Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:52, 17 January 2010

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Quick thought to throw in your direction

I don't think that we'll guickly reach an agreement about the overall article (I agree with you that present discussion is largely political in nature, but think that the article should highlight the scientific background first). But I have a thought. Although the current global warming article highlights the science up front, it also has significant sections that focus on the social aspect:

• Attributed and expected effects: Economic
• Responses to global warming
• Debate and skepticism

Do you have any suggestions about how these more social sections of the article could be reworked or improved? Awickert (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be slow, I've been suffering from a head cold. well, if you want to focus on just those sections, I'd want to turn them around in a big way. for instance, the first line of the Debate and Skepticism section is entirely inaccurate, since - in fact - it was increased conservative resistance to environmental activism that prompted both the surge in research on global warming (by liberal elements who were trying to find a scientific basis for their political position) and a surge in political debates over the research (by powerful industries that wanted to defuse environmental legislation before it started to impact on profit margins). that kind of critique would run through all of those sections. I could go and start some editing in that direction - do you think I should bring it up on the talk page first, or just jump in boldly? --Ludwigs2 05:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting back to you either: I've had a head-cold too. I'd bring it up on talk first, which will (a) solicit feedback for improvements, (b) alert the regulars to your efforts, and (c) give you a chance to write out some of your ideas before implementing them. Because of the nature of the article, sandboxing will be key for any proposed large change. Awickert (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Now, Ludwigs2, you should keep working the Discussion, but work out in full detail how you would change the parts you have the time and wherewithal for, and then seek comment. Don't try to take over the whole article. Leave anything that's already just fine in place as far as that can be rationalized. Don't get bogged down by obstructionists either.Julzes (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks, I'll do my best. it's not the first contentious article I've worked on, but I'm learning better techniques all the time, so your advice is helpful. --Ludwigs2 08:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

On my contributions (need a neutral opinion)

Happy New Year Ludwig! I have recently find out that an administrator (SJ) has tagged some of my contributions as with "disputable content". As it is custom, and this is a decent and noble community, I replied politely to him explaining my point, and you can check it here talk:Sj under headline "Contributions". I was surprised, but took in good faith, and I'm wondering whether you can check it out and tell me what can be done, or what can I do (if something is truly wrong), to improve. I've been investigating some Italian families of some importance, and had been preparing some other articles, but I'm not sure if I should continue. Will appreciate all your help (and your third party neutral point of view). Regards. AcademieIT (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to provide me with a specific edit or set of edits that you are having a problem with - I don't have time to search through your contribution history to figure out where the dispute is. just at a glance, though, you seem to mark all of your edits as minor edits, and that is very bad form. the only time I mark an edit as minor is when it's truly insignificant (correcting spelling, adding dropped words, etc). I'll also note that very long talk page posts are likely to be ignored (I inly skimmed the one you linked to here). it pays to keep things short and sweet.

also, when newish editors have disputes with admins, 99.9% of the time the problem lies with the newish editor. don't get you're hopes up that I'll be solidly in your corner. --Ludwigs2 04:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to be on my side, as it has no point, and if you understood it that way I apologize. To make it short: administrator tagged my contributions with "The verifiability of all or part of this article is disputed." His charges are these (in Talk pages):

• There is no record of this line in my local small library (on vacation), and almost none other than this article online. Could be hearsay; related to other articles with no solid sources. +sj+ 08:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
• The sources should be checked for notability and accuracy. It is interesting that there is so little independent record of this prince online. --+sj+ 08:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

His claims are based on the supposed fact that there is no sufficient internet data about the topics. Anyway, he missed to check Google Books.

What you tell me about minor editing you're totally right. As this is a community of decent, helpful people, I am asking you what to do? If you don't have time, it's ok. Regards. AcademieIT (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

in order for me to look at what happened here, you need to provide me with a link to the page in question, or better a link to the particular talk page section where these comments were made (or if you want to get super-sophisticated, give wp:diffs of the page in question. read this link: Simple diff and link guide --Ludwigs2 17:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

===> Thanks, Ludwigs2. I appreciate your help. All I want is to see if things can be fixed or not, and I wanted your experienced opinion. That's all. I'm not disputing whether the administrator is right or wrong, just want to know what can be done to save the entries (as I put time writing and editing it all, and I have some other articles on other topics to upload but I have to be sure of what I'm doing and how I'm doing it). The last thing I want is to start a feud.

The talk pages of the 2 entries in question are and . As there are claims that there are "almost no record of the family online", I can provide you with a few useful links, yes, mainly in Italian, but there's a very interesting recollection on Google Books (that's indisputable evidence), that you can see here 3, which is just a quick search, and here more 4. The books on which I based my research for encyclopaedic purposes you can check at Barnes & Noble, for example, cited at each entry.

