Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:23, 27 July 2013

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Roscelese. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Federales 20:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Federales (talk • contribs)

LOL Thereandnot (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

She Has a Name

Hi Roscelese,

Thank you for contacting me on this issue. The articles 2012 tour of She Has a Name and Critical response to She Has a Name were split off from the main She Has a Name article in accordance with recommendations made at a featured article candidacy. The good article nomination reviewers have explicitly seen fit to see all three articles stand as separate articles. Current concensus is to maintain three separate articles, so a formal merger discussion would need to take place if you wish to change concensus. I would be grateful if you would notify me if you decide to start such a discussion. I do not believe that the articles should be merged; a merger would either bloat the main article or cut swathes of valid, encyclopedic information. Certainly, there are plenty of sources to support each of the articles; the tour is independently notable, as is the critical response to the play. You state that your concern is about promotion. My intentions in writing the articles are encyclopedic, not promotional, and I would be glad to rephrase any portions of the articles that you believe to be phrased non-neutrally.

Neelix (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

OK - I'll start a discussion on the talk page. My concerns aren't that there is something non-neutral about the language (which you seem to have done a good job of keeping neutral), but rather that the excessive coverage is more suitable for the show's own website rather than for an encyclopedia, which aims to record what will be important in the long term rather than day-to-day details or heaps of local pull quotes. (Compare, for instance, RSC production of A Midsummer Night's Dream (1970)]] - like 2012 tour of She Has a Name, it's an article on a production of a play, but this particular production is immensely important in theatre history and has been discussed in scholarly sources for decades, and moreover the play is one of the great ones in the English repertoire.) Also, re: Category:Theatrical tours, I recommend you look at the category description - "Theatrical shows created especially to go on tour", like Michael Flatley performance events. Not productions that happened to tour, as many do. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I have altered the category description accordingly; there should be a category that recognizes that the 2012 tour of She Has a Name was a tour. I do not believe that the articles about She Has a Name constitute excessive coverage, but I will wait to respond to your comments on the article talk page. Neelix (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted your change to the category description. If you wish to change the scope of a category, using WP:CFD would be a good idea. Same thing as Category:Entertainment events in Canada, which I also see you've added back. That is for events that aren't plays but that need to be categorized somehow (fashion shows, exhibitions, etc.). She Has a Name is already under "Canadian plays", so it is where users looking for theatre in Canada will find it! And then if they are interested in the 2012 tour, they will easily follow the link. :) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Sexual orientation change efforts

Hi, the legal section I added to the article Sexual orientation change efforts is about the legality of the practices: the US state laws that ban them use the same term, though I'm not completely sure what it covers. I will try to add info on other countries if I find good sources on them. The section you added on Ecuador however, appears to be more about a specific incident instead of the legal status. I'd prefer to keep it on the page about LGBT rights in Ecuador itself since it's very a country-specific incident; would that be okay? Regards, SPQRobin (talk) 00:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. There were specific instances of raids, but they resulted from the illegality of the clinics; I don't think the fact of there being events means that it's just an event. If you do know anything more about the legal situation in Ecuador that would be great though. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, but my point is actually that the article should (ideally) have a brief overview on the legal status in various countries, whereas the info on Ecuador is quite detailed/specific (while not even mentioning the legal status). We can't have that for each country, for that we have the LGBT rights articles. But well, as long as we don't have more info yet, I guess it's fine. SPQRobin (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I agree - more information generally would be great. The situation in Ecuador just happened to be one that I knew about because I wrote the article on Carina Vance Mafla, so I added it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

2RR?

Are this and this two reverts within 24 hours? Perhaps not. I just thought I might be able to return the favour you did me, when you drew my attention to a mistake that I made in that field.

