Misplaced Pages

User talk:Yopienso: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:40, 22 March 2010 editViriditas (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers169,616 edits Personal attack warning: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:13, 19 November 2024 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,138,989 edits ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery 
(798 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div style="background-color:MintCream; border:solid 10px MediumSeaGreen; border-radius: 1em; padding:1em; margin:00em; margin-top:00em">
== ¡Oh Gloria Inmarcesible! ==
{{archives|auto=yes|search=yes}}


<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 20pt">{{fontcolor|MediumSeaGreen|'''<sub>Welcome to my talk page! Please add your comment at the bottom.</sub>'''}}</span></sub> {{smiley}}
Hola, yo traduje los versos III a XI del himno nacional. Gracias por tus comentarios. Creo que tienes toda la razón en lo de las termópilas y ya lo cambié. Respecto a lo de la flor, no estoy segura...cuando se dice, "la flor estremecida mortal el viento hallando," el adjetivo "mortal" debe referirse al viento, no a la flor, sino se diría, "la flor estremecida mortalmente". Además el verbo "hallando" tiene que referirse a cómo halla la flor al viento, y la única posibilidad es mortal (por ello la flor busca refugio).
Adiós, <font color="violet">]</font> 19:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


[[File:Cpa-es-bulloz-rodin5lapensee.jpg|thumb|upright=0.56|<small>''La Pensée'' by Rodin</small><br>
<small>Are YoPienso's ideas chiseled in marble?<br>
No, this is just a page for your thoughts and hers.</small>]]



== al propósito... ==

'''Welcome!'''


Hello, {{PAGENAME}}, and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: Hello, {{PAGENAME}}, and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
Line 17: Line 16:
*] *]
*] *]
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on my talk page, or place <code>{&#123;helpme}}</code> on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.<br clear="all"> I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on my talk page, or place <code>{&#123;helpme}}</code> on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.<br>
Este es el formato normal de bienvenida que está en inglés y es de mucha ayuda cuando uno recién comienza a conocer Misplaced Pages. <br clear="all"> Este es el formato normal de bienvenida que está en inglés y es de mucha ayuda cuando uno recién comienza a conocer Misplaced Pages. <br >
Muchas gracias por escribir tus comentarios en el discussion page antes de editar el artículo. Aunque en principio en Misplaced Pages se permite editar con libertad, cuando no se está seguro es mejor discutir primero en el discussion(talk) page del artículo. De nuevo bienvenida (o bienvenido, no se jeje) &nbsp;<font color="violet">]</font> 19:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Muchas gracias por escribir tus comentarios en el discussion page antes de editar el artículo. Aunque en principio en Misplaced Pages se permite editar con libertad, cuando no se está seguro es mejor discutir primero en el discussion(talk) page del artículo. De nuevo bienvenida (o bienvenido, no se jeje) &nbsp;] 19:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

== Adding references can be easy ==
] Hello! Here's how to ] from ] for the content you add to Misplaced Pages. This helps maintain the Misplaced Pages policy of ].<br />
Adding well formatted references is actually quite easy:
#While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a ] which says "'''Cite'''". Click on it.
#Then click on "'''Templates'''".
#Choose the most appropriate template and '''fill in as many details as you can'''. This will add a well formatted reference that is helpful in case the ] becomes ] in the future.
#Click on '''Preview''' when you're done filling out the 'Cite (web/news/book/journal)' to make sure that the reference is correct.
#Click on '''Insert''' to insert the reference into your editing window content.
#Click on '''Show preview''' to Preview all your editing changes.
::*<u>Before</u> clicking on '''Save page''', check that a References header {{space|2}}'''<nowiki>==References==</nowiki>'''{{space|2}} is near the end of the article.
::*<u>And</u> check that {{space|2}}'''<nowiki>{{Reflist}}</nowiki>''' {{space|2}} is directly underneath that header.
:7.{{space|2}}Click on '''Save page'''. ...and you've just added a complete reference to a Misplaced Pages article.
You can read more about this on ] or see this video ].<br />
Hope this helps, --] (]) 17:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

*<small>To use this message, place <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>subst:]}}</code> on User:talk pages when needed.</small>
<!--The original version of this notice can be found at ] -->
{{clear}}

::OK, thanks for your friendliness. That's just an automatic template for what I can type in myself using fewer characters. What gives me tizzies is . Personally, I think all history articles should be cited in the standard Chicago (or Turabian) style for the discipline. ] (]) 18:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
:::Oh yeah...due to your editing history/experience I figured you didn't really need any editing templates at all but I find this one useful especially for placing on new editors talk pages or for where editors are having trouble with citing information - thought you might need it someday here in WP-land. And YES! I find the "Sfn" style to be a real pain to deal with. I know some folks really like it but MAN it is so hard for me to code...I'm converting all the #TJF cites in the Jefferson article to direct linkage cites and it takes me *forever* just to get through one single ref conversion. The good news is after I get them all done I sure as hell will know how to do it. ] (]) 20:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

== Reliable sources ==
Note to self: ]'s that page you tend to lose.

== Re: ] ==

It was a mistake on my part. Thanks for pointing it out. I've restored everything except for the link that violated the ]. --] (]) 21:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
:Thanks for that. I think ] should also be linked because it's supposed to be about Uribe.
:Two examples:
::] ] to a hate campaign against him, which in my view is worse than a show that accuses someone of crimes who actually has been accused of crimes similar to the ones depicted.
::In ]'s BLP there are 2 links (one in the infobox and another in the text in the 2088 campaign section) to the ] of her.
:Those links aren't in the "See also" section; maybe a link to "Matarife" in the narrative would be appropriate in the Uribe BLP. What do you think? ] (]) 02:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

== ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message ==

<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2020|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. ] (]) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
</td></tr>
</table>
<!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2020/Coordination/MMS/02&oldid=990308077 -->

== 1971 San Fernando earthquake ==

What does a news article's "location in cyberspace" have anything to do with our access date? And no, access dates are not "standard in citations". There is a place for them, but not always. I didn't come here to argue with you about this. In fact, I don't really even want to talk about it. You are not going to be able to convince me that having an access date for a news story that was published in an actual paper newspaper in 1996 is useful for anything. Good day, ] 06:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

:The access date tells the reader when the article was found at that site. ] and is helpful. Note the last line in the section about citing webpages in the content guidelines:
:''Citations for World Wide Web pages typically include:
:''URL of the specific web page where the referenced content can be found
:''name of the author(s)
:''title of the article
:''title or domain name of the website
:''publisher, if known
:''date of publication
:''page number(s) (if applicable)
:''the date you retrieved (or accessed) the web page (required if the publication date is unknown)''
:] (]) 06:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

::In other words, the access date is not required if there is a publication date. ] 07:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
:::That's putting a backwards spin on it. In plain words, WP citations typically include access dates. What's your reasoning for eliminating it? Do you intend to remove all access dates from all citations? ] (]) 07:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

== Important message ==

{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. ''It does '''not''' imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.''

