Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:48, 20 May 2009

Archives

Archive 1 = 2006-12-29 thru 2008-12-31. Archive 2 = 2009-01-01 thru 2009-04-20

Welcome to my Talk page

Hi Hi, thank you for visiting my talk page. My personal information may be found on my user page. If you would like to discuss anything related to Misplaced Pages, please click here to leave me a message in a new section below. If you'd like to discuss anything beyond Misplaced Pages, you can email me, thanks!

Tips for reading Misplaced Pages

Here's a superbly useful, concise, intelligent article which i found on a scientist's blog: How to read Misplaced Pages.

And here's the humorous Misplaced Pages FAQK by Lore Sjöberg.

Tips for editing the encyclopedia

Removing Bias: APA guidelines for avoiding Heteronormativity

Removing Bias: APA Guidelines for Non-Handicapping Language

Open-mindedness - A look at some of the flawed thinking that prompts people who believe in certain non-scientific concepts to advise others who don't to be more open-minded.

User:Mccready - Editing principles for pseudoscience articles in Misplaced Pages

User:Antandrus/observations on Misplaced Pages behavior - interspersed with recommendations on how to deal with it.

Misplaced Pages:Advocacy - Misplaced Pages is not a venue for raising the visibility of an issue or agenda. Cooperate with other editors to neutrally summarize notable topics using reliable sources without advocating any particular position or giving undue weight to minority views.

Citations

All parameter names must be lowercase. In text, dates given as ] will display as 1970-04-20. In citations, leave off the brackets for the same effect.

• Citation templates
• Websites
  • <ref name="NAME">{{cite web | last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = | work = | publisher = | date = | url = | format = | doi = | accessdate = }} </ref>
• Books (documentation)
  • <ref name="NAME">{{cite book |title= |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |year= |publisher= |location= |isbn= |page= |pages= |url= }} </ref>
• Publication
  • <ref name="NAME"> {{cite journal | last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = | journal = | volume = | issue = | pages = | publisher = | location = | date = | url = | doi = | id = | accessdate = }} </ref>
• News (documentation)
  • <ref name="NAME"> {{cite news | last = | first = | coauthors = | title = | work = | pages = | language = | publisher = | date = | url = | accessdate = }}</ref>

Welcome to Misplaced Pages

Courtesy note: You may have missed this

See: Ikip (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Ikip. That was eventually resolved a few months ago, which seems like an eternity in Internet-Time. Hope you are having a good week, thanks. ~_{Teledildonix314}~~_4-1-1~ 23:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The Robinson RfC

I appreciate your taking the time to respond to the Gene Robinson RfC. Unfortunately, although I was trying to set up a process for a neutral and mutually agreed-upon statement of the issues, one user bypassed that and went ahead unilaterally. The result was that you commented before the other side had been presented. I'm explaining why I disagree with your comment, in the hope that, having heard both sides, you'll consider changing your mind and amending your response.

You wrote, "Our convention is to use the nomenclature preferred by the person themselves...." You're probably referring to our convention for article titles, which is to use the name by which the person is most commonly known. The issue on this RfC, however, is how to begin the article. There our convention is set forth at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (biographies)#Names (the MoS), which states:

While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known.

The people who type in "Gene Robinson" should come to this article and see something like this:

Vicky Imogene "Gene" Robinson (born May 29, 1947)....

That should tell them whether they're on the right page. (Your comment prompts me to think that, regardless of the outcome of this RfC, we should add an "other uses" hatnote for the benefit of people looking for one of the Eugene Robinsons, the football player or the journalist.)

