Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:36, 27 March 2009

Re: Moses was White

I think you missed the point of Andy's whole comment on Money (The Office episode). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.59.90.2 (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: your edit to Pam Beesly

Agreed, I don't know why that was removed in the first place. -Mike Payne 05:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Pam Beesly

Just FYI, I'm going to keep removing that sentence every time you insert it, and others are doing the same. It has no place here. -Mike Payne 20:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Me, too. --EXV // + @ 01:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

justin, minor scrubs characters

hi would you be willing to comment on the Talk page for List of minor characters of Scrubs regarding your opinion on the toy unicorn Justin thanks--Jac16888 18:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Lost

Unless you have specific sources for these connections that these are indeed connections and not coincidences, don't add them back. Thanks.--CyberGhostface 20:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to be more specific, since you've added it back twice since User:CyberGhostface's note: suggesting that there's a connection between the Lost character Jacob and the Biblical character Jacob is original research/speculation; lacking a citation for a reliable source that such a connection is plausible, such speculation will be removed. --EEMeltonIV 07:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that it is your responsibility to provide reliable citations for the information you are adding. See WP:NOR and WP:V. Further violations may result in a block. --Yamla 15:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, you may now be in violation of WP:3RR. --Yamla 15:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You have now been blocked for your violations of WP:3RR. --Yamla 16:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus for your change to Ben Linus and substantial concern about it. Please refrain from readding this information unless you can build a consensus for your version. --Yamla 23:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked (old)

You have been blocked for your continued violations of WP:NOR after multiple warnings. --Yamla 00:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblock (old)

Shaheenjim (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I added some information to an article without citing my source and people deleted it because they said it was original research. Which is wasn't. So I readded it, except this time I cited the source. And some crazy admin blocked me for violating the no original research policy. If I cited the source, then obviously it's not original research.

Decline reason:

For one thing, insulting the blocking admin is not the best way to get yourself unblocked. And I find edits such as this nonconstructive and incivil. — Kurykh 04:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Note that this user was repeatedly warned about WP:NOR and WP:RS, both of which the user violated here. This matter was discussed on the admin noticeboard and found to be original research. --Yamla 15:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Further note that as a result of the warnings, I added a source. So clearly it wasn't OR. And the discussion on the admin noticeboard was small and shallow. - Shaheenjim 19:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Your reverts

Your blanket reverts to General of the Armies, which erase all of the material I added, is bordering on breaking the policy of Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles not to mention that that sort of behavior is generally considered rude. I encourage you to discuss exactly what you have a problem with on the talk page before simply removing all edits not your own. Please don't start an edit war. -OberRanks 21:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

My answer to your concern is here . Put back the material if you like, but please dont blanket revert my material since Ive added nothing to the article which isnt sourced and verified. -OberRanks 00:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have now put it back in for you . See how easy that was? -OberRanks 00:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

General of the Armies

Thanks for http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AMrDolomite&diff=158063429&oldid=157233320 your note on my talk page. I have incorporated the copyedit wording _and_ the {{otheruses4}} in a manner which clarifies the scope of that article, as well as directing readers to similarly named articles.

As some aside comments to try to improve your WP contributions and interactions with other editors, please try to assume good faith on the part of other people's edits. While the edit summary you left during the edit here was not very useful, at least the comment you left on my talk page provided some clues as to the content change you were thinking about.

However, as is obvious by the rest of this talk page, and the comment "Don't revert my edit again.", remaining civil is not as easy as one would think. Remember that neither you, nor I, nor any other editor has ownership of an article. We all have various watchlists and interests and try to improve WP content, formatting and structure.

I admit that I had not thought about other countries' ranks not being 5 star, and appreciate that once again the many eyes of WP editors caught that omission. However, what rank is the one to which you refer to in the statement, "General of the Army is not the only 5 star rank in the US army"?

Thanks — MrDolomite • Talk 22:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Re: your reply on my talk page

Um, no, General of the Armies is not a 5 star rank. Pershing wore 4 stars and could have made any insignia, and logically there are arguments that it since it is superior to the 5 star General of the Army (United States), then it could be interpreted as 6 stars. I must be misunderstanding somehow.

In this edit, good use of {{Otheruses4}}. It is a copyedit discussion if one needs to re-mention the name of the title of the article in the dab template text, but at least it should be crystal clear to readers. — MrDolomite • Talk 23:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Pam Beesly Edit

Good point, but she said "I am" after talking on the phone, which made me think the question was about the wedding: i think she would have said "I do" or something like that instead if her mother asked about whether she loved Jim or not, just my own personal opinion, since there's no obvious answer. You bring up a good point though, and thanks for pointing out the mistake.