You have shown interest in edits about, and articles related to, ], broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called ] is in effect. Any administrator may impose ] on editors who do not strictly follow ], or the ], when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the ] and the ] decision ]. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> —]] – 00:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks. <br>
I'm trying to understand why people are writing walls of irrelevant text in the talk section I opened. ] (]) 03:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

== ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message ==

<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2021|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)</small>
</td></tr>
</table>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021/Coordination/MM/02&oldid=1056563129 -->

== ] edit ==

I am reverting your edit on ] that used Find A Grave as a source. I don't know the basis for your description of Find A Grave as "credible", but ] specifies Find A Grave as one of several "unacceptable user-generated sites". ] (]) 18:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
:Hi! I'm copying your comment here on my talk page to the article talk page and responding there. ] (]) 02:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
::Okay. ] (]) 02:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

== Jean-Pierre ==


Hi Yopienso. I just wanted to encourage you to dig a bit deeper into the Jean-Pierre dispute. Contrary to your suggestion, the dispute is not about Psaki's comments (though they did get caught up in one rollback). Prior versions of the article did indeed make wikivoice statements about conspiracy theories, and that's the locus of the dispute (for now). Hope this helps. Thanks for responding to BLPN requests! ] (] / ]) 01:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
== ] ==
:Thanks! When I commented, it was about including Psaki's defense. And now the whole thing has been removed. I'm not heavily invested in this and am not going to waste much of my time on it, but I will speak up when I see something I think needs to be addressed.
:I appreciate the way you reached out to me. {{smiley}} ] (]) 06:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for "supporting" (my) small edits...I re-added her three languages, (which were rmved for some inexplicable reason!) you created a separate paragraph for the information, as I should have done, sorry. Thanks for the better quality section header, too. Very pleased that a much more senior editor is watching/working on details. Respectfully, <b>] ]</b> 02:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
==Important Notice==
{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. ''It does '''not''' imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.''


You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called ] is in effect. Any administrator may impose ] on editors who do not strictly follow ], or the ], when making edits related to the topic.
Yopienso, I have not edited that article. I tagged the article's Talk Page as part of WikiProject Congress, but have not edited the article itself. I will work to revise it, but had nothing to do with it other than that. If you look at my edits from the last six months, you will find them well researched and cited. The plagerism comment on my talk page comes from an edit I made when I first joined Misplaced Pages over a year ago and didn't quite 'get it'. As for being a person of reknown, I assure you I am not. Thanks--] 13:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{tlx|Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the ] and the ] decision ]. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
== Wagar ==
}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> ] ] 11:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


== A certain editor at ] ==
Yopienso, I've identified the"Wagar" referred to on the ] page. ] (]) 14:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


I've seen that you've had extended interactions with a certain editor at ]'s talk page. I'm at my wits end with them right now, and I wondering if you had any advice for dealing with them. If anything, though, I just wanted to commiserate and know that I'm not alone in my current level of annoyance. Have a good one. ] (]) 02:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
==3RR and SYN==
:Can you email me? Click on the link at the left under ''Tools''; it's between "User logs" and "Mute this user." Best, ] (]) 03:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, you've been here for quite a while so I'm sure you'll know that our ] policy prohibits ] at '']'' or any other article: good that you're talking the issues over. I've left at the section you raised at Editor assistance to try to explain the issues – the extended quote you propose presents a novel synthesis, in breach of ], which had not been published in a reliable secondary source as required by ]. It's a good idea to become familiar with the whole ] policy, or at least read it through when in doubt. Rather large and complex, but there for good reasons. Hope that helps, ], ] 09:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
::Not seeing it... ] (]) 20:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
:::To the far left of this page is a column of blue links under the Misplaced Pages logo.
:::The first section is "Main page."
:::The second is "Contribute."
:::The third is "Tools." In that section, the 5th link is "Email this user." Click on that.


:::Or maybe it doesn't show up for you because you haven't registered an email address.
:::If that's the case, click on "Preferences" at the top right of your own user or talk page.
:::Then scroll over halfway down to "Email options," provide your email address, and click the box "Allow other users to email me."
:::{{smiley}} ] (]) 02:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


== hi ==
Thanks, Dave--I've answered you on your talk page. I learned the ropes once, but have forgotten many of the ins and outs, for which I apologize. ] (]) 18:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


Hi, it's been a long time since we crossed paths. Thanks for the thanks, but FYI, part of my reasoning I retracted, as I probably read too much into the RS I was using for my opinion. Details at article talk. ] (]) 07:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
:Hi! Nice seing you. I remember your signature, but not what articles we worked on or if we agreed. Same for Ronz, aka Hipal. Thanks for dropping by, and take care. ] (]) 07:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
::I think we mainly crossed in Misplaced Pages space. But at my age I even need RSs to remember where I put the keys ] (]) 10:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


== Striking comments ==
::Hey Yopienso. I've been following the Darwin quote issue, and I think it comes down to a small misunderstanding. The issue isn't whether or not you're right or wrong (and yes, obviously there is more to Darwin's original quotation than reported by Scientific American), but the issue -is- what we can and cannot include in the article. For that particular section, the main reference is the sciam article, and because scientific american didn't include the entire quotation, we cannot, either. To do so would be putting words in Scientific American's mouth.
::My personal feeling is that SciAm made an editorial decision when choosing the length of Darwin's quotation, for any of a number of reasons, possibly even just to save space in their article. While context is important, editors often have to make these choices. Why stop at the paragraph? Why not quote the entire chapter or book?
::SciAm might have made an error in cutting off the quotation where they did (though, in my opinion, Expelled was worse...they chopped up entire paragraphs and sentences, leaving out key words and phrases that completely changed the meaning of what was said, even to a casual reader), but that's not for Misplaced Pages to decide. SciAm is the source, we have to report what the sources say. I'm sure that if you could find a better source for that section of the article that could be cited, there wouldn't be an objection to modifying the article.
I hope this helps...] (]) 19:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


Hi, could I kindly ask you to strike, not remove comments when you change them: ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 19:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
:::Thanks for your response on my talk page, Yopienso, I've replied there at length to keep the conversation together. Agree with Quietmarc, the sources may not be ideal but we have to be careful not to misrepresent them or go beyond them, and a minor creationist film is unlikely to attract many peer reviewed studies. . . ], ] 19:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
:Hi, regarding that one edit, I respectfully decline. What I deleted has no relevance to the comment I intended to make and would only introduce confusion into the discussion. I'd looked at two Fox articles and conflated them in my mind. The is relevant to the discussion, but the ten-day-old isn't. My original post was in error, and had been there only four minutes and not received a comment. if they've been there more than a few minutes and/or generated replies.
:I'll take this opportunity to suggest you be less active in the Fox News RFC. You seem to be pushing your point of view very hard. ] (]) 19:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
::I have already essentially tapered down my involvement to little-to-none, since my points have been made in depth. I maintain that it is proper to strike messages even if they haven't been there for long, but I can't force you to do it. Best regards. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 19:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


== Font color ==


I removed the disruptive font color and font size. Your comment is not more special than others. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 18:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Dave--Nope, no edit warring from me.


