing Olbermann's viewpoints). However, the summaries have remained a hodge-podge until now, both in terms of bias level and in terms of how closely they reflect the MSNBC website's descriptions. Thanks for your efforts. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I well understand. It's not that important to me either, just rather annoying. I see now that the Olbermann comments list survived a bid for deletion a couple of months ago that I was not aware of at the time → . Looking over WP:WWIN, the list strikes me as a bit of many things that Misplaced Pages isn't supposed to be: a soapbox, a shrine, a suppository..whoops, a repository of links, etc. However, I'm not big on deleting articles unless they have no shred of justification (I'm sure some folks wouldnt think my badminton articles belonged). I've never called for one of those conclaves and have only participated in one, very briefly. Before signing off, however, I'll just note the key device that Blaxthos is using here. Essentially, he's claiming that MSNBC's cheerleading comment summaries are part and parcel of the comments themselves, and that by replicating them Misplaced Pages is merely presenting the comments unvarnished to the reader. It's a neat trick. One other thing: the other Olbermann articles have long passages of "original research." The Countdown article's very detailed Format section, for example, has no listed sources. It's all straight from Misplaced Pages contributors. Has our friend ever complained? Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion in userspace

Not sure to what you are referring, as far as I can see I've never deleted anything in your user page. User space isn't completely sacrosanct - copyright violations, advertising and obscenity are, afaik, deletable anywhere. jimfbleak (talk) 11:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainian ref added to Kaalbye Group

Didn't realize that you speak Ukrainian. What does the article say? Switzpaw (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• I can't speak Ukrainian, but I can use Google's translator. Here is Google's translation. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Switzpaw Edit of Mr. Matthew's Description of His Job as Journalist

Switzpaw, what was the basis for your deletion of my link to Mr. Matthews' statement of what his job was? Lucas williams (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Faina article

Hi Switzpaw:

You don't need to tell me to chill out. Unless you want to annoy another editor who is just trying to be helpful.

I have no problem with removing the mention of the other 10 ships from the article. I think it is an improvement because the mention of the other 10 ships was a digression.

I saw it as confusing when the "200" crew number was changed to 20 while keeping the mention of 11 vessels AND leaving in the reference to 200 crew. At that point, the article was confused as to whether the Faina had 200 crew (which it obviously did not have) or whether the 11 ships together had 200 crew. CBHA (talk) 06:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You're overdue for this

		The Original Barnstar
		I'm not a big fan of giving these out, but from everything I've noticed about your work you've been a particularly conscientious and fair-minded editor. Well done! Badmintonhist (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

MV Faina

I added the update tag, because the article appeared to me to be the same as it was months ago, with the last text mentioning the pirates celebrating Eid. Wasn't that last years Eid the article mentions? Basically I want some sort of update on the cargo and where it ended up, if possible. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

please read

WP:AGF... accusing someone of harassment is a serious thing, and you should assume good faith. I was making my point visible because people say the darnest thing, and need to be called on it. You might disagree, but acusing people of harassment after a single instance is a breach of assuming good faith. I know your edit was a good faith one, I am just asking you also assume it towards me. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)