-Ryan

Army General merges

Is there some centralized discussion on this? I can't seem to find any. --Hemlock Martinis 03:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge probably isn't the right word for what I did (even though I was the one who used it). Even before I made my edits today, the General (United States) article already covered all the topics that were covered by the other articles I changed today. I added information to the General (United States) article from other articles, but the information I added was on topics that were already covered by the General (United States) article. So even if I hadn't merged the articles, I still would've made the same changes to the General (United States) article. Then once the General (United States) article had all the information that the other articles had, there was no reason not to change them to redirects to the General (United States) article. - Shaheenjim 04:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion area for United States General articles

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Discussion_for_various_United_States_General_articles for a common discussion area. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I added a note to that section, questioning the redirect of Five-star general to Field Marshal. -- Narsil 20:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Russian military doings haven't changed much from Soviet times, so I would expect not, but I don't know for certain. Chief Marshal- I don't know. Have a look at the revision history of Army ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation for users who know lots about this, and also check out www.mil.ru - roam around the Ru section as well, maybe there's a rank section - and www.warfare.ru. Cheers Buckshot06 13:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read my first response. CHIEF MARSHAL - I DON'T KNOW. I am not a real expert, though I've tried to help with your other questions at General of the Army. I'd refer you also to the other sites I mentioned above. Cheers Buckshot06 12:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

House

Thanks for the plot synopsis of the latest episode of House, I was looking forward to it as I haven't had a chance to watch it yet :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.28.81.205 (talk) 21:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: General of the Army (Russia)

It was an edit from an IP that had previous vandalism history, and it looked like it was removing part of a perfectly valid sentence. If it's incorrect, you can go ahead and remove it. GlassCobra 16:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Disruption on General articles

I asked you not to do it again and you did anyway. Creating three identical articles, against a merger vote, is against policy specificaly WP:OWN and WP:CON. The matter has been reported to the administrators. I think you will find they will not be on your side with this but I guess we will see. -OberRanks 04:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

TY

Thank you for respecting the opinion and not reverting the reestablishment of the Lieutenant General (United States) article back to a redirect. Thats a very good sign that people are now working together. -OberRanks 08:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring on General of the Armies

Just a warning - you very nearly got blocked for this statement. The three revert rule is not a loophole to be tiptoed around. Reverting repeatedly is considered disruptive irrespective of precisely how many edits you make in any 24 hour period. Instead, I have protected the article. However, as the other "side" were almost as bad, I have protected the article instead. But continue edit warring against consensus and you will end up getting blocked. I notice you are discussing much of this "General" business in other areas, and would suggest you continue to do so, as progress is being made. Neil ☎ 18:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

SJ you are really making yourself look bad here and I urge you to stop. Edit warring got the article protected and you are now on record as going to the protecting admin and asking that the other side in this dispute be banned from the site. You have also littered Misplaced Pages with statements such as "your edits make the article worse" and you threw in a personal attack by calling me "self centered". This is helping noone and seriously hurting you. I did similar things a year and a half ago and had to leave this site in shame, only now able to reestablish my name somewhat. Do not let that happen to you. I would suggest starting a section on the article talk page entitled "What I think is wrong with this article". List the points by number so they can be easily answered. People will then be happy to work with you. With that said, I wish you well, and I'm logging off. -OberRanks 20:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I have already described what I think it wrong with the article at Talk:General_of_the_Armies#First_sentence and Talk:General_of_the_Armies#Pershing. I see no reason to create yet another section to discuss the same thing. We're already discussing the same topic on several different talk pages in lots of different sections. - Shaheenjim 20:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Russian Marshals, Chief Marshals and General Majors

Please see Talk:Chief Marshal and Talk:Army ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation. --Dmitry _{(talk •contibs )} 20:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Bliss and March

Regarding Bliss and March, I'm not sure there's a single online source that references all that information. Essentially, the temporary ranks of general and lieutenant general were only authorized in the National Army, which was the conscript/volunteer force authorized by emergency legislation for World War I (the equivalent of the World War II Army of the United States). Only two temporary generals were actually authorized for the National Army, so when Bliss was replaced by March as chief of staff, Bliss was made a brevet general to maintain his four-star status for the duration of the war (which I guess made him a temporary temporary general). The National Army was disestablished on June 30, 1920 by the Army Reorganization Act of that year, and the general and lieutenant general ranks went with it. Pershing only got to keep his rank thanks to special Congressional legislation that commissioned him a permanent general in the Regular Army. See the following articles from the NYTimes free archive:

"Rank of General for Bliss and March: Former Gets Brevet Title for Services Abroad - Latter Becomes Chief of Staff", The New York Times, May 21, 1918

"House Committee For Two Generals: Pershing Wins Unanimous Vote, March by 8 to 7 on Non-partisan Decision", The New York Times, July 31, 1919

"Only Major Generals Now; March, Liggett and Bullard Lose War Rank", The New York Times, June 30, 1920