:You seem to think you own that page, so I'm sure not going to fight you. ] (]) 18:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Marc--Hello! Thanks for chiming in. You wrote, "For that particular section, the main reference is the sciam article, and because scientific american didn't include the entire quotation, we cannot, either." When I came across the article, it already had the two references that are still there, footnotes #'s 75, to the SciAm article, and 76, to the text of Darwin's ''The Descent of Man.'' I would not want to misrepresent SciAm, but I object to their misrepresenting Darwin. As Nerdseeksblonde said, if we can't complete the quote SciAm mined from the original, we should just drop it. But I think if I delete it, Dave will restore it. No point in that. That's why I'm going to try to go up a level. I still cannot for the life or me understand why a primary source is banned, unless maintaining political correctness is a greater goal than accuracy and truth. For example, in the Wiki article on George Washington, footnote #32 leads to Washington's original writing, not to a book or magazine or newspaper. That's all I'm requesting.
::I don't own the page, you directly responded to my comment. It's neither standard nor appropriate to give your own comment special fonts and sizes. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 18:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


== Your submission at ]: ] has been accepted ==
Is the difference between the ''Expelled...'' article in Wiki and the one in George Washington that one is a movie review? No, can't be--the reviews of ''Mary Poppins'' and ''Secondhand Lions'', for two examples of Wiki reviews, are not so carefully footnoted. This is what leads me to the conclusion that it is to protect Darwin's legacy at the expense of suppressing what he wrote. Just take a look at Dave's talk page to see what a champion of Darwin and opponent of creationists he is.
<div style="border:solid 1px #57DB1E; background:#E6FFE6; padding:1em; padding-top:0.5em; padding-bottom:0.5em; width:20em; color:black; margin-bottom: 1.5em; width: 90%;">] '''], which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.'''<br />


Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Misplaced Pages! We hope you will continue making quality contributions. <br />
Please show me where I'm mistaken if I am. ] (]) 04:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


The article has been assessed as '''Disambig-Class''', which is recorded on its ]. You may like to take a look at the ] to see how you can improve the article.
::Hey again, Yopienso. I'm definitely not an expert on wiki policy, so I'll be following the mediation (or however this discussion continues). I still think that the quotation is fine as is, but the reason gets more subtle. If the article was on Darwin, or Darwin's views, then I would be siding with you, but the article in question is on a film, and this section is specifically about what the film says about Darwin and eugenics, and ''how the experts'' respond to the film's claims. Because Darwin couldn't have responded to the film (he's dead), we can't use his words. We have to use an expert's interpretation of his words.
::It's a -very- small leap to guess what Darwin might have thought about eugenics given his entire passage, but in this case it is a leap, and that's where the OR and SYNTH comments come from. You're making an assumption (albeit one that's very natural to make), and on wikipedia, in this case, we can't let that assumption in. We have to use the assumptions and responses of experts, even if their perspectives are incomplete.
::I really don't think that Dave et al are trying to "protect" evolution or obfuscate the issue, I think that they're trying to uphold a subtle piece of NPOV. But again, I'll be watching to see how the discussion goes....] (]) 17:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


<div class="autoconfirmed-show">Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now ] without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to ] if you prefer.</div>
== Out for a few days... ==


If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the '''<span class="plainlinks"></span>'''.<span class="unconfirmed-show"> Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to ] without posting a request to ].</span>
Hi - just to let you know I'm off for the weekend (it's Friday night here) so I won't be around to carry on the mediation until my Monday morning (Australia time).


If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider {{leave feedback/link|page=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation|text=leaving us some feedback}}.
I can certainly see both sides of the issue at the moment. I think you have a very strong point in that it is clear that SciAm misquoted Darwin in order to accuse Stein of misquoting Darwin.


Thanks again, and happy editing!
However I also see the argument that anything we do that even hints at making that observation could be deemed as a violation of ], and that could easily include extending the quote beyond what SciAm used. You are also basically at risk of appearing to comment on the SciAm article instead of the documentary, (this is why I asked about the "direct relationship" issue).
] (]) 19:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)</div><!--Template:Afc talk-->


:Cool. Thanks. ] (]) 20:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Of course mediation has yet to continue and I stress that I have NO authority whatsoever to "judge" the issue. I'm just speculating on how things might pan out, based on my years of policy experience. I don't think anyone is trying to bias the article in any direction.


== BRD ==
I'd also advise you to avoid EVER using the phrase "common sense". Although I know exactly what you mean, this phrase has a charged meaning in Wikiland. Everything on Misplaced Pages now gets done in terms of policy, basically because no-one can agree on what constitutes "common sense".


Please read ] and ], it is the person who wished to change an article who needs to get ] for their change. ] (]) 11:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
While I am away, please look for a secondary source (eg. a different article) that illustrates this selective quoting by SciAm in the context of the film. If you can find one then this entire dispute will automatically disappear. (The web comment you found doesn't count, unfortunately).


== Joe Biden talk page ==
Talk on Monday, ] (]) 08:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


I notice that on the Joe Biden talk page, in the recent thread concerning public opinion polls, you made various disparaging personal comments about other editors. This is not a constructive way to engage on the article talk page and is very unlikely to advance your arguments. Please try to "comment on content and not contributors". It was particularly unhelpful in this case in view of the fact, that you later acknowledged, that the others were correct in their doubts about the suitability of that content for that page.]] 17:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up as well as for your ear and advice.
:Hi! Welcome to my talk page. Who did I disparage? ] (]) 18:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
You should've went the RFC route. You'll not get a local consensus at Biden's BLP, for your proposal. ] (]) 04:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
:Yeah. But my long weekend's over and I don't have time to fiddle with one. I haven't been very active recently. Guess I'm qualifying for "drive-by editor." Nice working with you. ] (]) 06:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


== ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message ==
Odd--official Wiki policy requires using common sense. I've edited my comment to show that. It seems the letter of the law here is violating the spirit of the law--obviously the intention of the policy is to prevent cranks from blathering on about all kinds of nonsense, or, conversely, hopeful writers from trying the public waters at Wiki first. I realize policy develops as situations are encountered and this clause may be obsolete. Too bad; it seems designed specifically for cases like this one, where I'm not making anything up but just want the whole context given. I think the very fact that people objected to including the last sentence reveals a bias they hold: Never allow anything--not even his own words--that could possibly be construed as casting Our Exalted Darwin in a poor light.


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
Policy can never cover every situation; therefore common sense is required. That's why we have the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution--no amount of legal logorrhea can ever cover every contingency. (Oh--you're Australian--they just basically say, "We couldn't list all the people's rights, and whatever we didn't take from them is still theirs even though it's not down on paper.")
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px;">]</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2022|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I can't understand why I have to find a reliable article that comments on the biased SciAm article. Of course I won't find one. Who goes around writing things like that? I've never caught, for example, USN&WR second-guessing somebody else's article. Why not just ignore that article and compare Stein's quote to Darwin's original? There's no synthesis there--it would go, "Stein said blah-blah-blah. Darwin's actual text reads blah-blah-blah." I don't see how insisting on saying, "Smith says Darwin said" makes for a better encyclopedia than simply, "Darwin said." In fact, this whole process has taught me Wiki isn't half the encyclopedia I thought it was. Encyclopedia Britannica hires knowledgeable people to write accurate stories. During this process I've discovered Jimmy Wales actually said he doesn't care what the truth is; all he cares about is that his policy is followed. It's his site and he can make whatever rules he wants, but now that I know them I respect the work far less. At least I am fair warned and will be alert in the future when I consult it on any subject that has any PC issues: do not trust.


