Misplaced Pages

IRC

Yeah, I've popped my head over at IRC a couple of times; I struggled! I couldn't give myself a voice whenever I signed in, so I was being asked constantly if I wanted any help; someone gave me a temporary voice but it had expired by the time I got back to my PC. Do you know how to set it automatically? Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, thanks! I'll ask him, but tomorrow. GMT means I'm off to bed! :D Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

In Praise Of A Job Well Done

Because you deserve it! I am offline for a bit -- see you soon! Ecoleetage (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

:PS Check your email - message from Eco! 205.247.175.180 (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• You're welcome! Though I thought you were going to reciprocate (as per your earlier email). Ecoleetage (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

::Will you please check your email regarding this? And also, the graphics art work I wanted to steer your way? ] (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting Ecoleetage (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Race and crime

Briefly, I removed the information in question because the Race and crime article is not about race relations, but simply about the correlation between race and crime. Statistics about interracial crime give a far too narrow view of the topic as they usually comprise a very small percentage of the overall crime rate; in that specific case the statistics assert a "white vs. black" stance (which adds a POV to the article) and are less than 10% of the overall rape statistics for that year most years. (Not sure about 1982, but that was the case in the 1997 statistics that are already cited in the same section) Basically, not only is the information misleading when placed in that article, it's essentially useless information for the scope of the article as well. Hope that clears it up. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 10:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Also, I'd like to point out that the citation, while properly formatted, cannot be easily verified unless you happen to have Volume 88 of the American Journal of Sociology in front of you. This was not a factor in my decision to remove the information, but given the controversial nature of the topic it is perfectly plausible that someone might make up a convincing sounding citation to add on to fabricated statistics in order to introduce their own POV to the article. The general rule for Race and crime has been that any statistic or other piece of even vaguely controversial information needs to be sourced to something that is linkable; otherwise you're effectively giving every fringe nutjob an open door to adding their own racist, fabricated statistics. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 10:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

any and all academic journals are easily found on jstor, don't pretend to be unaware of this. Nyuba (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That handles the issue of sourcing, but it still doesn't address the two bigger issues that the statistics are misleading and irrelevant to the article. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 23:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

...and now that I've read the single page that was accessible in the link I can outright say that the statistics are wholly unsuitable for inclusion. The statistics used for the study in question were based on 443 crimes over a four year period, which is an absurdly small sampling size for rape crimes, and even assuming the limited focus was anywhere near appropriate for the scope of the article that small sample size is virtually guaranteed to come with a high margin of error. There are far better statistics already used in the article which establish a better overall picture. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 23:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed the R&C article vandalism. I've seen this behavior on this article before using what I think is the same source. I believe this editor is an indef. blocked editor. I'm going through the history now - just fyi. --Ave Caesar (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked into it and couldn't find it. Eh, perhaps I was mistaken or it could have been on a different article involving race. I'm not sure. --Ave Caesar (talk) 05:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring at John Howard

Hi Master of Puppets. Glad to hear from you. Basically the arguments are being stated at the bottom of the John Howard talk page. There is a problem when adding new content to the John Howard article. There exists are small group of editors who revert it as soon as it's added. Sounds like something out of a Dr Seuss book. Usually, reverts occur seconds after content is added. Reverting to quickly delete content should only be used in cases where there is vandalism, or if someone has inserted libellous content. None of these apply in this case. Referenced material that has been covered by hundreds of major news outlets should be treated differently to that. Added to this, there is a sizable number of editors who have stated that they are in favour of retaining the content, so to use the quick delete method is really not appropriate. Will talk more. RegardsLester 05:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The reverting starts happening when content is added that may be perceived as putting Prime Minister John Howard in a poor light. It happens when anyone adds content that is perceived as negative to John Howard. Regardless of how many references from major media outlets or major publishers are provided. Lester 06:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Lester perhaps sees the collaborative approach in a different light because it is his edits which are being reverted, and these edits are uniformly consistent in their political approach. It is not a matter of removing criticism of John Howard. Legitimate criticism is expected if an article is to have balance and credibility, and many of John Howard's actions richly deserve criticism. The article has much recently-added criticism which I have not "reverted within seconds". However, I will not stand by and watch a good article nibbled away at, slanted a phrase or sentence at a time, to the point where it is not useful information so much as polemic. If Lester had his way, the John Howard article would be one long thundering tirade of hatred. Sweetly phrased, of course, and all duly sourced and wikiformatted.

Lester apparently regards edit-warring as something other people do, and I am disappointed that when he was backed into a corner on the RfC, with no consensus for inclusion and no strong support for his actions, he chose to take his crusade back to the article. I reverted him once, with a comment about process, and have since then left the article alone. I suspect that the catalyst for Lester's resumption was this edit of mine, in which I removed a comment that was inappropriate for the lead. Presumably this came up on Lester's watchlist, and sparked a desire to scratch that Skyring itch.

I'm happy to go along with consensus, but it is quite clear that this has eluded us so far. --Pete (talk) 01:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Obama inclusion?

Then vote here :) Timeshift (talk) 05:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: ITN

I think the flag image still looks good at 100x100px. Perhaps it has to do with my good eyesight? :-D While occasional exceptions may be allowed for the images with extreme ratio, the flag is not really that wide, I think. How about some compromise... 110px? --BorgQueen (talk) 17:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Will You Please Keep Your Promise?

I am still waiting for you to keep your promise, as per our e-mail conversation. I thought that this matter would be settled "in a few minutes, at most" (as per your last e-mail). This is now the FOURTH DAY that I am chasing after you on this. Please keep your word! Ecoleetage (talk) 09:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I hate to keep bringing this up. However, I had a terrible past week and I was genuinely touched by your original offer. The fact you haven't followed through, though, has only added to the unpleasantness of this past week for me. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting (we're going on the FIFTH DAY!!!) Ecoleetage (talk) 02:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

More invicility and flagrant violation of established Misplaced Pages rules by Jeffreyneave

Hello there. We are having trouble again with sockpuppets of Jeffreyneave. For example, see this. He has no intention of abiding by Misplaced Pages rules and is bent on making life miserable for editors who do. Can you do something? This is the record of your previous involvement. Thanks! Tennis expert (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)