Bliss and March retired as major generals, but were advanced to general on the retired list in 1930, when Congress passed legislation that restored all retired officers to their highest wartime ranks. You can reference this in the individual Bliss and March biographies in Commanding Generals, or by consulting the NYTimes pay archive. Morinao 06:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, between September 3, 1919 and June 30, 1920 an active duty General of the Armies coexisted with active duty lieutenant generals and generals. Note, however, that the General of the Armies commission was for life, so even after Pershing retired in 1924, he was still carried on the active duty rolls. So General of the Armies also coexisted with general as an active duty rank from February 20, 1929; with lieutenant general and general from August 5, 1939; and with lieutenant general, general, and general of the Army from December 16, 1944; until Pershing's death on July 15, 1948. Morinao 18:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

General of the Armies

While one can argue that before Public Law 94-479 was passed in 1976 to promote George Washington to the rank the relative status of that rank with that of General of the Army was unclear, that law unambiguously states that "the grade of General of the Armies of the United States is established, such grade to have rank and precedence over all other grades of the Army, past or present." That leaves unresolved only whether Pershing's appointment as General of the Armies of the United States should be considered as equivalent to Washington's or not, since the law recreates the grade only for Washington. Indeed one could argue that Pershing's rank should be considered equivalent to General of the Army since otherwise he would be by date of appointment senior to Washington who was appointed to that rank as of July 4, 1976. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hard to say where General of the Army of the United States fits. It was never used at the same time as the ranks we'd like to compare it to. One might say that it along with General of the Armies of the United States and the rank of Major General Commanding the Army are all the same in that they were intended to be conferred upon only one officer at any one time, such officer subordinate only to the President himself. Note that the insignia of Major General Commanding the Army was three stars during the Civil War era. Alexander Macomb, Jr.'s 1829 portrait indicates that his insignia as Major General Commanding the Army was at that time a single wreathed star in gold, but he was not only the Major General Commanding the Army, he was the only active duty major general then. If we go with such a concept, it would be to best to simply note that the rank simply has as many stars as needed to differentiate it from other general ranks in use at the time. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

True, but color change has been used as a rank indicator for the Army before, most notably in the Lt. Col. and Major ranks, where the difference was originally one of having the oak leaf match the epaulet or differ from it. It clearly was a different rank, and there were contemporaneous officers to Pershing who held the rank of General. Insofar as we use stars as a short hand for relative officer rank, Pershing clearly had more than 4 silver stars. Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

For Pershing, who knows whether he was 5 or 6 star, but Washington was clearly placed in a separate higher rank than General of the Army, so his rank can't be a 5 star rank in the sense of ranking generals by stars. Perhaps one could say that the rank transcends stars. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. "Stars" in the sense of n-star general is a just a shorthand for indicating relative rank, not a mechanism for generically describing the insignia which vary widely by time and place. I doubt anyone would refer to a Canadian lieutenant general as a three maple leaf general. Trying to read anything more than that is silly. Caerwine Caer’s whines 15:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps the British ranks need to be removed from 5 star rank and Category:British 5 star officers need to go to CfD. The British insignia do not use stars, and as far as I can tell have never used stars, yet somehow, someone decided stars would be a good way to class their ranks. Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Da Yuan Shuai

As far as I am aware of the Rank of Grand Marshal or equivalent rank are not used currently in the Republic of China rank tables, so it is more of historical note.

Regarding the Grand Marshal rank for Imperial China and the People's Republic, the rank was proposed for Mao but never accepted, so it would be just a proposal; as for Imperial usage, that I'm not too clear on. Aldis90 (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

re: General Officer

Please do not delete messages from article talk pages as you did here. --ROGER DAVIES  10:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Seven Seas

I no longer believe that there was originally a list of seven seas. Seven is a mystical number in European culture and the phrase is probably just a fancy way to say "everywhere".

I didn't include the Aegean Sea because for purposes of the map and the list, I considered it as just part of the Mediterranean and not a distinct sea. The Mediterranean has many seas and the Adriatic, which I did include, is most separate from it.

I hope this helps. Thanks for your past and future work on one of my favorite articles.

Foobaz·o< 12:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no single "definitive" list of the Seven Seas. Virtually all major seas known to Europeans and Middle Easterners have been at some time or other, by some author or other, categorized as one of the Seven Seas. —Lowellian (reply) 16:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The current version of the article is eurocentric and is rather neglectful of the usage of the term Seven Seas in Arabic and other Middle Eastern literature. It does mention Middle Eastern views, but the treatment is not as complete as it could be. —Lowellian (reply) 16:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that the Arabian Sea is often regarded as part of the Indian Ocean. —Lowellian (reply) 16:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Test pages

If you must create test pages, you will find it better to use names that start User:Shaheenjim/. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Fox News Sunday

My source for that statement is the Nielsen ratings, which are published in the "dayparts updates" on Media Life and through the NBC press releases (sometimes ABC publishes them, too)... the cable ratings are published by TV Newser. I did some OR a few months back to figure out why the ratings are as low as they are (part of the reason being FNS has no lead-in morning show like the other networks), but since that stuff isn't condoned by Misplaced Pages I didn't put it in the article. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is fourth of the five major Sunday morning talk shows (Meet the Press, Face the Nation, This Week, Fox News Sunday, and Late Edition). I thought that was self-evident, but sorry if I wasn't more clear. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 21:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC) x