If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)</small>
Just to check how correct my conclusions were, I very appropriately added some information to the article on Richard Sternberg. Shot right down. I'm not going to argue with the PC boys over there. Finding websites that contradict each other has been frustrating. I have given up knowing the truth about the Smithsonian-Sternberg controversy. Somebody or everybody is lying and I have no way of knowing who. Certainly have to take Wiki's PC stance with a grain of salt. Nobody cares that the Mary Poppins article is poorly sourced, nobody cares that an article I wrote on the Caqueta River is unsourced. No, there's an agenda here: allow all kinds of shoddy work, but strictly keep the PC gate.


</div>
I do appreciate all the excellent editing people such as yourself do, all the effort to bring order out of chaos, to revert vandalism and weed out cranks and take time to listen to honest but perplexed people, to say nothing of writing and correcting.
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2022/Coordination/MM/02&oldid=1124425183 -->


== You've got mail ==
I will be very busy the next couple of days in preparation for a short trip Sunday and Monday, and may just have to drop this, which might be a mercy. I had originally planned to appeal all the way up the line to the very top but, honestly, I've lost my faith in Wiki and am losing the heart for trying to make sense of it all.] (]) 10:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


{{You've got mail|dashlesssig=] ] 18:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)}}
PS It's 2:15 in the morning here and I'm drained and discouraged, feel like I've wasted days of my time. If later I regret being so morose I'll apologize. Have a great weekend!
==Hi==
Hi Yopienso,
I only know about you because I copy edit ]'s article, such as ], ], ], ]. I completely understand feeling morose. Don't lose heart! Regards, &mdash;] (]) 00:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
:Hi from me too, a clarification: ] and ] are articles by ], I've helped out a bit with these, particularly the latter one. Thanks for removing your remarks about ], my feeling was that it was worth going ahead with mediation without bringing him into the argument but his views will still have to be taken into account, however bluntly they've been put in the past. As for the issue of using primary sources, our aim here has to be to use secondary sources for any interpretation or selection to avoid introducing our own interpretation. This is the opposite of good scholarly practice for historians, but makes sense where editing is open to everyone and we can't check expert credentials. Some use of primary sources to back up secondary sources is welcomed, but of course it's a bit of a judgement call. Not always easy, as I've been reminded! . . ], ] 19:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


:Thanks! I never would have seen the email if you hadn't alerted me here. Funny that I can't find it in my email inbox except by typing your name into the search bar. Weird. Now ''you'' have mail! ] (]) 06:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi again Yopienso...I've been eavesdropping on the talk pages of Dave and Mattisse regarding the mediation, and have noticed that you seem somewhat deflated by how it's progressed. I'm hoping that we can continue this, as I'm fairly new at being active on wikipedia (long-time lurker), and this is one of my first opportunities to see how mediation works from beginning to end. From what I've seen, this is an ideal situation, where the editors involved are assuming good faith and are willing to devote their time to resolving this.


{{-}}
To digress a bit, I ended up "defending" wikipedia to my dentist this morning when he mentioned how the pages change every day. What I told him was that at least these articles are sourced transparently, but what I could have elaborated on (had his hands not been in my mouth) was that for every article, the development is completely transparent: the discussion about this relatively obscure point on a relatively obscure article is recorded...any user can read the Expelled article and, if he cares to, follow the discussion about Darwin's full quote, the SciAm article, and the questions of what those editing choices mean.
== Citations ==


Your expansion of ] was excellent, and it really stinks that we must dwell on such tragic topics in the world. It's a good way to cope. I'm sorry that I must offer feedback on citations, because they all need to be redone. The citation formatting you added is like 3 steps forward and 2 steps back. They're all not just unformatted like bare urls, but some are anti-formatted, and some are forcibly manually formatted as if this is printed paper and not digital. Some are clues on how someone could create citations for you, but as a description of a website without even a url. You need to use URLs and citation templates like ], as you clearly see everywhere such as that very article. Just cite them, instead of writing essays describing the process by which some other anonymous stranger had used random features on another website to find them somehow, or your editorial about the content. You wrecked one <nowiki>{{cite news}}</nowiki> citation, degrading it from proper digital metadata into that faux paper format, for which I am simply speechless. You even abbreviated the word "unnecessary" in your edit summary, which is the pinnacle of unnecessariness, like a cherry on top. Notes are not citations; and you embedded a note within an inherently unnecessary note about the obvious to address and instruct the reader, which is unencyclopedic. Dates are to be formatted for the relevant country, and in complete words ]. I strongly urge you to revise all citations you've ever added like this everywhere in the encyclopedia, because you're simply requiring other volunteers to completely redo them for you ASAP at a huge waste of their time, if ever. A great tool is ] to install in your account for automating citations, but this is just such a universally basic process that I made examples and memorized the process. I do both. You can make a sandbox document in your userspace so you don't need to make dozens of small edits in main space. Thank you so much. — <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]]</span> 03:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC) ] (]) 14:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
On many (evolution) articles, many of the discussion page comments are more about ideology than about improving the article, so it's refreshing to see people engaged in a sincere attempt to grapple with wiki policy and to make the encyclopedia better. This is not to say that I'll agree with you, but I've appreciated your honest attempts to follow through with this issue, and I hope you are able to find the motivation to continue. ] (]) 21:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


:I may have time to respond later. Or maybe this is my response. ] (]) 14:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
== Talkback ==


::Okay that was hilariously stupid of me to put a comment on a User page, wow, for probably the first time in my life. Nice one. Sorry. Anyway, no need to respond except by fixing citations, which nobody else has any time to do for you either. Thanks. — <span style="font-variant:small-caps">]]</span> 20:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
{{Talkback|Bazj}}. ] (]) 17:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
and again...
{{Talkback|Bazj}}. ] (]) 18:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


== ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message ==
* Thanks. I've created a talk page for that user--wonder if he'll ever see it. ???
:I've never done a Talkback; crossing my fingers to do it right. ] (]) 19:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
== Latin America HDI ==
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">]</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello there. Thank's for your help to translate the Spanish text. How do you can see English and Spanish aren't my primary language.
I think that the editors should make a decision in this article. I already post a source saying what we can't make this list, but the user Prodigynet are very authoritarian and always undo my changes and he even tried to block me. I suspect that him has other accounts, like TownDown and now PuebloUnited. If it's true, it goes against the rules of Misplaced Pages.
Why don't you review the page or ask to editors to review? Thank's very much.--] (]) 20:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small>
== Copy edit ==


