Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:47, 14 January 2004

Welcome to anal sex

Hey Jack :) I hope you like the place and choose to stay.

Some links that may be of use:

• Misplaced Pages:Welcome, newcomers
• Misplaced Pages:How to edit a page
• Misplaced Pages:Village pump - ask questions you may have here, or leave a message on my talk page

Just a point, it's not a good idea to remove comments on talk pages. If you want to edit the article, you should do so at Anal sex and not at Talk:Anal sex, which is where users discuss the actual article itself! :)

Keep contributing! :) Dysprosia 07:38, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

don't be shy!

Read Misplaced Pages:Be bold in updating pages :) Kingturtle 03:11, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Jean Chretien

I don't think that's very comical at all, if you are referring to the Bell's palsy. Of course, I know what you are actually trying to say, and in that case I don't think that's really appropriate for an encyclopedia... Adam Bishop 03:34, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Eckernförde

There was nothing wrong with it, that's why I was trying to undelete it. RickK 19:04, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

AKFD

It was only the lower case version (AIDS kills fags dead) that was deleted. AIDS Kills Fags Dead still exists. There was a vote going on since July, and the most recent vote came up with 89% in support of deletion. I can't see anything at Talk:Anti-gay slogan relating to this particular redirect being needed. As a slogan, it would be capitalised, so there would seem little benefit in also keeping the lower case variant of it as well. If you want to contest the deletion, you could do so at Talk:AKFD/redirect, but you may want to read the previous discussion on it first which you can find on that page and in the various archives linked to from that page. Angela 03:41, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I've replied to your point at Talk:AKFD/redirect. Angela 03:59, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I just tend to get a bit defensive about deletions I make. Regarding how deletions occur, you could check out Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy. Undeletions usually go through Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion but with something that has had as much discussion at this, it's best to raise it on that Talk:AKFD/redirect page before going to VfU I think. Regarding the search - it's been switched off for a few months because the servers can't handle it. I'm not sure what you mean by can I give you a link to the "wiki resouce problems". Maybe the bug reports on sourceforge? If you mean you want to help fix them, then there is a mailing list and a section on Meta for developers. Hope that helps. Angela 07:32, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Dear Jack, i understand you concern and i'll leave a message in the Conflict users page regarding my red pencil. All the best Muriel Victoria 08:26, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC) Actually i'm not leaving a message in wikc :). The discussion is long and nobody will notice it anyway. I did it because i dont like seeing Ed Poor or other users being called names, no mather what. Any way, i left a message and if you check the Page history, you'll see that the removals are easy to find by the comment. Cheers, Muriel

VfD header on close votes

Hi Jack -- A lot of us (myself included) have concerns about how much attention gets focused on Votes for deletion, and that there are a lot of negative, anti-wiki aspects to the page -- despite its seeming necessity. Personally, I don't like the idea of an ad-hoc "make it so" deletion squad, and don't feel it's appropriate that the page itself has people listed near the top who can be called upon to push a vote over the edge it it's close. I decided not to join in the mini edit war over removing the message, but I may still offer my two cents. For more on my feelings on the whole issue, see deletionism, inclusionism, and especially this post I made on the mailing list. -- Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 23:49, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. As you wrote, I have detected a certain elitist atmosphere at the wikipedia where some feel they and their vote (or opinion, etc...) are more equal than those of others, and that the opinions of some are not needed at all ;) I want to say that I'm sorry if what I said above sounded elitist, and I do wish to be clear that I don't in any way feel that your opinions or contributions are less important than anyone else's. I'm addressing what seems to me to be a completely different issue. I'm opposed to what I see as a group of people (and it doesn't matter to me who is part of that group) that's called upon to delete articles in case of a close vote. I might feel differently if those listed were listed "to solicit our opinions/votes" or something of that sort. But I can't get away from the feeling that it would function as a sort of "hit squad" in case of close votes. I hope this is a bit more clear than what I wrote earlier.... Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 03:39, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Aha! I didn't (of course) make the comment you're referring to, but I do remember it. Thanks for the explanation and the clarification. BCorr ¤ Брайен 04:03, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Jack, re your comments on Conflicts between users... I think you may be getting paranoid over nothing. You want a place where you can be notified that a deletion may be taking place... but that is precisely what the Votes for Deletion is for... no-one can go around deleting articles without their being five days for people to object. At the end of five days, someone just takes the pulse of whatever discussion is going on there and acts accordingly. Your opinion definitely will be respected.