General of the Air Force

Note my response to your comment at Talk:General_of_the_Air_Force_(United_States)#Contradiction. Worldruler20 (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

General of the Army

While General of the Armies does rank below General of the Armies of the United States and above General of the Army, General of the Armies, like General of the Armies of the United States, is a "Special" grade and is not listed as a grade that can be given just by congressional confirmation. The grade must also, once again, be established via creation of a law by Congress and signed by the Persident. It in extremely unlikely that Congress will create the grade once again as it was created to be given to one person and one person only. General of the Army is still a grade that can be used by law, General of the Armies and General of the Armies of the United States are not. Neovu79 (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Six star image

Hello - iirc, you are the one that has a copy of general MacArthur's promotion package? If so, could you place take a look to see if there is anything that can be used as a source for the six star image? See Talk:6 star rank#Six star image. Thanks! --Marc Kupper|talk 23:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the speedy reply - I'll hunt through the history as one of the editors involved with General of the Armies a couple of years ago either had it or saw it. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Moon

I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to say "There are a lot of people on here with no common sense", just because other editors happened to have concerns about your edits. You are no doubt aware of the strict requirements for verifiability, reliable sources, and no original research for Misplaced Pages articles. The web site in question does not meet these tests, so we cannot use it as a source. --Ckatz_spy 04:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You said you don't know why I said people have no common sense if they revert my edit about the moon. That's a fair question. I'll explain. First of all, nothing in my edit was original research. Second, it was all verifiable. So neither of those critieria are cause to revert my edit. Third, as I said when I restored my reverted edit, if true information comes from an unreliable source, you should change the source, not the information. Or if you don't have time to find another source, you could just add one of those citation needed tags, so that someone else will find a reliable source. And fourth, the point of the reliable sources rule is to keep people from adding misinformation to Misplaced Pages. Now, the source I cited might be unreliable about some things. But the information that I added from that source was correct. Therefore the source was reliable enough for the purpose for which I used it. You have a tendency to be too quick to revert edits that add correct information. That makes Misplaced Pages worse, not better. You seem to be following the letter of the rules, without regard for their intent. That's a common mistake, and it's the worst stereotype of a bureaucrat. You need to use more discretion about when to follow the letter of the rules, and when to ignore them. Don't forget this rule. You aren't too bad, though. My comment was more about Misplaced Pages users in general than about you in particular. I've run into other users who are a lot more insistent in their attempts to make Misplaced Pages worse. Like these ones. - Shaheenjim (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, Paine's site does not meet the standards required by Misplaced Pages. Claiming my actions were bureaucratic in nature is misleading, factually incorrect, and merely deflects attention from the fact that the site cannot be used to support your text. The onus is on you - the contributor - to properly verify any facts you seek to incorporate into an article, and to supply references to that effect. (By the way, despite your expressed opinion of me, I'm quite familiar with and supportive of the principle of IAR. Keep in mind that it is not in any way a free pass, and that Misplaced Pages expects a higher standard yet again for core articles.) --Ckatz_spy 05:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You said that Misplaced Pages's standards require a site to be better than Paine's. If that were true, then I'd agree with you. But it's not true, per the IAR rule. You may be supportive of the principle of IAR in some cases, but you're missing an opportunity to support it in this case. And that's why it's not misleading, factually incorrect, or a mere deflection to say that you're filling the negative stereotype of a bureaucrat. - Shaheenjim (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Gravitational pull

Do you think it would be Ok to change it to "almost" twice?Kevin McCready (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

re: Greek mythology

xpost fm you

You recently made some edits to the articles for Twelve Olympians and Homeric Hymns because you thought it was strange that they were implying that Hesiod wrote of the Titans but not of the Olympians. They weren't implying that. He wrote about the Olympians, but he didn't use the term "the Twelve Olympians." That's a specific subset of the Olympians.

So I reverted your edits to those two articles. If you also made a similar edit to the article for Titans (mythology) then that should be reverted too. Although I think you might not've made a similar edit to that article, even though the edits you made to the other articles were about that article. - Shaheenjim (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

re: Twelve Olympians (edit talk links history) and Homeric Hymns (edit talk links history)and Titan (mythology) (edit talk links history)

0) I didn't think it strange, I found it to be confusing, contradictory, and poorly handled across articles. In short, the extant phrasing in both articles created a confusion... which I (in my ignorance) attempted to edit away. I made no changes to the Titans page, btw.

1) That's why the fact tag... in Homeric Hymns — I was looking for an expert to address the ambiguity and confusions... hope you fixed up the language so is preventive of another misinterpretation. Cross-topic integration is an important thing to keep in mind with writing between articles which link--and are likely to be cross read by our customers. Template:Ibull2ASIDE: The timing on these classical studies and/or antiquities articles is most often too weasel worded in general. Stating a date range like "7th cen. BC" is subject to wide misunderstanding... particularly when the timespan is BCE... Template:Ibullbetter to augment with an appropriate parenthetical date range with appropriate "at the earliest", "before ...", "around ...", "no later than ...", and such non-academic plain language as educates etc. Template:IbullA certain amount of dumbing-down so stuff is readable (and understandable, because of context) by the general population is a good thing... our mission, I figure.