</div>
Copy edit means I go through the article to make sure it is well written, with no grammar or wording errors. I am usually not the content expert. I did not know there was a mediation over evolution. I do know from experience that mediation can be very difficult and draining. I was interested in you because I thought, perhaps, you are fluent in Spanish. Also, you have such a wonderful way of expressing yourself. I wish I could copy it! Regards, &mdash;] (]) 17:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Coordination/MM/02&oldid=1187132049 -->


== February 2010 == == J6 ==
] Please remember to ] when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-agf2 --> ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 15:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


I realize you are trying not to get dragged back into the talk page there, and since my question is more policy oriented, I thought it might be a courtesy to you if I ask it here instead. You mentioned the specific word count. When is that used to designate article titles? I'm familiar with ] and ], but can't see anything about it. More specifically, are there articles where word count was prioritized in that manner in order to determine the title? Is it "per RS", then tallied for each and every source for a grand total, or only specific RS that gets that treatment? I can't say I've ever seen it done using that method. Cheers. ] (]) 07:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


== Precious anniversary ==
Sorry, but I must respectfully yet emphatically disagree with you. As I said, I spent many hours working with a number of editors on this. I will not get into an edit war with you, a PC gatekeeper, nor a discussion here, as we both know what I said yesterday is true. If you want some history on my hours of work and good faith attempts, see archive 11 on the EE article and this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-07-07/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed
{{User QAIbox/auto|years=Nine}}
--] (]) 06:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


:Thank you, Gerda Arendt. ] (]) 00:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Dave Souza I have found to be a respectful person. He and I are of different persuasions, but able to communicate intelligently and politely. He has integrity and follows the rules by his lights, as I do. Several other editors exhibited the same good character; a few did not.


== Three new sources ==
Misplaced Pages is definitely PC and does have a strong controlling bias. As I said in the helpful comment you removed, once a user recognizes the bias, Wiki is doubly useful.


Thank you for edit, where you said, "Also, the fact that BLB was found to be a sock and subsequently blocked is irrelevant to the usefulness of the sources he provided."
Happy Valentine's Day! ] (]) 18:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


Here are three additional sources. I'll leave it up to you to judge their level of reliability:
:Please stop referring to Misplaced Pages as "wiki". "Wiki" is either a Hawaiian word meaning "quick" or a type of software. Misplaced Pages is '''a''' wiki. It would be like me referring to you, randomly, as "editor" and expecting everyone to know I meant you, specifically. Its nonsense. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 18:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


Associated Press, July 3, 2024: “Why was it a surprise? Biden's debate problems leave some wondering if the press missed the story”
== Sorry for the faux pas ==
https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-surprise-bidens-debate-problems-203215918.html
New York Magazine, July 4, 2024: “The Conspiracy of Silence to Protect Joe Biden”
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/conspiracy-of-silence-to-protect-joe-biden.html
NBC News, July 4, 2024: “Some Democrats say Biden's debate performance wasn't an anomaly”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/democrats-say-bidens-debate-performance-wasnt-anomaly-rcna160151
] (]) 16:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


:Hi! The sources are neutral with regard to WP rules, and I am in fact interested in them. But it seems to me you're the same sock with a new name, and we do have rules about that. I don't know your history, but I suggest that since you've been banned, you should give up editing here under any name. ] (]) 20:11, 6 July 2024‎ (UTC)
I am still trying to get used to Wiki etiquette. Thanks for your advice. I am hoping that there is a chance that Misplaced Pages could be better. I agree with you that there really isn't much out there that isn't biased one way or the other. But I think that it is possible to make Misplaced Pages better, even with the current rules and the biases of the senior editors.


== Presidency Navigation Templates vs. Biography Navigation Templates discussion ==
I made my changes to the Richard Sternberg article and will move on the Expelled after a few days.


Hello, ]! Since you are listed as an ], would you mind leaving a comment at a ] about a series of templates that I created for the presidencies of ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]? Another editor and myself disagree about whether there should be a separate navigation template for each Presidency apart from the biographical navigation template. Thanks! -- ] (]) 22:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I am not asking you to get involved, and I think that I can win when I move my debate back over to Expelled. But I am not asking for your help. I just thought you might be interested since you had a similar experience as I.


== Surprised ==
Anyway, God bless you and let's keep in touch.


Your comment: {{tq|Are you truly ill-informed? or merely hoping we are?}} surprised me coming from you. My edit was along the same lines as it has been throughout this lengthy, circular exercise. You cannot say Biden was elected and then immigration spiked as if that was '''the '''cause and effect. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. I am trying to keep some balance in the situation. Gee has repeatedly removed the status quo text reversing an admin and violating enforced BRD. I truly do not understand why you claimed I did not know of other influences when all along I have been saying such and named even more. It is Gee that wants to lay this totally as Biden's feet, as if the increase worldwide was caused by him. He doesn't have that kind of power. One cannot ignore the situation. ] (]) 00:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Math ] (]) 17:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


:Sorry I missed this regarding made on July 10.
::Souder Report included in Wiki article
:I found it incomprehensible that you were denying Biden took office vowing to reverse many of Trump's policies. He fulfilled his vow, too, as I showed from RSs, including .
:''Are you truly ill-informed? or merely hoping we are?'' meant I thought you knew Biden made a point of reversing many of Trump's policies but were trying to convince Gwillhickers (and the rest of us) that he wasn't. ] (]) 15:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)


== "Good grief. You two aren't making any sense" ==
::Yopienso, I thought you might be interested to know that I think that I will be able to get the McDiarmid quote from the Souder report included in the Richard Sternberg article. Then I will take the debate back to the Expelled discussion page. Some editor tried to use an article from Scientific American to "prove" that the report was unreliable. But failed to read the entire article which stated that the quotes and appendix of the Souder report ARE reliable.


{{tq|O3000, the House, in fact, elects (not appoints) the President if no candidate receives enough electoral college votes, and the Senate elects the VP.}} Well a candidate (Joe Biden) clearly did receive enough electoral college votes. 147 Republican Congressfolk voted to ignore the votes, essentially attempting the appointment of the person with fewer votes. It's a rather important historical fact. But that was merely a parenthetical. More importantly, we are being inundated with IPs repeating this nonsense about border czar, and folding our contributions was not helpful, IMHO. In any case, it was obvious what Slatersteven meant and I think your handling could have been a tad more civil. Regards, ] (]) 15:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
::Anyway, I think I have won this round. I expect that when the Sternberg page is corrected all heck will break loose when I move the discussion back to Expelled. Thanks for your advice and pray for me as this debate heats up, as I know it will.