Also I don't think having a notification list is a good idea. Why should some people be on it and not others? Shouldn't someone interested in deletion issues be reading Votes for Deletion? It's hardly fair to expect someone else to read it for you and then come trotting along to let you know something interesting is happening (there is always something interesting happening!). Just my 2p. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:39, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Merging Palestinian views of the peace process

Hi Jack. At VfD you suggested merging Palestinian views of the peace process somewhere rather than deleting it. Can you let me know where you actually wanted it merged so this can be done and the page removed from VfD. Thanks. Angela. 19:54, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Until someone does merge them, I've left it as a redirect. The material is still available in the page history should anyone actually want to do this task. The problem with VfD is that people often say "merge", but then no-one actually wants to bother doing the merging. Angela. 21:18, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No, merging page histories is something only a sysop can do, but such a thing is rarely done as it messes with the flow of the history and potentially destroys any proper GFDL attribution. Unless it is a really simple merge, the normal approach is to manually cut and paste the content (stating in the edit summary where the info came from) and then redirect the original page to the page where the info now resides. Matters are complicated if the original title was so bad it needs deleting or if the redirect would be inappropriate (Chip Row to Cardiff for example), but in this case, I think the redirect is fine, so anyone can do the merging. As both Palestine and Palestinian views of the peace process have long histories, merging them would make no sense, as the difs would end looking like someone was constantly reverting between two completely different articles. It's only when there is no overlap in the editing time between two documents that a full history merge will work properly. Hope that makes sense. Let me know if not. Angela. 21:33, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

List of Notable Offended Nazi's

Hi. Your change to Nazism imparts your subjective view that calling someone eg. a "feminazi" is _only_ offensive to jews. I reinstated with my reversion of your edit that it is potentially anyone, but in particular those that have been persecuted by Nazis that could be offended. I find calling someone a nazi, when they are not a nazi to be offensive. And I'm not in any of the groups (communists, homosexuals, jews, mentally handicapped) that was persecuted by the nazis. My removal of your speculation about offense to former nazis is justified on the basis that the sentence is speculation. It can of course be reinserted if there is any evidence of a former or neonazi taking offense to adjective use of the term "Nazi" to refer to clearly non-nazi persons or groups. --snoyes 04:51, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think just leaving the specifics of who might be offended away is the best solution. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge about the subject can extrapolate who would be offended by such usage of the word "nazi". Thanks for changing it. --snoyes 15:17, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Heroes

Hi. Taking this off the VfD page as I've already taken up enough space there. It is not my intention that my POV be substituted for yours in the article, I was just trying to get more specific as you had, perhaps rightly, complained that the objections raised were inadequate. I would suggest that your own confident assertions re heroes may not stand up to a wide range of debate and that this list is more likely to be contentious than utilitarian. Heroes are not of necessity participants in war, many might consider Gandhi, for instance, a hero. Where would conscientious objectors stand in your list? Again, many might consider them true war heroes. Bmills 10:57, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Here's the Canbridge definition of hero:

Definition hero (PERSON) (plural heroes) noun 1 (FEMALE heroine) a person who is admired for having done something very brave or having achieved something great: a war hero He became a national hero for his part in the revolution. HUMOROUS Graham says he'll take my parents to the airport at four o'clock in the morning - what a hero! See also anti-hero.

2 (FEMALE heroine) the main male character in a book or film who is usually good: the hero of her latest novel

3 someone who you admire greatly: Humphrey Bogart's my hero - I've seen every one of his films.

Not all to do with war, you'll agree. And as for Gandhi not being a hero??????

If the article is not deleted, well and good. Bmills 11:19, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Not changing my vote, just mean I'm happy to accept whatever consensus emerges on VfD. Bmills 11:50, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for seconding my self-nomination and for your compliments. They were very nice to read.168... 07:44, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I tried

... and then meta swallowed my post and gave me a 404. Ugh. I'm off Misplaced Pages till it speeds up again, I think. Martin 23:28, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

RK

Good question. Why do we tolerate such abuse? -- Viajero 00:49, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The last version is at least in better context. Stalinism by itself, i.e., not as a member of the "quadrille" has a totally different meaning. IMO one should not confuse an idealistic "communism" theory and the actual results of its implementation (even if one can prove the results are direct consequence of consistent application of the theory.) Maoism is another "implementation" of Communism, different from "Stalinism". What is more, "stalinism" was never theory. Good luck! Mikkalai 05:38, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Re: Classical Pantheism

Thanks. I didn't think it was the same, either; but since I might have been mistaken, I thought it wise to leave a note saying so. Rasmus Faber 13:08, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Socialism and nazism

Hi,

there's been a recent flamewar on the Socialism page about the inclusion of nazism in the list of "types of socialism" between Adam Carr and Lir, with other users joining in later. We have now moved most of the discussion of the two systems to Socialism and Nazism, and instead of including Nazism directly in the list, it is briefly discussed in a separate paragraph on Socialism. This seems like the most reasonable NPOV compromise. Can you agree with that?--—Eloquence 04:08, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)

Just curious...

I promise I'm not being combative, I just was hoping you could clarify something. Based on your comments at RfA about Mydog..., I cannot tell whether you believe the username is "obviously offensive" or "offensive to you personally". I find the distinction relevant, and so I was hoping you could clarify for me which it is. If it is honestly offensive to you, then I must assume you are a theist. Could you explain, then, to me (a fellow theist, and a dedicated one) how particularly it offends you? As I said above, I'm not starting an argument--honest! I just have been trying to figure out the opposing side's argument, because I'm always trying to keep people from offending each other here (when I can), and this is one of the few cases where I honestly just don't see it. Any help you can provide would be very appreciated. Jwrosenzweig 21:47, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)