You also wrote, "We can use the standard redirection options for other variations, as we do for so many public figures whose 'famous' names are different from their 'legal' names." We already use redirection with respect to the article name. Vicky Imogene Robinson redirects to the Gene Robinson article. The redirect, however, doesn't affect the use of the full name at the beginning of the article. In such cases as Thomas Woodrow Wilson, Willard Mitt Romney, William Jefferson Clinton, and Samuel Langhorne Clemens, the legal name is a redirect to the article, which is at the famous name, but the article begins with the full legal name. That's the solution I'm supporting in this case. JamesMLane t c 05:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Please excuse my mess today, i totally mixed up my thoughts regarding Title versus Lede, and i've gone back to change my comments, with strikethrough, right while you were posting here (and then i had Edit Conflicts while trying to strikethrough! gahh!) Very sorry about my mixup, i hope my newer comment will be more useful. Thanks ~_{Teledildonix314}~~_4-1-1~ 05:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for taking the trouble to change your comment! JamesMLane t c 05:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow, how wrong i was at first; i wish i had a time-machine so i could prevent my original remark from ever having happened! Now that my coffee has kicked in, i realized how much i messed up initially, so i just went back to that discussion and totally hopped on the soapbox. I did my best to plead the case for treating gay clergymen the same respectful way we treat amazingly successful African American politicians and super popular titanic British athletes. If it's good enough for the President of the United States and for the beloved wrestler Big Daddy, then i think it's good enough for an eminently respected Episcopal Bishop. I wish i'd been more awake when i first commented yesterday, because i was sadly conflating the title versus the lede; and now that i have a clearer head, i realize my true feelings lie in the opposite direction of my original comment. Sometimes i think i should wait a whole day before i chime in on any Misplaced Pages discussions, instead of blundering in hastily during the first minute without giving things my wisest consideration. ~_{Teledildonix314}~~_4-1-1~ 12:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Sure, I'd be happy to take a look. Just give me a day or so to read up on the discussion. Regards, –Juliancolton |  02:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. ~_{Teledildonix314}~~_4-1-1~ 02:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, doesn't look like I'd be able to do a lot in this case. I'll keep an eye on it, however. Cheers, –Juliancolton |  16:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, I enjoyed your post to me. Just want to let you know I responded to you on my talk page. I don't know if I am on your watchlist or not so I thought I would pop in here and let you know. Be well, --CrohnieGal 12:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hi, thanks for the pleasant reply, i'll keep your page on my WatchList. You are so right, information and knowledge are power, and that's so much of what's great about working with people on Misplaced Pages. ~_{Teledildonix314}~~_4-1-1~ 01:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration involving User:Collect

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#edit warring by collect and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,--Brendan19 (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. I believe this is important, because i have been hoping for a behavioral change, and i don't think the Request for Comment had much of a result. Unfortunately, the vast majority of my frustrating experiences with Collect have been in a disputed article which has been in Mediation for months, and due to the privileged nature of Mediation i will not be allowed to present evidence from that case. In effect, his bad behavior in that dispute is "sheltered" from the Arbitration committee's decision-making. Of course, it's not invisible, as anybody can freely read the long history of that Mediation and see exactly how he operates (and continues to operate). But it won't be "presentable as evidence", so to speak, in the Arbitration. I've been so angry about his tactics of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, semi-Civil POV-pushing, and especially his refusal to ever admit fallibility; but it will be difficult for me to bring these complaints to the Arbitration because my interactions with him are mainly behind the wall of Mediation. I will certainly examine all of the discussions of other involved editors, but i might not have anything much to add. Thanks for the information, i hope some kind of progress can be made in order to reduce the frustrations of so many other editors who've been dealing with the same problems. ~_{Teledildonix314}~~_4-1-1~ 20:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Mediation: Rick Warren

I see that you have made some new comments on the mediation page. You have been involved in the past, and then withdrawn, several times. You and I have discussed the nature of your participation in the mediation (on your talk page), which I have found problematic, at times. Thus I would like to discuss your further participation and reach an agreement with you on its terms before you participate further. Sunray (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Benccc agreed to act as representative for my concerns in the Mediation. That's why i made no further comments on the Mediation during the weeks since i informed you on your TalkPage about Benccc's agreement. Also, beside the Mediation TalkPage, i made no further comments on any other related TalkPages of the participants, nor on any of the related articles of Rick Warren and SaddleBack Church. The exception was when the most difficult portion of the Mediation reached a breakthrough in progress, i left a message of "thanks, congratulations" on Benccc's TalkPage; then i felt it would be polite to give that thanks/congratulations to the other participants, so i left the same message on the pages of Collect, Firestorm, and Lyonscc. I have made no other comments or related edits in any way during this period of April 22nd until today (as you will find April 22nd was when i left the notification on your TalkPage about my having been fortunate to have Benccc as representation.)