:Hi! The House chose John Quincy Adams. Regarding the attempt to overthrow the 2020 election, a conspiracy of Republicans, along with more innocent ones who went along with their plan, challenged the legal slates of electors and tried to substitute illegal slates. How does "HOUse Republicans do not get to appoint cabinet positions" have anything to do with that? It not obvious to me that it means anything at all. The IP wasn't saying Congress ''appointed'' Harris as anything, but that they ''referred'' to her as the border czar; i.e., the term was in common usage. That's true.
::God bless, Math ] (]) 08:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
:Cabinet position? Who was talking about any cabinet position? The VP can't hold a cabinet position.
:What meaningful contributions did you or SS make about border czar in the comments I hatted?
:I try to edit politely and collegially. How could I have handled this better? Cheers, ] (]) 15:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
::SS's post was clearly made in haste as can seen by the uncorrected spelling "HOUse". His meaning was obvious. On TPs, we often make such errors particularly on active articles where there are so many interruptions with multiple editors editing at once (and so many other contentious articles swamped with new editors coming in from social media). It's also more likely when responding over and over and over to the same nonsense. My parenthetical was merely a touch of irony. Anywho, your response along with the hat closing off response wasn't too cool. It would have ended there with no response and no hat, and the responses that the House cannot appoint folks in the Executive branch would have stood. Just my opinion. ] (]) 16:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Hi, O3000, I thought I'd replied days ago to your friendly response. I came here because I had a notice of a comment from someone else, and found my unfinished and unposted comment to you. This is what I found:
::: {{font color | green | I stand by ''The IP wasn't saying Congress appointed Harris as anything, but that they referred to her as the border czar; i.e., the term was in common usage.'' In your haste, you and SS morphed the IP's words from "used the term" to "appointed" and "declared." The IP wasn't ascribing agency to Congress, but pointing out "border czar" was a commonly used term for Harris's responsibility wrt immigration, which it was, and not only by detractors. Now that she's competing against Trump, her role has come under scrutiny. }}
:::Not sure what I would do if this were happening today. I do very much appreciate you input and your civility. I hope to avoid alienating you, but to work toward ever greater collegiality. ] (]) 19:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)


== KH ==
Thanks for the info. I see your contribution has been allowed to stand, but unfortunately, the link to the BSW journal has died. Suddenly. Mysteriously. I was independently visiting that site myself yesterday in regards to the intelligent design article, and copied and pasted the the very same link into a document so I wouldn't lose it. Dead. Soon after I posted this link on Feb. 15, 2010,


Hello there. I thank you as well for your considerate and collegial replies. I'm posting here because I'm trying to reduce my footprint at the RfC. You are welcome to uncollapse whatever portion of the extended conversation you'd like.
http://souder.house.gov/system/uploads/31/original/IntoleranceandthePoliticizationofScienceattheSmithsonian.pdf?1254246064


I agree that the terms we dispute are but two aspects of the same thing, one a reference to the body, the other to the land. For me it is mainly a question of the precedent on WP: We refer to Blacks who hold (or have/had held) political office&mdash;from before emancipation until now, women and men&mdash;as African American. When I began exploring their pages, I hadn't imagined how unanimous this usage would be.
the page went from being the full report with appendix to just the cover page of the report.
To make an exception for KH, would require more (in my view) than only an appeal to MOS:IDENTITY, for they all called themselves Black every now and then. ]] 19:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)


:I thank you again. ]] 19:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
C'est la vie.


== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==
Absolutely no problem about any faux pas. ] (]) 00:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
== Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident ==
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
] Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed{{#if:Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident|, ],}} is on ]. {{#if:Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation|A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at ].|}} {{#if:|{{{3}}}|Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.<br><br>''The above is a ]. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.''}}<!-- Template:uw-probation --> - ] <small>(])</small> 20:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
== Personal attack warning ==


</div>
Making false comments about other editors in a discussion about how to improve an article is a form of a personal attack. Falsely attributing an opinion about another editor is a form of a personal attack. This is an official warning. Do not continue. Address the content, not the contributor. ] (]) 04:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/02&oldid=1258243447 -->

Latest revision as of 00:13, 19 November 2024

Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6


Welcome to my talk page! Please add your comment at the bottom.

La Pensée by Rodin
Are YoPienso's ideas chiseled in marble?
No, this is just a page for your thoughts and hers.


Hello, Yopienso, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
Este es el formato normal de bienvenida que está en inglés y es de mucha ayuda cuando uno recién comienza a conocer Misplaced Pages.
Muchas gracias por escribir tus comentarios en el discussion page antes de editar el artículo. Aunque en principio en Misplaced Pages se permite editar con libertad, cuando no se está seguro es mejor discutir primero en el discussion(talk) page del artículo. De nuevo bienvenida (o bienvenido, no se jeje)  Rosa 19:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Adding references can be easy

Just follow the steps 1, 2 and 3 as shown and fill in the details
Hello! Here's how to add references from reliable sources for the content you add to Misplaced Pages. This helps maintain the Misplaced Pages policy of verifiability.

Adding well formatted references is actually quite easy:

  1. While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "Cite". Click on it.
  2. Then click on "Templates".
  3. Choose the most appropriate template and fill in as many details as you can. This will add a well formatted reference that is helpful in case the web URL (or "website link") becomes inactive in the future.
  4. Click on Preview when you're done filling out the 'Cite (web/news/book/journal)' to make sure that the reference is correct.
  5. Click on Insert to insert the reference into your editing window content.
  6. Click on Show preview to Preview all your editing changes.
  • Before clicking on Save page, check that a References header   ==References==   is near the end of the article.
  • And check that   {{Reflist}}    is directly underneath that header.
7.  Click on Save page. ...and you've just added a complete reference to a Misplaced Pages article.

You can read more about this on Help:Edit toolbar or see this video File:RefTools.ogv.
Hope this helps, --Shearonink (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your friendliness. That's just an automatic template for what I can type in myself using fewer characters. What gives me tizzies is this stuff. Personally, I think all history articles should be cited in the standard Chicago (or Turabian) style for the discipline. YoPienso (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh yeah...due to your editing history/experience I figured you didn't really need any editing templates at all but I find this one useful especially for placing on new editors talk pages or for where editors are having trouble with citing information - thought you might need it someday here in WP-land. And YES! I find the "Sfn" style to be a real pain to deal with. I know some folks really like it but MAN it is so hard for me to code...I'm converting all the #TJF cites in the Jefferson article to direct linkage cites and it takes me *forever* just to get through one single ref conversion. The good news is after I get them all done I sure as hell will know how to do it. Shearonink (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Note to self: Here's that page you tend to lose.

Re: Álvaro Uribe

It was a mistake on my part. Thanks for pointing it out. I've restored everything except for the link that violated the BLPEL. --Colombiaball (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think Matarife should also be linked because it's supposed to be about Uribe.
Two examples:
Rick Santorum is linked to a hate campaign against him, which in my view is worse than a show that accuses someone of crimes who actually has been accused of crimes similar to the ones depicted.
In Sarah Palin's BLP there are 2 links (one in the infobox and another in the text in the 2088 campaign section) to the SNL parodies of her.
Those links aren't in the "See also" section; maybe a link to "Matarife" in the narrative would be appropriate in the Uribe BLP. What do you think? YoPienso (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