Now, how can I fix whatever there is wrong, as it is claimed? Thanks so much. AcademieIT (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

First, these topics are way outside my area of knowledge, so I have no idea whether the edits you made are good edits of bad edits. they seem perfectly acceptable to me (I don't see any of the things I would normally assume were problematic edits), but I really can't judge.

That being said, I think this is just part of the normal editing process. you made some edits, SJ (for whatever reason) thought they were worrying and reverted them, now what you need to do is to go to the talk page on the articles and start defending your edits. say things like "SJ: you reverted these edits I made, but I have this source (list the source) that shows this edit was accurate and that source (list source) that shows that edit was accurate. be very specific, connect a few of your edits with reliable sources so that SJ can see you're not just fooling around. no need to go overboard all at once, just outline a handful of sources/edits and ask him what he thinks about them. Most likely, once he sees that you're not just editing randomly, he'll undo all or part of his reverts so that you don't have to re-enter them.

just think of this as a 'proofing' stage - SJ probably saw relatively stable, relatively minor articles getting a lot of attention and reverted just on suspicion (I might do the same in his shoes). now you just have to prove to him that you're a serious editor using reliable sources, and I'm sure he will be happy to put your changes back in and let you get back to work. --Ludwigs2 04:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

P.s. and stop marking your edits as minor! --Ludwigs2 04:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ludwigs! Learnt my lesson about those minor edits. Now all changes will be reflected on their edit summary. Will follow your suggestions and hope things can be improved for the best in the interest of all. Regards.AcademieIT (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Re your report to WP:ANI

I have responded to your amusing report at the noticeboard WP:ANI. PYRRHON  talk   23:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks. now if you could only respond to me normally on the article we might get somewhere. --Ludwigs2 23:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC

I don't know what to do better with http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ALGBT_parenting&action=historysubmit&diff=335906493&oldid=335905917 Will you help me with wording, please? Enhlish is not my first language and I thought I provided links to illustrate what the dispute is. --Destinero (talk) 08:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the dispute is. can you tell me? --Ludwigs2 19:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The dispute is about using claims not supported by sources which were repeatedly added by 72.224.119.207 (talk). Explanation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:LGBT_parenting&diff=335828355&oldid=335820935 --Destinero (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

well, if that's the issue, an RfC is not really needed - the material is un-(or at least badly)-sourced, so it can be removed on those grounds without need for a lot of outside attention. RfC's are usually for more difficult conflicts. --Ludwigs2 20:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

3O Award

		The Third Opinion Award
		For making dramatic improvements to the {{3O}} template and corresponding procedures on the Third Opinion project page. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

my thankyou 2 you

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		You've gone that extra mile for my project, and i thankyou with this barnstar

Wiki ian 11:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice to see you around

Hey there, we have talked in awhile so I thought I'd drop by and just say hello. I was some what surprised to see you at the wiki alert but pleased to see you active. At least I thought you were on a long break from here, I could be wrong. Anyways, nice to see you around, hope you are doing well. Take care, --CrohnieGal 12:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, I just saw your comment there, thanks I needed a smile after reading all of that. It's a mess, so some humor was very much welcomed. Take care and keep up the light humor, it's good for the soul, I think. :) --CrohnieGal 12:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

yeah, I was there a bit earlier in the week with an editor who had decided I needed a good pummeling, so I was watching the page and thought I'd chip in on that one - real mess. I was on wikibreak for about 6 months, but now I'm back, and much more chipper for the respite. plus, I seem to have developed a bit of a british thing, but maybe that's because I watched a whole lot of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes a couple of days ago.

it's nice to see you too! --Ludwigs2 18:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Dignity

As a neutral observer, it seems that although pyrron is not acting by concensus, he does not plan on doing so. Let it happen, and report it, any edits you revert will be re-reverted, leading to an edit war and the locking of Dignity. NativeForeigner /_Contribs 00:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

well, dignity is currently locked, which (while not a good thing) might at least force some conversation on the talk page. I'm waiting to see if Pyrrhon has anything to say onthe matter, but so far he's been silent. --Ludwigs2 01:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Just stumbled across this on WP:ANI. I've got to say, situations like this, and a general tolerance of behavior against consensus, are a massive disincentive to contribute to Misplaced Pages. I've been banned a couple of times in the past because I got so frustrated I ended up violating 3RR. In each case my edits were to restore consensus, and eventually (after multiple levels of dispute resolution and noticeboard inquiries) that version prevailed. It's ridiculous that there's little correlation between who's wrong, who's right, and who gets blocked. Sigh.