I do not intend to undo at any time either of your two edits, the second of which you thought necessary in order to remove some suggestion that you saw as contradicting the cited sources. Esoglou (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the second is a revert, since it didn't undo anything that you had done. It made sense that you rearranged the paragraph for ease of reading - you just unintentionally implied that the rape, and not both the rape and the risk to life, were the legal justification for the abortion, which is at odds with the content of the source. So rather than undoing your edit to put the clause back where it began, I put it in a new place. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Rachel's Vineyard

Please don’t politicize Misplaced Pages by deleting articles that differ from your own feminist world-view. There are people who believe themselves to have been hurt by abortion and it is simply petty to keep them from finding out about where they might get help. Dutchman Schultz (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe I've already linked you to our policies about using Misplaced Pages for promotional purposes, but perhaps you should also read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I’m a frequent contributor to Misplaced Pages. Mostly, I write about type foundries, typographers, Charlie Chan movies, and opera in Chicago. I’ve written about some pretty obscure stuff that way. The Chicago City Opera Company, for instance, only existed for a few years in the 1930’s, while the Trennert Type Foundry is also mighty obscure. I’ve also taken a fancy to a few off beat things, like the Former Cathedral Church of Christ the King, the folkloric aspects of Versehen, and health food advocate Gayelord Hauser, all of which articles I originated. I also like to make sure that bisexuals are represented, but this is a losing battle, because no matter how well you document it, people just want to think that Nancy Kulp and Caesar Romero are gay, and Tyrone Power is straight.

And I take the integrity of Misplaced Pages seriously. When I figured out that Bruce Rauner, a Republican hack, had written his own autobiographical article, I called him out on it. I often purge material from articles on typefaces that is only promotional material for one digital foundry or anther.

Now, of all the articles I have written, only two have been purged. The first was Alfred R. Bosco, a type designer who did the face Romany for A.T.F. — and that was it. He did nothing else, so I guess he was insignificant.

And then there is Rachel's Vineyard. Now, this is a bona fide organization, a non-profit, offering people counseling services at a low cost (sometimes even for free), that is active on three continents. But of course, saying that abortion can be traumatic for some women, or (God forbid!) anyone should feel guilty after such a procedure, just isn’t politically correct — is it?

Has anyone tried to purge Mountain Moving Coffeehouse? That was a for profit feminist coffee house in Chicago. Now, I could name a half-dozen locally owned coffee houses in Chicago that don’t have a Misplaced Pages article, or I could purge Mountain Moving, or I could just say to myself, “This is important to someone,” and leave it alone.

So, try to look past your feminist agenda to see that you are only being small when you say that I am engaged in self-promotion, and snotty when you accuse me of “trying to right great wrongs.” Dutchman Schultz (talk) 01:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

If you find an article on something that's not notable, it is well within your power to nominate it for deletion. You're not even trying to argue, however unsuccessful such an argument is likely to be, that RV is notable - you're simply trying to use Misplaced Pages to promote it to others. This is at odds with the goals of the encyclopedia. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

What do you want, statistics? There are twenty-four Rachel’s Vineyard groups on Facebook, and the main one had 4,523 “likes.” (Ernst Junger, the greatest German writer of the twentieth century, has only 741 followers.) They claim to be the “largest post-abortive healing ministry in the world,” a claim that is probably true, as the mainstream psychoanalytic community refuses to acknowledge that abortion is traumatic. By “not even trying to argue” does that mean that I’m being a nice guy and not some name-calling ass-wipe? We’re talking about an organization that is active on three continents — what more do you want to make them “relevant” to your pro-abort worldview? R.M. Schultz (talk) 04:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Significant coverage in reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

By “reliable” I’m sure you mean “bourgeois.” Is the New York Times bourgeois enough for you? I took me only one Google search to find: “Rachel’s Vineyard + NYT”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/magazine/21abortion.t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I've addressed the triviality of this reference at the AFD. I'm amused at the attempt to bring the class struggle in, though. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Douglas Karpen

I thought you should read the dispute resolution recommendations.

"Follow the normal protocol

When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can instead of just deleting it. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or tweak the wording. Be sure to include citations for any material you add, or it may be removed. If you do not know how to fix a problem, post a note on the talk page asking for help.

To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is too complex to explain in the edit summary, or if the change is potentially contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page".