2) The distinction between Olympians and twelve Olympians is I suspect too subtle and specialized for reliance on such that the readers are following the specialist mindset. I follow it as someone with at least half-a-dozen mythology references on my bookshelves, but the average lay reader isn't going to have those, or my lifelong interests... so the article needs clarified if you mean to make the distinction. Normally, if worthy, that would and should require a separate article with prominent disambig crosslink at the page top. Somehow, I don't figure any article on Minor Olympians is coming any day soon... Is there a list article covering such? list of Olympians strikes out... but... THAT would be one good way to cover that need, and be encyclopedic to boot. We should have one, I conclude.
Unexpected use of template {{2}} - see Template:2 for details.

3) Most of us would agree that the Olympians disambig page, which links to that Twelve Olympians page also needs further separate delineation of your very technical distinction . That would also need handled on the 'twelve Olympians' page up in the intro so to set in place for us and to us in the general population such picayune specialty knowledge. Template:I(before closing, I made a stab at some disambiguation on this... by altering the introduced and offending phrase I'd added to accommodate your technical distinction as I perceive it all... but by all means pee in it as needed if I'm off a bit with my guesswork) (I began that with a dablink para, but the topic needs handled in the article body--up high somewhere.) In short, wikipedia is not currently covering the distinction between the terms as you know them. I, on the other hand, am acting to clarify to all and sundry.

4) Consequently, I reverted your reverts of my three edits on 'twelve Olympians' as wholly lazy and in appropriate. A close examination therein will reveal the sole text change made was to work in Olympians (as just discussed above) because of the linkages issues (and ignorance... I really don't care if there were 12 or 200... but references to Olympians... should definitely connect and mention the twelve which are usually those connoted! The 1500 minor nature sprites aren't of general interest outside kids cartoons and Charmed scripts! <g>). Template:IbullThe other changes I made were whitespace and formatting with the two bulleted lists, plus the fact tag... but since I was revamping format and material I specifically made stepwise iterative changes vice one biggie... which would have been what I did were it one of my normal topic areas. (My saves are generally substantial changes. 20 small changes by one editor is not something I like to see.)

5) Mutual respect would require better handling of my time involvement, and a closer inspection of the changes. Thanks, however, for the notice on my talk. Suggest with successive changes like that you evaluate them one by one, as they appear in the current text... note the use of a few typing aid templates and spacing out of cites made the diffs look far worse than the actual changes that occurred. Template:IbullThe fact tag should have been cleared in a section edit locally. Template:IbullThe best (and most courteous to all) way would be to comment it out, with a dated terse reason why it's inappropriate or handled. Template:IbullThat sets the record in place for other people to see the diffs... and obviates the need for a separate talk handling the issue most of the time. Template:IbullIn short, is a highly courteous practice when you realize literally dozens of people might be looking at diffs from their watchlists...

6) In the same vein as a better practice... Cites are a pain to work around with future diffs since far more seems to change if they aren't broken into linefeed terminated separate lines... The easiest prophylactic on that is to terminate all of them using '>' so it's on a different line. Repetitions of named cites, can do the same with '/>', though that seems unnecessary most of the time—unless two or three cites are used at the same point. As a general technical matter, wikimarkup's HTML is quite tolerant of whitespace padding before the closing of any HTML tag command.Template:IbullBy the same token, breaking up the contents in cites templates onto some block of separate lines aids editing in the future (Text and refs aren't blending together) and shorten lines so actual changes can be seen more clearly. Template:Ibull Lastly, '}}' in such can be spaced down with several linefeeds... creating separation. Adding extra pipes in a template is also harmless.

You'll want to recheck "the Olympians"... but the text, not a diff... This is a good case for needing a character block diff capability... being able to see whitespace changes as only an added linefeed, or so show the inserted words not processed in a line by line confused block where the whole shows red vice an inserted word AND the linefeed(s), etc., would have shown there weren't big changes there. Best regards // FrankB 17:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

exchange ii OR iii

I reverted your edits again. I'm not entirely sure what you were attempting to do with them. And I didn't follow your thousand word rant on the talk page either. What I do know is this: Your edit seemed to imply that the Olympians in general and the Twelve Olympians in particular were the same thing. I reverted your edit and explained to you that they were different. Then you made another edit that again seemed to wrongly imply that the Olympians in general and the Twelve Olympians in particular were the same thing. I'm not sure why you keep implying that, even after I've explained to you that it's not true. You might be right that the articles should be more explicit in its distinction between the Olympians in general and the Twelve Olympians in particular. But that's no reason to seem to imply that they're the same thing. - Shaheenjim (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that you are making a distinction as if a scholar... not writing the article focused to and for the lay people —your writings need to explain EXACTLY THAT DIFFERENCE as I tried to do... to your dissatisfaction. Fine, I leave it in your hands, but the article or our overall coverage is missing the overall context. Olympians has to handle the rest of the pack —whatever scholarship calls them. Since your article is the closest detailed article with that title, and is further on point... IMHO, you're only doing a partial job. It's not satisfactory at all.

