Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:23, 12 June 2009

Welcome!

Hello, Pergamino, 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! Steven Walling (talk) 04:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Prem Rawat Probation

Standard notice

Prem Rawat and related articles are under probation (which replaces the earlier 1RR mentioned above). See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat. Please seek consensus on the article talk page before making contentious edits.   Will Beback  talk  16:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Did I make "contentious edits"? If so, I would apologize if you can clarify for me what was the contention. Also, What is IRR? Pergamino (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You can forget about the 1RR - it's left over from postings to others talk pages. This notification of probation lets you know that it covers all editors, including you. The text of the probation is this:

• Prem Rawat and related articles, including their talk pages, are subject to article probation. Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks and incivility.

I'm not saying that you've engaged in any of those behaviors - I'm just warning you not to.   Will Beback  talk  16:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Copying straight from other works is plagiarism. Please be more careful in the future.   Will Beback  talk  16:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you are exaggerating. In any case, I'll paraphrase that sentence a bit more. Pergamino (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. Copying material while only changing a few words is plagiarism, even with a citation. Material should either be quoted directly, or it should be rewritten entirely. Concepts taken from just one source, especially those that express an opinion, may also need to be attributed. There've been problems of this type with the article before, so please be more careful in the future. This is a new account, so I assume you're unfamiliar with how to edit Misplaced Pages. Until you're more experienced I suggest that you take a less aggressive approach to editing articles under probation.   Will Beback  talk  17:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You are either exaggerating or ill informed; probably the latter. You should learn more about Plagiarism before using that on me: "It is important to reiterate that plagiarism is not the mere copying of text, but the presentation of another's ideas as one's own, regardless of the specific words or constructs used to express that idea." http://en.wikipedia.org/Plagiarism#Online_plagiarism Pergamino (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

How is that different from what I said? Copying text from another source without indicating the coipying is plagiarism. Changing a few words doesn't prevent it from being plagiarism. Please don't do it again. Furthermore, you changed a key part of the assertion, from "he claims to" to "he is said to", whicin implies someone else makes that assertion.   Will Beback  talk  19:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you undo your revert. Otherwise I think that this should be brought to the attention of the ArbCom so that this account can be included in pending remedies in the current arbitration. This behavior is precisely the sort of editing that caused the case to begin with. It is disruptive and counter to the existing probation of which I've already informed you   Will Beback  talk  20:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no clue what you are talking about. This is very off-putting and confusing to me. Pergamino (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It's intended to be "off-putting". You're charging into a contentious topic covered by article probation from a past arbitration, and in the middle of a current arbitration case, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2. Edit-warring in these circumstances is highly inappropriate. If you don't know your way around Misplaced Pages policies and practices then I strongly suggest you find another topic to work on. If you wish to continue on this topic then current and future remedies will apply to you.   Will Beback  talk  20:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, man. You come across as very off-putting, very aggressive, and not very welcoming. Pergamino (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

For more information on plagiarism, and why it's not appropriate, see Let's get serious about plagiarism.   Will Beback  talk  17:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Phaistos Disc

Did you read the talk page before your edits last night? I've reverted them, if you'd read the talk page you would have known why, but I've added some more comments/suggestions. If something has a recent fact tag, it's normally a good idea to leave it. There are exceptions of course. You should also always provide edit summaries.

On another issue, I think Willbeback is trying to be helpful, read WP:AGF. You surely don't want to end up blocked, and his advice will help you avoid that. Dougweller (talk) 08:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pergamino

Thanks for your recent comment at the FAC page for Han Dynasty. I just copyedited the "structural engineering" sub-section to the best of my ability; let me know of any problematic statements that I may have missed. I have assembled a formidable team of copyeditors from the Guild of Copyeditors who are working on the article right now and have done an excellent job thus far. As for the lead section of the article, much has been excised already. What would you suggest taking out as of now? And for that matter, what would you add to it, since you stated that the lead "still misses important information". Thank you. Regards.--Pericles of Athens 21:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd start by breaking down the two large paragraphs, and maybe trimming some text. Then you could add more about the social aspects as well as the science and technology. (Very nice article, BTW)Pergamino (talk)

Hi Pergamino. There's a problem with having so many paragraphs in the lead. Misplaced Pages:Lead section states that the introductory text should be no more than four paragraphs. The lead cannot have five as it does now. Since you want more info about Society/Culture/Economics/Government/Science and Tech in the lead, some of the info summarizing the History section in the lead has to go. The political and military history dominates the lead section at the moment.--Pericles of Athens 18:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Is that set in stone? In some cases you may need more than four paragraphs to summarize a complex and long article such as this. Pergamino (talk)

