Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:39, 18 March 2006

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting --~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

• /Archive 1: October 2005 – January 2006
• /Archive 2: January 2006 - February 2006
• /Archive 3: February 2006 - March 2006

RFC on Dzonatas

Just to let you know that this RFC was not certified by two users within 48 hours of being listed, so it has been deleted. Stifle 02:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

common idiomz and redlinkz

picking up from this exchange
I feel like I should get to know you better. I want to understand what drives you. I think we come from radically different cultural spaces. course you know me only as a guy who created some redlinkz to something that prob won't exist anytime soon. I'm a whole user tho. not that different from tons of otherz. I check out stuff around 'pedia that interests me. I guess maybe I should understand better your idea of what's good faith and what's not. why are you pretty sure that my wikifying cool head is not GoodFaith? there are a million red links out there. some of them point to articles that have a decent chance of being written in a decent amount of time. some, I'm sure, point to your mom. anyway, there are a million, so why me & my edits?

I agree it's unlikely that an article would be written about it. and I am thinking pretty long term into the future. Like a redirect. do you see problems sometimes here and there about wikipedia and ever say "fuck it" and not fix it? skizzno 09:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

what's up? got me pegged for a troublemaker/keepin' me on ignore? perhapz you could direct me elsewhere for the more philosophical questions. I'm guessing you'r more into enforcement, not so much on the pontificating policy formulation/ your own personal ideas on making your own ideal WikiCommunity? I don't mean to make a bigThing out of a smallThing, but I'm a big fan of dialectic#hegelian dialectic and a sort of "start-with-an-example and extrapolate outward" method of exploring issues. this includes getting to know the other person's POV. so, yeah. hope to hear from ya to the extent that you'r interested at all. in the spirit of peace, skizzno 23:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not deliberately ignoring you. I just don't see that this constitutes the basis for a prolonged discussion. I'd rather create and edit articles than engage in dialectic. Regards, Durova 03:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article spangenhelm, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Obli (Talk) 17:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Agapetos Arbitration

There are minor spelling errors in your evidence section "RfC on Jonathan Sarfati." You have User:Felonious_Monk which should be User:FeloniousMonk. Also, "chargres" which I think should be "charges." JoshuaZ 19:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Dear Durova:

You have the honor of being the 14th person to respond to my survey!

Thank you for your participation. Your responses to the survey are much appreciated!

The final essay should be posted on my user page no later than March 27. Stay tuned!!!

Shuo Xiang 01:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sweden Democrats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Article

You seem like a reasonable person, and you have experience working in the edit conflict regarding the equally controversial Front National (France). So I ask you to interject your opinions regarding the edit conflict in the Sweden Democrats article, which is largely modelled after the FN article.

Basically, a member of the Sweden Democrats, SweHomer (talk · contribs), says that the article is extrememly biased against the party. He says that the sources are part of a media conspiracy, that the article slanders the SD, and that the editors opposing him are working for the anti-racist magazine Expo. He also says the SD's view is not fairly represented. He has edited only the "Response to the Controversy" section, as of now.

I and Liftarn respond by telling him that all we did was provide quotes from the party and include a chronological timetable of notable events within the party. This way, we hope that readers can draw their own conclusions. We used the Misplaced Pages:Guidelines_for_controversial_articles as the justification for our edits. We believe that his edits are blatantly not NPOV. We deny his ad hominem attacks.

Your opinion would be appreciated, and pretty soon we may be conducting a straw poll.

WGee 21:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm flattered that you sought me out and I'll see what I can do. Regards, Durova 00:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. The dispute is largely resolved now, I think. SweHomer says he has quit the edit conflict because he thinks everyone involved is a "leftist" out to demonize the SD. I basically agree with your suggestions, and it's nice to have a cool head in the debate to give some meaningful advice. WGee 01:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd give it a few days before calling the situation resolved. Many people post "I quit" statements to Internet sites without really quitting. Either way, there was at least a kernel of truth to some of this user's protests about POV. I definitely recommend removing "racist" from the introduction. You might expand the defense section by mining some of this contributor's citations and translating key parts into English. Best wishes, Durova 01:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Dated Historical Sources

Regarding your comments about older online historical soures, I'm curious as to how you "rank" sources because of this? Do more modern works tend to be taken over older when there is a conflict? How do you view them stacking up with regards to "primary sources"? I'm just asking your personal opinions and actions in this regards. - Vedexent 22:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a complex question. The most cogent answer is, "It depends." An older historical analysis isn't necessarily better or worse than a newer one. There might be a difference in access to primary sources, either because those sources were destroyed or rediscovered. More recent historians have the advantage of drawing upon a larger body of previous analysis. Certain older historians have the advantage of having earned the respect of subsequent generations. When I worked on bringing Joan of Arc up to FA I used both, but tended to lean toward recent scholars. Durova 22:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Joan of Arc in art