Sadly, you have not followed any of these suggestions. When you make wholesale changes to an article without seeking consensus it rubs people the wrong way. Rather than making wholesale changes without an explanation, you should introduce yourself and outline your concerns and work with the other editors to find a common ground. Lordvolton (talk) 03:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I've explained this to you repeatedly: we cannot host controversial content about living individuals sourced to such obviously unreliable sources. WP:BLP is policy, not a "recommendation." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

And I've pointed out that The Dallas Morning News, The Washington Times, The National Review, and The New American are all reputable sources (which were added to address your concerns), despite your opinion to the contrary. It would have been courteous of you to simply ask for additional sources rather than make a wholesale change to the article without seeking any consensus. In the future please be considerate of others -- introduce yourself and share your ideas and give other editors a chance to work with you. When you impose unilateral edits and revert edits without a conversation it spreads discontent. Lordvolton (talk) 03:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Your concern for my reputation is noted, but you still may not add unreliable sources about living people. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow, you just don't want anybody to be able to say anything bad about abortion no matter how well sourced, do you? R.M. Schultz (talk) 02:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "douglas karpen". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot  03:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Your edits to False accusation of rape

"Can you clarify what encyclopedic value you believe your edits have?" These examples are used as references for a list of preemptive measures one might take to keep himself safe from false rape accusations. We have an article on Prevention of HIV/AIDS and I feel that we should have a section and perhaps when there is enough material an article on Prevention of False Rape Accusations. I do not intend to write about every false rape accusation reported in the press. I apologize in advance for my poor English language skills. I am not a native English speaker. Mieciu K (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia we have lots of space. I'm mentioning single incidents that fall into a distinct categories so I don't agree with you. You think newspapers are not reliably at reporting a single case of criminal behaviour when that information can be independently verified through police and court records? Why would they misreport such cases when they risk being sued for damages and libel? What you are suggesting is deletionism, pure and simple. Mieciu K (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Space isn't the issue - your aim of creating a how-to guide simply is not in line with Misplaced Pages's purpose. Reliability of the news sources has nothing to do with it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
    • A "how to guide" would be against Misplaced Pages's NPOV criteria as it suggest that some methods will be recommended as better than others. I'm mentioning that those methods exist. By the way, you replied to my post on your own talk page instead of replying on mine. Mieciu K (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
      • IMHO my additions are notable, they broaden the enyclopedic understanding of the subject by adding notable information. Why do you think they should be deleted? Mieciu K (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Thank's for the link to the Teahouse. I might take a look at it but it seems to be directed mainly for the new wikipedians and I'm editing wikipedia since April 2005 so it might not be exactly what I need. You are free to revert my changes as long as you are within the 3 reverts rule. Before you continue to revert my changes I suggest to see if other wikipedians share your deletionist views. Also a friendly reminder about Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles. Feel free to message me anytime :) Mieciu K (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

False Accusations of Rape

I've added another source to point out that most scientists, logicians, philosophers, etc believe that no evidence is required to believe a statement false if there's insufficient evidence to establish its probable truth. This isn't my personal analysis, but rather a mere adduction of the fact that Lisak's standards for truth differ greatly from those established by the scientific method. It's uncharacteristic of an encyclopedia to cite sources that use an unorthodox scientific method without clarifying such unusual use. Not having my statement, or a similar statement, in there misleads readers to believe that every allegation that Lisak didn't count as false should be considered true, when in fact that would be thoroughly unscientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ] (] • ])

Replying on your talk page. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no personal opinion of mine added, but merely accepted, cited, and linked fact. Scholarly consensus dictates that a claim is to be assumed false unless evidence suggests it is true. Lisak ignores that consensus, which is fine, but it is irresponsible not to point that out. Somebody else undid that revision. To avoid an edit war, I'm not going to continue to undo your revisions, but I will make suggestions on the talk page.Astrohoundy (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I just added another credible scholarly source to support my claim. If you remove it on the basis that you consider it to be editorializing, I will consider it an act of vandalism. (talk ⋅ contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 21:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't really care what you "consider," since you clearly don't understand fundamental Misplaced Pages policies. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

DRN

The Kaaba thing is at DRN but I can't see it being accepted. Dougweller (talk) 09:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I filed a WP:DRN on Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

I filled a WP:DRN on Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012. I would ask that we put the past behind and come to some comprise language where there remains disputes. The link to the discussion is here. Casprings (talk) 03:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Wrong link to the discussion. It is here. Casprings (talk) 03:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Lordvolton (talk) 03:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Stop edit warring

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.

	+	

• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

	+	

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. – Capitals00 (talk) 04:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)