But then User:Collect made a comment at 12:14 today which was off-topic, not relevant to the items being Mediated, as he was concerned tangentially about his Arbitration Case. I made a comment in reply, to which he then (as usual) replied sarcastically; and then i made a second comment emphasizing that the top paragraph of the Mediation TalkPage specifically asks "Please limit discussion to improvement of this article." I find it curious that you deleted that portion of the exchange (with my remarks) but you did not delete all of Collect's off-topic material. I find it a bit troubling that this uneven sort of deletion, although probably quite harmless today, is actually consistent with a larger pattern which i have observed throughout the course of the Mediation in previous weeks. Perhaps i should be sticking absolutely to the Assumption Of Good Faith, especially after all of the kindly personal discussion in which you were willing to engage me privately outside the Mediation page; but from my point of view, it does tend to cause a perception of inconsistency which undermines some of the basic principles of the Mediation process. It's part of the pattern which led me to blow up at you five weeks ago; i was wrong to react in anger to you then, and i'm being careful not to repeat that mistake... but i hope you see how your selectivity of policy-application puts me in a position of having my Good Faith tested. Hopefully this is all of no consequence, i'm sure we just wanted whatever is best for the editing environment; but please understand that i don't make any actions (or reactions) without due cause.

As for further participation, you had told me on April 17th: "Here's a radical thought: After a bit more rest, would you consider coming back to the mediation table? We need more folks with energy to wrap it up, so it would be a return of a favor, so to speak, if you are up for it. I know you don't suffer fools, but it might be an opportunity to practice some skills. There is no reason to be embarrassed. You have apologized for your outburst (which anyone who has been around WP for awhile can relate to) and I think you know what you need to change. What makes you different than many is that you are aware. If you can learn to control that hair trigger (I would help), it could be good all round." I was quite grateful for the forgiveness. I participated in a small way on April 20th; but then my path of action (in order to avoid repeating my mistakes) was to approach Benccc to "do the talking" on my behalf. Since April 20th until today, i made zero interaction with the Mediation project and any associated articles. Today i only made those two brief remarks to specifically indicate that i wished for the Mediation to proceed without being derailed by Collect's tangential sarcasm, and i explicitly stated at the end of my second remark that i was moving back to the sideline quietly. You must have seen this clearly, as you then proceeded to delete my remarks.

I had hoped to make a final response to your query of "Would each of you be willing to comment?", and my intention was to respond very much in the same way as Collect did today, merely indicating that i, too, was basically satisfied with each of those points being mediated. But you now perplex me, as you seem to imply two things which are contrary to what i was led to believe earlier. First, on April 17th you had clearly invited me to return to participation, and it seemed that my few additional actions wherein i participated on April 20th and on today were quite minimal and quite in line with the correct procedures; but you deleted my participation today, so obviously i have either misunderstood your invitation or i have failed to see the criteria which you use to "draw the line" when it comes to my remarks being deleted but you don't delete all of Collect's off-topic material. Second, you say you "would like to discuss your further participation and reach an agreement with you on its terms before you participate further." This appears to be a rescinding of the invitation to participate, and i'm no idiot —so obviously i won't give my final response to your query for comment, until you make it clear that i'm "allowed" to do so. But why the sudden change in stance? I did not believe i was disruptive or un-civil, and i thought my point about avoiding off-topic material was quite germane. I thought we were basically at the end of a very long process, and i was intending to give nothing further except a "summary of satisfaction" similar to Collect's.

Please tell me where i have misunderstood or misinterpreted anything, or where i have failed to notice something important, so i can avoid repeating any such mistake in the future (not that i wish to ever be in any similar Mediation in the future, but i do wish to learn.) Also please let me know if i can echo Collect's "summary of satisfaction" at the end of the Mediation, so it may have an appropriate appearance of closure for the parties involved. I assumed i was still an involved party, but your words today have perplexed my assumption. Sorry if i have stupidly failed to follow what should be obvious to people ordinarily, but i thought things were proceeding in quite a correct fashion, and were basically at the point of being entirely wrapped up. Thank you ~_{Teledildonix314}~~₄₁₁~ 21:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)