I'm disappointed with the incredibly weak response from admins; it seems like a postponement of another skirmish until protection ends, and a roadblock to any progress on the article in the meantime. But that's Misplaced Pages for you. Rvcx (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

eh, it's no real worry. Admins are slow to take action unless they feel there's a pressing need, and I have a bit of a pugnacious reputation so circumspection is probably called for. What will happen over time is that they will watch and ratchet things up as needed. If Pyrrhon keeps up his current mode of interaction he'll get progressively more sanctions, and if he settles down and starts to edit cooperatively everything will go back to normal. Either is good with me.

I keep meaning to make a list of the various editing strategies on wikipedia, just for educational purposes, with estimates of their effectiveness, moral turpitude, and frequency of use, along with a list of strategies for overcoming the more noxious ones, but I'm not sure I want to write out (what would assuredly be used as) a blueprint for trying to dominate pages. suffice it to say there are at least six major editing strategies that I've observed, only one of which is really consonant with consensus decision-making. Misplaced Pages... gotta love it for what it is, because if you don't you'll go stark raving mad. --Ludwigs2 01:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Intermodal freight transport

the TEU link on the infobox leads to a Disambiguation page. i tried fixing the template myself by linking it to Twenty-foot equivalent unit without success, can you help me? it should still say TEU on the infobox but direct you straight to the Twenty-foot equivalent unit page. Wiki ian 02:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

your fix worked, looks like to me. sometimes when you update templates there's a short delay while the system refreshes the cache. --Ludwigs2 02:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

DR on goatse

Do you want to file the request with the Cabal or should I? Throwaway85 (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

sorry, I've had my mind on other things, a bit. either way. if you don't do it, I'll get around to it tomorrow. --Ludwigs2 05:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. I have a little bit of spare time coming up, so I'll compose something. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

On Taijitu

Gun Powder Ma has a history of using sources liberally. I myself found him misusing a string of sources (he used a couple sources that I happened to have read). He's also tenacious when it comes to making the article what he wants. My advice is to give it up. Because from my experience, he won't. It's best to just forget him and work on something else.

Cheers (talk) 3:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I know - this is not the first encounter I've had with him/her. unfortunately, I'm a stickler about misrepresentations, and am just as (to use your polite word) tenacious as he is when it comes down to it. it will work out. thanks for the notice, though. really, I may eventually need to start an RfCU on him. I don't mind the tenaciousness so much, but the poor sourcing and pov-pushing has got to get tempered somehow. --Ludwigs2 22:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Grinding an axe, the both of you? A bit pathetic to talk behind one's back, and hardly in the spirit of Misplaced Pages... I am always providing references for my edits, and I am actually very gentle in my dealings with sensible minds. :-) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

GPM, I just answered his question. I know you have my page on your watchlist (since you've posted here before), so this hardly counts as 'behind your back'. in fact, this is the best place for this kind of discussion, outside of article space.

to my mind you border on tendentious editing: you use questionable sources, push minor POVs, and do both with an unnecessary amount of aggression and hostility. I don't have any doubts that I can (under policy) revise taijitu to reduce the prominence of European symbolism - most of the cards are on my side of the table in this debate - what frustrates me is the likelihood that you're going to force me through the process of wikiquette, RfC, ANI, and whatever else is needed to get you to back down and accept a reduced section. If you were editing for the benefit of the encyclopedia, you'd realize how weak your case really is and you'd work towards a compromise; since you don't, I can only believe that you've got some other goal in mind than encyclopedic writing. This is not competition unless you make it one, and I am annoyed by the fact that you consistently do make it one.

You are not going to win this debate - seriously, you're not, on pure policy grounds. the only real question is how much effort you are going to force me to go through to make you realize that you're not going to win. My advice to you is to start editing cooperatively so that we can finish this and get on with other things. --Ludwigs2 00:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

For your information, Gun Powder Ma, I've never used any negative words on you ('tenacious' and 'liberal' is hardly an insult), but merely told Ludwigs that it's better to work on something else. If you want examples were I accused you of anything, you can find it in our arguments in the Turtle Ship article. Thus I hardly consider this as talking behind your back. I also noticed a variety of other articles which you misused references (or straight out lied about them) in which I never bothered to mention. But with all that added on, I went only so far as to accuse you as being "immoral", nothing more. You on the other hand called me "pathetic" just now. Other users also caught on to your misuse of sources as well, and in turn called you far worse things than "tenacious" as I did. Who are you trying to fool? Surely by now you should know that I read some of the "references" which you claimed to have read.

