Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:28, 15 July 2009

Template:Archive box collapsible

Thanks

Thanks for the help on the deletion discussion for Mass rape in the Bosnian War. Without your experience that would have been clearly lost. I have done a lot of work on improving the article. Sorry there was no time to discuss the changes I think I just had to get on and do it and make it look more like a wikipedia article. Any help welcome, as I don't want to be editing this article for ever (too depressing). I was looking around at some of the additions made by the sock puppets and they mostly seemed good well sourced genuine attempts to add info. Oh well kill the evil sock puppets. Crazy thing fighting anti-sock puppet sentiment, copyvio, BLP, NPOV, POV fork and 'article created by banned user' all in one go. Polargeo (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Chronological order

Thanks for your comment about my edit to Sarah Palin; that certainly hadn't been obvious to me. Do you really think, though that that's apparent to most readers? Most articles use chronological order within topic areas, but don't split up topics just for the sake of chronology. --Rich Janis (talk) 07:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion on which way it should be arranged; I was just pointing out the fact that there was an existing arrangement. Anarchangel (talk) 08:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What? NPOV? What a concept! Thanks also for the exercise to which you motivated me, and indirectly for my discovering your "Factchecker" list & Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. --Rich Janis (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad to be of help. I think I will put it here too. Note that there's no rule concerning -having- a point of view. NPOV prohibits inserting that PoV into article content. Anarchangel (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage discussion

Thanks for doing some serious work on same-sex marriage. Certainly, there is work to be done, and it's good to have someone who wants to roll up their metaphorical sleeves and do it. However, your recent statements on the talk page risk coming across as WP:ownership of the article, particularly when you make statements of who will be considered toward WP:consensus. Consensus is achieved, of course, through consensus. I'd suggest clarifying your statement in that regard. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I could see that when I was writing it, but:
Quite honestly, I don't know how else to deal with the folks (specific examples I should only provide upon request) who abuse the consensus process to just put up speedbump after speedbump. Such people not only do not contribute to consensus, but their every action works against it. If I personally consider them not part of consensus, as they aren't following consensus procedure, and more, is that against WP:consensus?
I believe you are right that it gives a wrong impression. I just don't know how else to say it.
(after a few minute's reflection) I tried on one page, for three months, and failed, to get past people who only ever put up objections, without citation and almost always without reasoning, repeating ad nauseum, etc. What I finally got to in the end was to make a list of assertions that hadn't been answered, points that had been conceded or refuted, etc. Unfortunately that was just at the time when some admins came to shut the whole discussion down, and they archived the list. I have never tried it on another article, however. Perhaps it is time to see if that would work, again.
I agree with your statement. I will do as you have advised. Anarchangel (talk) 08:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Done. Anarchangel (talk) 03:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Your frustration is certainly understood. This just seems one of those cases where telling the perpetrators not to do that isn't going to change their problematic actions, and makes it easier to portray you as the unreasonable one. (It's kind of like how the first step in trying to cure a bigot is making sure you don't tell him he's a bigot; it may be true, but it ends the conversation.) So thank you for taking care of that. Nat Gertler (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Summary

here made me laugh. I've done far worse, I assure you. Good luck on the search for smoothly flowing prose! KillerChihuahuaAdvice 20:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

re:Apology, but my concerns remain

Indeed I believe it was a thorough discussion, and I don't believe the dispute would have been resolved without more opinion, which is why I took the article to AfD. Okay, so you promised to report me to ANI; why have you not done that yet? I never withdrew the nomination. You're in no position to gauge the length of the discussion, as you did not even participate, and I believed the discussion length was adequate before decided more opinion was needed. And what is this nonsense about needing consensus for an AfD? What horrible misunderstanding of the entire process. AfD's generate consensus, one does not need consensus to start an AfD. In any case, I do not wish to argue with your belligerence. I have no reason to believe you have learned from your mistakes; I hope we will not cross paths again. Artichoker 01:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)