1971 San Fernando earthquake

What does a news article's "location in cyberspace" have anything to do with our access date? And no, access dates are not "standard in citations". There is a place for them, but not always. I didn't come here to argue with you about this. In fact, I don't really even want to talk about it. You are not going to be able to convince me that having an access date for a news story that was published in an actual paper newspaper in 1996 is useful for anything. Good day, Dawnseeker2000 06:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The access date tells the reader when the article was found at that site. Giving access dates is standard and is helpful. Note the last line in the section about citing webpages in the content guidelines:
Citations for World Wide Web pages typically include:
URL of the specific web page where the referenced content can be found
name of the author(s)
title of the article
title or domain name of the website
publisher, if known
date of publication
page number(s) (if applicable)
the date you retrieved (or accessed) the web page (required if the publication date is unknown)
YoPienso (talk) 06:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
In other words, the access date is not required if there is a publication date. Dawnseeker2000 07:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
That's putting a backwards spin on it. In plain words, WP citations typically include access dates. What's your reasoning for eliminating it? Do you intend to remove all access dates from all citations? YoPienso (talk) 07:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Important message

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in edits about, and articles related to, COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Misplaced Pages's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

PaleoNeonate00:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks.
I'm trying to understand why people are writing walls of irrelevant text in the talk section I opened. YoPienso (talk) 03:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Nancy Kulp edit

I am reverting your edit on Nancy Kulp that used Find A Grave as a source. I don't know the basis for your description of Find A Grave as "credible", but WP:USERGENERATED specifies Find A Grave as one of several "unacceptable user-generated sites". Eddie Blick (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I'm copying your comment here on my talk page to the article talk page and responding there. YoPienso (talk) 02:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Okay. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Jean-Pierre

Hi Yopienso. I just wanted to encourage you to dig a bit deeper into the Jean-Pierre dispute. Contrary to your suggestion, the dispute is not about Psaki's comments (though they did get caught up in one rollback). Prior versions of the article did indeed make wikivoice statements about conspiracy theories, and that's the locus of the dispute (for now). Hope this helps. Thanks for responding to BLPN requests! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! When I commented, it was about including Psaki's defense. And now the whole thing has been removed. I'm not heavily invested in this and am not going to waste much of my time on it, but I will speak up when I see something I think needs to be addressed.
I appreciate the way you reached out to me. YoPienso (talk) 06:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for "supporting" (my) small edits...I re-added her three languages, (which were rmved for some inexplicable reason!) you created a separate paragraph for the information, as I should have done, sorry. Thanks for the better quality section header, too. Very pleased that a much more senior editor is watching/working on details. Respectfully, Tribe of Tiger 02:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Misplaced Pages's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 11:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

A certain editor at Talk:Thomas Jefferson

I've seen that you've had extended interactions with a certain editor at Thomas Jefferson's talk page. I'm at my wits end with them right now, and I wondering if you had any advice for dealing with them. If anything, though, I just wanted to commiserate and know that I'm not alone in my current level of annoyance. Have a good one. Anwegmann (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Can you email me? Click on the link at the left under Tools; it's between "User logs" and "Mute this user." Best, YoPienso (talk) 03:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Not seeing it... Anwegmann (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
To the far left of this page is a column of blue links under the Misplaced Pages logo.
The first section is "Main page."
The second is "Contribute."
The third is "Tools." In that section, the 5th link is "Email this user." Click on that.
Or maybe it doesn't show up for you because you haven't registered an email address.
If that's the case, click on "Preferences" at the top right of your own user or talk page.
Then scroll over halfway down to "Email options," provide your email address, and click the box "Allow other users to email me."
YoPienso (talk) 02:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

hi

Hi, it's been a long time since we crossed paths. Thanks for the thanks, but FYI, part of my reasoning I retracted, as I probably read too much into the RS I was using for my opinion. Details at article talk. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Nice seing you. I remember your signature, but not what articles we worked on or if we agreed. Same for Ronz, aka Hipal. Thanks for dropping by, and take care. YoPienso (talk) 07:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
I think we mainly crossed in Misplaced Pages space. But at my age I even need RSs to remember where I put the keys NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Striking comments

Hi, could I kindly ask you to strike, not remove comments when you change them: Andre🚐 19:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, regarding that one edit, I respectfully decline. What I deleted has no relevance to the comment I intended to make and would only introduce confusion into the discussion. I'd looked at two Fox articles and conflated them in my mind. The news article is relevant to the discussion, but the ten-day-old opinion article isn't. My original post was in error, and had been there only four minutes and not received a comment. I do strike comments if they've been there more than a few minutes and/or generated replies.
I'll take this opportunity to suggest you be less active in the Fox News RFC. You seem to be pushing your point of view very hard. YoPienso (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I have already essentially tapered down my involvement to little-to-none, since my points have been made in depth. I maintain that it is proper to strike messages even if they haven't been there for long, but I can't force you to do it. Best regards. Andre🚐 19:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Font color

I removed the disruptive font color and font size. Your comment is not more special than others. Andre🚐 18:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

You seem to think you own that page, so I'm sure not going to fight you. YoPienso (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't own the page, you directly responded to my comment. It's neither standard nor appropriate to give your own comment special fonts and sizes. Andre🚐 18:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: David Bronson (disambiguation) has been accepted

David Bronson (disambiguation), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Misplaced Pages! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Disambig-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

S0091 (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks. YoPienso (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

BRD

Please read wp:brd and WP:ONUS, it is the person who wished to change an article who needs to get wp:consensus for their change. Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Joe Biden talk page

I notice that on the Joe Biden talk page, in the recent thread concerning public opinion polls, you made various disparaging personal comments about other editors. This is not a constructive way to engage on the article talk page and is very unlikely to advance your arguments. Please try to "comment on content and not contributors". It was particularly unhelpful in this case in view of the fact, that you later acknowledged, that the others were correct in their doubts about the suitability of that content for that page. SPECIFICO talk 17:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Welcome to my talk page. Who did I disparage? YoPienso (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

You should've went the RFC route. You'll not get a local consensus at Biden's BLP, for your proposal. GoodDay (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. But my long weekend's over and I don't have time to fiddle with one. I haven't been very active recently. Guess I'm qualifying for "drive-by editor." Nice working with you. YoPienso (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Yopienso. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Doug Weller talk 18:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! I never would have seen the email if you hadn't alerted me here. Funny that I can't find it in my email inbox except by typing your name into the search bar. Weird. Now you have mail! YoPienso (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Citations

Your expansion of Ax Handle Saturday was excellent, and it really stinks that we must dwell on such tragic topics in the world. It's a good way to cope. I'm sorry that I must offer feedback on citations, because they all need to be redone. The citation formatting you added is like 3 steps forward and 2 steps back. They're all not just unformatted like bare urls, but some are anti-formatted, and some are forcibly manually formatted as if this is printed paper and not digital. Some are clues on how someone could create citations for you, but as a description of a website without even a url. You need to use URLs and citation templates like Template:cite news, as you clearly see everywhere such as that very article. Just cite them, instead of writing essays describing the process by which some other anonymous stranger had used random features on another website to find them somehow, or your editorial about the content. You wrecked one {{cite news}} citation, degrading it from proper digital metadata into that faux paper format, for which I am simply speechless. You even abbreviated the word "unnecessary" in your edit summary, which is the pinnacle of unnecessariness, like a cherry on top. Notes are not citations; and you embedded a note within an inherently unnecessary note about the obvious to address and instruct the reader, which is unencyclopedic. Dates are to be formatted for the relevant country, and in complete words MOS:DATES. I strongly urge you to revise all citations you've ever added like this everywhere in the encyclopedia, because you're simply requiring other volunteers to completely redo them for you ASAP at a huge waste of their time, if ever. A great tool is WP:REFILL to install in your account for automating citations, but this is just such a universally basic process that I made examples and memorized the process. I do both. You can make a sandbox document in your userspace so you don't need to make dozens of small edits in main space. Thank you so much. — Smuckola(talk) 03:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC) YoPienso (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I may have time to respond later. Or maybe this is my response. YoPienso (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Okay that was hilariously stupid of me to put a comment on a User page, wow, for probably the first time in my life. Nice one. Sorry. Anyway, no need to respond except by fixing citations, which nobody else has any time to do for you either. Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 20:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