I've been "IN TO" to reading about mythology my whole life, and am pushing retirement age and until running across you, have never heard of the distinction you are making. Not many people have one, much less multiple mythological reference works, and my bookshelves have at least six. In short, you are living in a very different world than the one this encyclopedia is supposed to serve if you can write about any topic in the area I haven't ever heard of even once.

If you want to cover the Olympians and draw a distinction to the 12, by all means do so, but for pete's sake COVER THE DIFFERENCE. Recast the disambig article, and start with that title if necessary, but at least explain SOMEWHERE who the twelve are versus those who aren't. Sorry I can't be any clearer. Try thinking like a twelve year old reader finding the topic for the first time and see if you educate the lad. That's the connection you seem to not be trying to make, given the inadequate link from 'Olympians'. Best regards // FrankB 01:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

--VS 03:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

--Ckatz_spy 16:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to Orbit of the Moon

It's hard to follow a thread on three separate user talk pages and so replied on Talk:Orbit of the Moon#Concave or Convex? where the conversation can hopefully consolidate as it's about that article. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about

The half of the argument that was made here was moved to this page so it could be with the other half.

Just to notify you, I "whined" to the administrators, at WP:ANI#User:Shaheenjim. --Jeremy (blah blah) 20:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

blocked

Shaheenjim (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Some administator has been posting libel about me. When I called him on it, he blocked me, allegedly for disruption, personal attacks, and edit warring. You can see the history at Misplaced Pages:ANI#User:Shaheenjim. I should be unblocked. First of all, because I wasn't disrupting anything. Second, because I didn't make any personal attacks. When someone attacked my edits, I defended them, including saying why the other guy was wrong. My edits were made in conjunction with the Use Common Sense policy, and when someone disputed them, I said it's because they don't have common sense. That's not a personal attack. It's an attack on their position, which is relevant to the dispute at hand. And third, I wasn't edit warring. The other guy was. I was discussing the conflict on the talk page, per Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution policy, and it was the other guy who was edit warring and not engaging in a discussion. There's no reason I should be blocked. I suspect that the admin only blocked me because he's upset that I called him out on his libel. Which brings up the fourth reason I should be unblocked, which is that admins aren't supposed to block people as a result of disputes in which they are taking part. - Shaheenjim (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Note that the history I cited refers to one discussion on Jeremy's talk page, where I demonstrated quite clearly why I wasn't the problem, and Jeremy was. Jeremy has subsequently censored that discussion, but you'll still be able to find it in the history. - Shaheenjim (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Note that the blocking admin responded to my request for an unblock at Misplaced Pages:ANI#User:Shaheenjim. In it, he alleged that a single revert, along with discussions on the talk page, is edit-warring. Obviously an allegation that laughable is evidence that it's a pretext, and his real motivation is retaliation, since he's involved in the dispute. He also cited two prior blocks. First of all, note that two or three alleged violations over the course of years of productive editing is nothing. And second, those other two blocks were both ridiuclous too. In one I was blocked for violating the 3RR, even though I only reverted 3 times in a day. And in the other I was blocked for allegedly posting OR, even though I posted a source, so obviously it wasn't OR. - Shaheenjim (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Posting an enormous screed which attacks other editors, including the blocking admin, and claiming that "per common sense" overrides Misplaced Pages policies, is perhaps not the best manner to request an unblock. Declined. Black Kite 01:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Shaheenjim (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I wasn't claiming that common sense overrides Misplaced Pages policies. Common sense is one of Misplaced Pages's policies. Seriously, was I the only one who read that? And I'm not going on the offensive attacking other users. They're attacking me, and I'm merely defending myself. - Shaheenjim (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This doesn't justify the edit warring or personal attacks. Focus on your actions, not those of others. Hersfold 03:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Shaheenjim (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My point was that there was no edit warring or personal attacks. Not on my part, anyway. - Shaheenjim (talk) 11:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Wrong, see and generally Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Shaheenjim.  Sandstein  12:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Shaheenjim (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