But now that I know you're here, I believe that I can stop being so careful with my words and talk a little more about you, yes? From our past history, I've seen that you have a pattern of trying to play down anything Far Eastern, which eventually spilt into every civilization except European ones. Sometimes I actually agree with you at parts, but the "how" you do it simply isn't justifiable. Each time I point this out, you still refuse to compromise even though I have every right to delete everything you put in it. If anyone has the right to reject compromise it's me and others like me. This behavior is getting worse and worse and is bordering on fanatical. Last time I checked providing references that does not claim what you paint really isn't "the spirit of Misplaced Pages". Gnip (talk) 1:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

actually, having seen the interaction if GunPowderMa an Teeninvestor (talk · contribs), I appreciate the context a bit more. as far as I can tell, the two of them are opposite sides in some backwater dispute over the superiority of the Han Dynasty and Roman Empire, where each of them is trying to gain whatever advantage they can for their favorite bloodthirsty-yet-improtant political entity. I can guess that this is a semi-scholarly dispute (teeninvestor seems inordinately displeased by the way that western scholarship has tended to ignore the Han Dynasty, and GPM keeps trying to magnify the importance of the Romans - I can only imagine that his vaguely asian-referent username is an oblique reference to that). but I wish you guys would just Get Over It and restrict yourself to well-documented scholarly sources. as I keep telling people on wikipedia (god, how many times I've said this in different contexts...) Science Always Gets the Last Word. Let the science speak; don't try to speak for the science. whatever is right will come out in due time without wikipedia's aid or assistance, so if you really want to make a difference on the topic, get a degree and write monographs of your own so that I (and other tertiary source losers such as myself) can happily and faithfully report your work as it is accepted by your discipline.

sorry if that rambles a bit: scotch runs a distant second in my preferred vices, but it is easier to get at need. --Ludwigs2 07:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that Rome Han comparison article was quite troublesome, but I left my hand out of that mess. I realized there was a fight over it, but by the time I saw it the entire thing was argued so extensively that only the people who started it could possibly know what's going on. Thus I didn't involve myself. I did involve myself individually with Teeninvestor, quite recently in fact(There are many places where I disagree with Teeninvestor, but unlike Gun Powder Ma I can't verify much of his sources. However, there are numerous times where my sources and those of Teeninvestor's clash). I'm hoping he could be more compromising, or at least lay off calling non-Han people barbarians :p

And from a brilliant historian who in my opinion is one step above Herodotus:

"To hear this history rehearsed, for that there be inserted in it no fables, shall be perhaps not delightful. But he that desires to look into the truth of things done, and which (according to the condition of humanity) may be done again, or at least their like, shall find enough herein to make him think it profitable. And it is compiled rather for an everlasting possession than to be rehearsed for a prize." (from Thucydides)

To me, cross comparing empires do easily lead to superiority egotists, which undoubtly denies oneself the full flavor of history. There is no point only eating from one dish when there's many more out there. One way to study history is by using SiMaQian's approach. Instead of studying the past in a timeline, he organized his writings into bibliographies. Thus, history becomes much more humanistic, almost like a story.

Gnip (talk) 2:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't tell anyone I said this ...

... but just a quick salute for your gracious responses in the context of the eternal kiss-my-ass-sideways incommensurability of rhetoricians vs philosophers (round 4678). LoL Cheers. Proofreader77 01:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hah! you might want to wait on that till you see me lose my temper over something. hoooooboyohboy... --Ludwigs2 02:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

And especially don't tell them this ...

re you mentioned it's really only about 100 people

Hi, again. :-) Coinsider the following reply-rant by an imaginary debater replying to you:

Excuse my long absence (blocked for 3 days LoL Note: a follow up to getting blocked for giving $1,000 to Misplaced Pages, not kidding, anyway), the 100 number is about right.

• 1,000 who voted in Arbcom,
• 500 usual suspects which Jimbo considers "the community,"
• but only about 100 of us who are here all the damn time mucking about.

FALACY: The 100 are here "to make an encyclopedia."

NO: The 100 are here to create an environment in which hundreds of thousands of people can make an encyclopedia. Those who run around saying "we're here to make an encyclopedia" are clueless, and history will wash them away, or Misplaced Pages will fade into dust. (Perhaps you see why I get blocked. LoL)

PS "AGF" is bullshit — Hitler meant well. More useful is Presume Common Sense .

The 100 number I assume you agree with, since you said that, too. What about "the big idea"? How would you response (just roughly/briefly etc, when/if you have time) Proofreader77 10:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Global warming

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Global warming, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. --TS 13:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)