J6

I realize you are trying not to get dragged back into the talk page there, and since my question is more policy oriented, I thought it might be a courtesy to you if I ask it here instead. You mentioned the specific word count. When is that used to designate article titles? I'm familiar with WP:CRITERIA and MOS:AT, but can't see anything about it. More specifically, are there articles where word count was prioritized in that manner in order to determine the title? Is it "per RS", then tallied for each and every source for a grand total, or only specific RS that gets that treatment? I can't say I've ever seen it done using that method. Cheers. DN (talk) 07:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda Arendt. YoPienso (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Three new sources

Thank you for this edit, where you said, "Also, the fact that BLB was found to be a sock and subsequently blocked is irrelevant to the usefulness of the sources he provided."

Here are three additional sources. I'll leave it up to you to judge their level of reliability:

Associated Press, July 3, 2024: “Why was it a surprise? Biden's debate problems leave some wondering if the press missed the story”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-surprise-bidens-debate-problems-203215918.html

New York Magazine, July 4, 2024: “The Conspiracy of Silence to Protect Joe Biden”

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/conspiracy-of-silence-to-protect-joe-biden.html

NBC News, July 4, 2024: “Some Democrats say Biden's debate performance wasn't an anomaly”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/democrats-say-bidens-debate-performance-wasnt-anomaly-rcna160151

Gd45ciq84303321 (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi! The sources are neutral with regard to WP rules, and I am in fact interested in them. But it seems to me you're the same sock with a new name, and we do have rules about that. I don't know your history, but I suggest that since you've been banned, you should give up editing here under any name. YoPienso (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2024‎ (UTC)


Presidency Navigation Templates vs. Biography Navigation Templates discussion

Hello, Yopienso! Since you are listed as an active member of the United States Presidents WikiProject, would you mind leaving a comment at a project talk page discussion about a series of templates that I created for the presidencies of Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush? Another editor and myself disagree about whether there should be a separate navigation template for each Presidency apart from the biographical navigation template. Thanks! -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Surprised

Your comment: Are you truly ill-informed? or merely hoping we are? surprised me coming from you. My edit was along the same lines as it has been throughout this lengthy, circular exercise. You cannot say Biden was elected and then immigration spiked as if that was the cause and effect. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. I am trying to keep some balance in the situation. Gee has repeatedly removed the status quo text reversing an admin and violating enforced BRD. I truly do not understand why you claimed I did not know of other influences when all along I have been saying such and named even more. It is Gee that wants to lay this totally as Biden's feet, as if the increase worldwide was caused by him. He doesn't have that kind of power. One cannot ignore the situation. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this regarding my comment made on July 10.
I found it incomprehensible that you were denying Biden took office vowing to reverse many of Trump's policies. He fulfilled his vow, too, as I showed from RSs, including this one.
Are you truly ill-informed? or merely hoping we are? meant I thought you knew Biden made a point of reversing many of Trump's policies but were trying to convince Gwillhickers (and the rest of us) that he wasn't. YoPienso (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

"Good grief. You two aren't making any sense"

O3000, the House, in fact, elects (not appoints) the President if no candidate receives enough electoral college votes, and the Senate elects the VP. Well a candidate (Joe Biden) clearly did receive enough electoral college votes. 147 Republican Congressfolk voted to ignore the votes, essentially attempting the appointment of the person with fewer votes. It's a rather important historical fact. But that was merely a parenthetical. More importantly, we are being inundated with IPs repeating this nonsense about border czar, and folding our contributions was not helpful, IMHO. In any case, it was obvious what Slatersteven meant and I think your handling could have been a tad more civil. Regards, O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi! The House chose John Quincy Adams. Regarding the attempt to overthrow the 2020 election, a conspiracy of Republicans, along with more innocent ones who went along with their plan, challenged the legal slates of electors and tried to substitute illegal slates. How does "HOUse Republicans do not get to appoint cabinet positions" have anything to do with that? It not obvious to me that it means anything at all. The IP wasn't saying Congress appointed Harris as anything, but that they referred to her as the border czar; i.e., the term was in common usage. That's true.
Cabinet position? Who was talking about any cabinet position? The VP can't hold a cabinet position.
What meaningful contributions did you or SS make about border czar in the comments I hatted?
I try to edit politely and collegially. How could I have handled this better? Cheers, YoPienso (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
SS's post was clearly made in haste as can seen by the uncorrected spelling "HOUse". His meaning was obvious. On TPs, we often make such errors particularly on active articles where there are so many interruptions with multiple editors editing at once (and so many other contentious articles swamped with new editors coming in from social media). It's also more likely when responding over and over and over to the same nonsense. My parenthetical was merely a touch of irony. Anywho, your response along with the hat closing off response wasn't too cool. It would have ended there with no response and no hat, and the responses that the House cannot appoint folks in the Executive branch would have stood. Just my opinion. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi, O3000, I thought I'd replied days ago to your friendly response. I came here because I had a notice of a comment from someone else, and found my unfinished and unposted comment to you. This is what I found:
I stand by The IP wasn't saying Congress appointed Harris as anything, but that they referred to her as the border czar; i.e., the term was in common usage. In your haste, you and SS morphed the IP's words from "used the term" to "appointed" and "declared." The IP wasn't ascribing agency to Congress, but pointing out "border czar" was a commonly used term for Harris's responsibility wrt immigration, which it was, and not only by detractors. Now that she's competing against Trump, her role has come under scrutiny.
Not sure what I would do if this were happening today. I do very much appreciate you input and your civility. I hope to avoid alienating you, but to work toward ever greater collegiality. YoPienso (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

KH

Hello there. I thank you as well for your considerate and collegial replies. I'm posting here because I'm trying to reduce my footprint at the RfC. You are welcome to uncollapse whatever portion of the extended conversation you'd like.

I agree that the terms we dispute are but two aspects of the same thing, one a reference to the body, the other to the land. For me it is mainly a question of the precedent on WP: We refer to Blacks who hold (or have/had held) political office—from before emancipation until now, women and men—as African American. When I began exploring their pages, I hadn't imagined how unanimous this usage would be. To make an exception for KH, would require more (in my view) than only an appeal to MOS:IDENTITY, for they all called themselves Black every now and then. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I thank you again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)