Sure, I would be willing to help, to the extent that I can, on attempting to bring this article to FA status. I'm not sure what precisely needs to be done, though. Perhaps you could enlighten me. BTW, I did put in an external link to the Joan of Arc statue in Portland, OR. I will be travelling to Portland this summer for the Portland Highland Games and plan on seeking it out in order to photograph it. It would be nice to have a CCPL image of that statue. JFPerry 23:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll think about the article name. Meanwhile, I found this on a "Save Outdoor Sculpture" web site:

Oregon Portland - Joan of Arc - The legend of Joan of Arc is alive and well in Portland, Oregon. Located in the historic neighborhood of Laurelhurst, Joan of Arc sits atop her horse about to ride into the Battle of Orleans, 1420. This piece (1924) is one of eight castings made from the original plaster mold commissioned in 1874 by Emperor Napoleon III. The original is located in the Place des Pyramides, Paris, France. French-born Emmanuel Fremiet is internationally recognized for his sculptures, often of animals, in the United States, France, Australia, and Africa. The Regional Arts and Culture Council, steward of the city’s public art collection, is organizing the conservation.

I tried to correct the typo, but apparently the "edit this page" button at the top of their web page was not working. BTW, my Misplaced Pages email is now enabled in case of need for lengthier notes. JFPerry 02:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Sweden Democrats/Response section.

Hello Durova : ) Thanks you for your input in the Sweden Democrats article. I agree that the opening paragraph is too strongly worded and your other comments. About 3 days ago, I started working with the three editors that are fussing ovet this article. WGee had left a message on WP:AN/I requesting SweHomer be banned. I checked it out and found all three editors were being a little rude, a whole lot stubborn, and were reverting each other. Mel Etitis responded the next day to WGee 3RR report on SweHomer. Both of us felt the editors need to back off editing the article until consensus is reached. I started a subpage to work on the text. If you would make your comments there maybe they will use it. I want to keep the discussion in one place and on topic. All three of them keep getting off topic and accusing the other. (Like WGee's original message to you with accusations about SweHomer : ). They are pretty reasonable people, so I am hopeful we can have a good outcome. --FloNight 22:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Can LIFTARN and WGEE please recpect the advice from FloNight.

Again you are taking turns in reverting. Can you please stop this and restore text to the version FloNight put it in?

"Do not remove or re-insert text without discussion leading to consensus. You have been asked nicely by myself and Mel."

I put this in the "talk" page of everyone, so there can me no further accidents. These to reverts were of course not done on purpose, you both just missed to read what Flonight wrote. SweHomer 12:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually what it looks like to me is that you had removed some external links that the consensus had agreed were relevant, and they were restoring the consensus version. I can't do much about that kind of action on either side. You could request page protection. Durova 15:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Please, be more helpful and nice

This is part of a discussion carried over from Joan of Arc brought to a more appropriate place -- your talk page:

You stated, "An administrator warned you today about WP:POINT." That absolutely explains nothing why you think it is a WP:POINT. It does not help this situation to state it in such a way. JzG's comments, which made the WP:POINT link, do not help the situation either. It is obviously something that could not be said so plain and simple. Its insertion only aggravates the situation. In the theme of WP:POINT, it would be much easier to just state your point rather. As for JzG, it is obvious he is not impartial to everybody, and he admitted to it. JzG hasn't explained anything either, but he has made accusations. Anyways, such topics are very unproductive. How you come off to me is very rude. Perhaps, that is just your style to make your point. You go about and connect me with jhballard -- what for? What is the point? What do you really have to say about that? Again, its unproductive. Why do you like to riddle these talk pages with such junk? It doesn't have anything to do with the article.

Look at this, which you stated:

Also, there's a wise old saying about people who live in glass houses. As User:Dzonatas you began editing this article a month after me so your referral to previous archives constitutes an admission that you are User:Jhballard. I welcome scrutiny about my own actions. Given your recent block history, I'm surprised you raise the subject.

What does glass houses have to do with the article? What is it that your have tried to insinuate? What does it matter if my past account is jhballard? Who cares if I admit to it or not? State your point. Perhaps, after you made fun of my daughter's name, and that I couldn't get you to stop -- that is the whole reason why I switched accounts. You are mean. My daughter is completely innocent to this. However, you and Sw posted personal information to this wikipedia without my permission. That is a violation of policy! I posted the information off-site. I never gave you or anybody permission to create such a scene over my daughters name. Bottom line, my daughter's name should have never been brought up -- period. The only information relavent from the family tree is the descension from the d'Arc. However, you and Sw went further than that -- you went too far.

Your actions against me, even the failed attempt at an RfC above, show that you have a personal motive. Whatever it is... it's not nice. Please, be more helpful and nice. — Dzonatas 16:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Email

Durova, your email is not activated. I need to talk with you. Could you activate it or send me an email so I have it. thanks, --FloNight 16:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)