That certainly wasn't edit warring. And it wasn't a personal attack either. It was an attack on the substance of the issue. An attack that was subsequently proven right when I was blocked, and is being proven more and more right with every administrator who upholds the block. Let's see if I can prove it again. - Shaheenjim (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

may not be an edit war, but it IS an incivil personal attack. The rest of the discussion is moot, since there does not appear to be any effort to address this sort of incivility. All you seem to do is deflect discussion away from the real issue, which is your incivility. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Please read the guide to appealing blocks - and please consider withdrawing or rewriting the above unblock request. In its current form, it is unlikely to achieve any positive result for you. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 13:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to get myself unblocked. I never was. I don't care whether or not I'm blocked for 72 hours. I'm trying to prove a point. And it's working. When you claim that a single revert, coupled with discussion, is an edit war, you're proving that you're a little kid who is a petty bureaucrat with no common sense. Every admin that upholds your block is proving that the description applies to them too. It's not a personal attack. It's an attack on the substance of the issue, and it's absolutely right. - Shaheenjim (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Please consider this theoretical situation. Assume that there are four editors (call them A1, A2, A3, A4) who prefer version A of an article, and four other editors (call them B1, B2, B3, and B4) who prefer version B of an article. Now suppose that A1 changes the article to version A, then B1 reverts to version B, then A2 reverts, then B2 reverts, then A3, then B3, then A4 and B4. Assume that while these reverts go on, the editors all discuss on the Talk page why they think their version is right.

I hope you can see that the above situation is an edit war, even though each editor makes only one revert, and each editor takes part in discussion. The central point is this: when an editor reverts a revert that is the subject of an edit war, that editor is taking part in that edit war. A subsidiary point is that an edit war does not stop being an edit war simply because discussion takes place.

Regarding your comment above about making a point, and not wanting to be unblocked: please do not abuse unblock templates to make a point. In addition, please do not repeat the personal attacks for which you were blocked. Instead, just wait for the block to expire, and after that please contribute to Misplaced Pages's collaborative editing environment by not making personal attacks and not getting involved in edit wars. Thank you. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 14:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

In your theoretical situation, a single revert might be an edit war. But the situation here was different than that. In this situation, my side was discussing things on the talk page, and the other side wasn't. They repeatedly refused to answer my question about which part of my argument was wrong. Because they couldn't answer the question, because they knew damn well that I wasn't wrong, but they were too petty to admit it. I was following Misplaced Pages dispute resolution policy, and they're the ones who weren't. And if the other side wasn't discussing their position, then my side was justified in changing the article to our version. Especially if I only did it once.

And I'm not abusing the unblock templates. All my requests for unblocks have been totally legitimate. The fact that they get denied doesn't mean I'm abusing the block/unblock process. It means that the admins are.

And as I've said several times now, these aren't personal attacks. They're attacks on the substance of the issues. If the so called "edit war" is about how to apply the Use Common Sense rule, then saying that the other side has no common sense applies to the substance of the issue. If they're following the letter of the rules rather than the spirit, which is what bureaucrats do, then saying that the other side are bureaucrats applies to the substance of the issue. I'm not breaking Misplaced Pages's policy on civility. Although you are. It says, and I quote again, "to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks." - Shaheenjim (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

There are very few situations in which it is considered acceptable for an editor to see an edit war and get involved in it by reverting an edit. For example, it is always considered acceptable to remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious information regarding a living person. There is also a generally accepted understanding that, if one editor is repeatedly changing material against consensus, multiple editors may each revert that edit once or twice- this situation is commonly associated with vandalism or disruptive edits. If you look up the three revert rule you'll see the exceptional circumstances listed.

Unfortunately, your situation isn't one of them. This was a good faith content dispute, i.e. a situation where each "side" was trying to improve Misplaced Pages, and felt that their preferred version constituted an improvement. More than one editor had offered an opinion on each "side", and there was no clear consensus. This is exactly the situation where discussion should take place, and reverting should not.

Regarding your assertion that you have not made personal attacks. Policy clearly states that you should comment on the content, not the contributor. Saying that an editor has no common sense, or is a little kid or petty bureaucrat, falls neatly into the category of remarks made about an editor, not about content. The fact that you repeat the terms and try to apply them to more admins is certainly a bold defence, as it's consistent with a belief that you are quite correct and innocent in your actions, but you might want to consider that ultimately it's the Misplaced Pages community, not you, that has the power to decide what is acceptable and what is not, and that you might just be on the wrong side of the fence in this case. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this dispute should've been handled by discussion, rather than reverting. And as I said, several times now, the other side refused to discuss it and answer my question. They were the ones breaking the rules, not me.

Regarding personal attacks, the content wasn't the issue. The issue was the interpretation of the rules. In that case, there's nothing wrong with attacking someone's interpretation of the rules. It goes to the substance of the dispute. Let me be clear, if I haven't been already. I believe that I was quite correct and innocent in my actions. I don't lack for boldness. If some Misplaced Pages administrators want to block me despite the fact that I'm right, they're free to do that. But it doesn't make me any less right. In this case, the wrong side of the fence is the popular side. It's certainly not the first time. - Shaheenjim (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it is theoretically possible that you might be mistaken, and that calling someone a petty bureacrat or a little kid might actually be a personal attack after all? If so, what would you consider adequate proof? SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

My edits were clearly in keeping with the spirit of the OR and RS policies, but against the letter of those policies. The dispute was about whether we should follow the spirit of the policies or the letter of the policies. Petty bureaucrats are known for following the letter of a policy, rather than its spirit. Some people disagreed with my edits. Which means they were following the letter of the policies rather than their spirit. Which means they're like petty bureaucrats. It seems to me like that's an attack on the substance of the issue, rather than a personal attack.