I'm afraid so. I would not want other editors objecting to the article if it violates Misplaced Pages:Lead section. I just shortened the info in the lead summarizing the History section. I am also willing to add one more sentence to the final pargagraph about a Society/Government/Economics/Science-and-Tech point found in the article. Any suggestions on what you think is an extremely important point missing in the lead?--Pericles of Athens 19:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting the article! I suspect that you still have ideas about improving the lead, but for now I am glad that you find it sufficient. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens 23:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• It is a very nice article, comprehensive and well written. Kudos. Pergamino (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

FAC

I've left a question for you at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Millennium '73/archive2. See this. The favor of a reply would be appreciated.   Will Beback  talk  06:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. The recent edit you made to the page Georgia Guidestones has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Riotrocket8676 02:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I am too tired to be doing this. I have no idea what i was thinking. Sorry. --Riotrocket8676 02:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2

Despite my earlier notifications that articles related to Prem Rawat were already under probation from an earlier ArbCom case, and that a second ArbCom case was underway, you may not be aware that those articles are under editing restrictions. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2#remedies. Please act accordingly.   Will Beback  talk  21:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• I see. OK. Pergamino (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit request

Hi there. Could you take a look at the FAC Ralph Bakshi and help improve the prose? Thanks. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC))

• OK Pergamino (talk)

What's wrong with the prose? Pergamino (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea myself. I'm just going by what other editors have said. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC))

Guns, Germs and Steel

I'd be grateful if you could give your opinion at Talk:Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel#Reception_.2F_Criticism. Bigger digger (talk) 10:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

AE thread

I've started an AE (arbitration enforcement) thread on recent editing at Teachings of Prem Rawat. Please see WP:AE. Thanks. JN466 13:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

I have also preemptively requested community review of the matter at WP:ANI#Prem Rawat enforcement action.  Sandstein  16:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I may well deserve it for not being careful. Now, please note that the other user Will Beback is claiming that he was not warned. Well, he was profusely warned in the discussion page, one instance of which is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Teachings_of_Prem_Rawat&diff=prev&oldid=292312823 Pergamino (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• FYI: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Prem Rawat 2.   Will Beback  talk  20:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

NWO

Unbelievable. Batvette (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

What's the problem with that person? Is it not obvious that an opinion can't be made into a fact, just because he believes it is? Pergamino (talk) 04:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen such intellectual dishonesty and arrogance by an established user of wiki. Part of me realizes there are a lot of ****ty people on the planet that you're just better off walking away from rather than get messy wrestling around with. The pettier side of me refuses to just walk away because I find it repulsive history is often written by people like that. I've half a mind to go visit a few of the 9/11, conspiracy and paranormal boards, sign up and invite anyone with a wiki account to come have a whack at the would be featured article. In a painful way it WOULD see a more balanced viewpoint being expressed. Domhoff's logic BTW is just silly. He implied if capitalists undertook efforts toward the end goal of a one world government, these efforts would be contradictory, or OTHER, than capitalism., thus disproving the possibility! Or that since a dictatorship did not occur by the end of the Bush administration, that meant he didn't take incremental steps toward it. Domhoff is a person, and people can be wrong. Domhoff's opinion should be a minor footnote and it should contain comments on the fallacious logic contained within. Batvette (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

Here's the text of the tag you removed:

• The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

There is no quesiton that the neutrality of the article has been disputed. There is a discussion on the talk page. The tag specifically says to not remove it until the dispute is resolved. The dispute has not been resolved. It was inappropriate for you to have removed it.   Will Beback  talk  06:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Many apologies, I forgot.

* {{cite book |author=Reynolds, Wayne; Wagner, Paul A. |title=Pictish Warrior Ad 297-841 (Warrior) |publisher=Osprey Publishing (UK) |year=2002 |pages= |isbn=1-84176-346-2}}
* {{cite book |author=Craughwell, Thomas J. |title=How the Barbarian Invasions Shaped the Modern World: The Vikings, Vandals, Huns, Mongols, Goths, and Tartars who Razed the Old World and Formed the New |publisher=Fair Winds Press |year=2008 |pages= |isbn=1-59233-303-6}}
* {{cite book |author=Snyder, Christopher A. |title=The Britons |publisher=Blackwell Publishing |year=2003 |isbn=0-631-22260-X }}

Dougweller (talk) 04:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Pergamino (talk) 05:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indef as a sock of Jossi. Onwiki evidence was confirmed by CU. Contact arbcom if you have questions. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)