If you can find fault with any single sentence in the preceeding paragraph, then that'd be proof that I'm wrong. But you can't.

If someone did a demographic study of the Misplaced Pages administrators and found that a significant percentage of them (say, at least 30%) were over the age of 30, then I suppose that would be proof that I was wrong in my claim that Misplaced Pages is run by little kids. But I don't think that's what the study would find. Plus nobody'd ever do the study anyway. - Shaheenjim (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, there's nothing wrong with the fact that most of the administrators on Misplaced Pages are little kids. It's inevitable. It's a volunteer position, and grown ups don't volunteer for positions like that. My only problem is that the few adults in administrative positions on this site don't do more to keep you kids under control. It's a failure of oversight, not a failure in the hiring process. - Shaheenjim (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm really sorry that I am not communicating more clearly. In relation to the statements that an editor has no common sense, or is a little kid or petty bureaucrat, I am trying to think of a demonstration that you would accept as proof that those statements are considered disruptive and unacceptable on Misplaced Pages. This is important because otherwise you may continue to make these or similar remarks in the future. Blocking is intended to prevent disruption, and one of the ways it is supposed to work is by encouraging the user in question to realise that their behaviour is considered unacceptable and must stop.

That clearly isn't happening here.

Indeed, considering your block history and your attitude to it, your response to being blocked seems to be to tell yourself that you've done nothing wrong and that it is all the fault of other people. This implies that you're going to continue doing whatever you think is right, without regard to community norms or policies. That path leads to further disputes and ultimately to an indefinite block or a ban, and I don't want to see you following it any further.

What I'd like to see is an acceptance on your part that the community has standards that users must respect, in order that we may collaborate in a collegial, co-operative editing environment. More importantly, when multiple administrators tell you that your conduct is outside the bounds of what is considered acceptable, you should take that message on board and make an effort to ensure that your conduct isn't disruptive next time you find yourself in a content dispute.

For what it's worth, I also disagree with your assessment of the content dispute behind these conduct issues. Your position was at odds with both the letter and the spirit of WP:OR and WP:RS policies: you decided, based on information in unreliable sources, that you knew the truth, and that you didn't need any source to verify your desired content. The dispute was not about whether to respect the letter or the spirit of the policies, but about whether verifiability or truth should decide what content would go into the article. Policy is quite clear on that matter. And as I pointed out elsewhere, it is inappropriate to cite WP:IAR in a good-faith content dispute, since both sides obviously feel that their preferred version constitutes an improvement over the other.

One final note. By now, a kittle kid or petty bureaucrat would probably have either prevented you from editing this page, or extended your block (based on a repetition of the behaviour that caused the block). At minimum, they would probably leave you to follow the self-destructive path you've been following. They certainly wouldn't be spending this much time trying to help you understand that, welll... you were wrong, but it's okay to be wrong. A kid probably wouldn't understand that, and you can't explain what you don't understand. Sorry I'm not better at explaining SHEFFIELDSTEEL 18:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

First I want to distinguish between Misplaced Pages's policies, and the average administrator's interpretation of those policies. I have no problem with Misplaced Pages's policies. I'm a fan of using common sense, ignoring rules when they prevent you from making things better, and not overreacting to constructive criticism. Those are Misplaced Pages's policies, and everything I've done has always been in accordance with them.

On the other hand, I am resolutely opposed to the average administrator's interpretation of the policies. I am going to continue doing whatever I think is right, and I fully expect that it will lead to further disputes and ultimately an indefinite block or ban. I'm ok with that. Let me demonstrate something to you. Suppose, hypothetically of course, that you were doing everything right, but you were posting on a site that was run by a bunch of little kids who are petty bureaucrats with no common sense. Suppose that they insisted that if you want to keep posting on the site, you should also stop using common sense. What would you do? Maybe you'd stop using common sense. But if I were you, I'd just do what you thought was right, and if those little kids wanted to ban you from their site, so be it.

As for the spirit of OR and RS, you seem to be implying that they're meant to ensure verifiability. I have no problem with that. The edit I was making was OR, and it didn't have a RS. But it was verifiable. The edit was a result of information gained from watching the relevant shows, and you could easily verify it by watching the shows themselves. I'm not opposed to the requirement of verifiability, rather than truth. And neither was my edit.

And it is not inappropriate to cite IAR in a good-faith content dispute. It may be true that both sides feel that their preferred version constitutes an improvement over the other. But one side is wrong. There is no moral equivalence between right and wrong. Discussion will reveal that, as it revealed that I was right in this dispute, when the other side was unable to answer my questions.

Finally, don't underestimate little kids who are petty bureaucrats. Some of them are quite capable of behaving as you're behaving. - Shaheenjim (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)