Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:37, 9 May 2021

Discretionary sanction awareness notices

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts the Arab–Israeli conflict abortion post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people the English Misplaced Pages Manual of Style and article titles policy articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles climate change discussions about infoboxes, and edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed pseudoscience and fringe science the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour the Troubles the Balkans or Eastern Europe They should not be given alerts for those areas.

AIV

Nope, nothing wrong with that. Congratulations on your first AIV report! --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

thanks, pressed enter by accident.

The testimony is cluttering the page, unformatted and way too biased in favour of the state.

I am in the process of making a new section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7d:ce10:d900:a886:1ffc:4211:4bd (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Pinging problems

Thank you for your quite thorough third opinion. I thought it worth noting that given this edit was clearly an attempt to ping, that I did not receive any ping. Not sure why myself, mind. CMD (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me! I posted a message on Nomad's talk page just in case. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Safavid Georgia

3 users try to Persianise and Islamise the names of Georgian Kings. They WERE NOT Persians and Muslims, they were Georgians and Christians. One of them is the saint of Georgian Orthodox Church. All academic society knows them with their Georgian names. I have provided plenty of sources and can provide more if it is needed. BTW Can you imagine Christianisation of the names of Muslim kings in Misplaced Pages, will it be right? What is your logic when you reverted my edition?Giorgi Mechurchle (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Giorgi Mechurchle! I don't have any opinion on the content of that page yet. I need to do more research. I reverted your edit because you broke an important Misplaced Pages rule, the three revert rule. You just broke it again by reverting my edit. I highly encourage you to self-revert your own recent edit to avoid being blocked. I think you are making good points, but that you need to take time to persuade others and stop edit warring. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

But what can I do, those 3 users reverted my edition everytime, they have 0 argument and no logic at all! Can anyone explain why the names of Christian, Georgian kings (as I mentioned one of them is a saint of GOC and both of them were fighting against Safavids during their lifetime) should be written in Persianised and Islamised form in English Misplaced Pages? What a cynicism is this?

P.S. I do not want to break any rule, but hope somehow it will be possible to give the article more academic form.Giorgi Mechurchle (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Giorgi Mechurchle, first, do you understand the WP:3RR rule? I am happy to answer any questions you have about it.I have a limited amount of knowledge about Georgia's history, so I am trying to learn more before commenting on this content dispute. I do think it's likely that at least some of the kings should be mentioned in the article primarily by their Georgian names. I want to encourage you to pick one—the one for which you have the strongest argument— and make a clear, short case for the change on the talk page. Then be patient as other editors process your point. I am worried that if you even give off a hint of edit-warring that you will be banned from this topic area. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism

If someone is already dealing with a vandal, there no need for you to as well, at the very same time. Too many cooks in the kitchen and all that... - wolf 06:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Thewolfchild, I take your point and will keep an eye out for opportunities to be better in the future. In this case, though, all I did was see the Canadia change in Recent Changes, revert it, and post a vandalism warning. At the time, this user didn't appear to have any other warnings. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

With vandals, it's good to take a quick look at their contribs, that'll show you if they just made the one edit, or if they're on an active spree. You can also see if edits have been reverted, or are current. That one look can tell you a lot. Also, especially with registered accounts, the first thing (that I always do at least) is add a 'welcome' template to the top of their page. It shows we're not biting a possibly confused, or very young, newcomer, but it also eliminates the excuse "I didn't know" after any further vandalism. You'll note the welcome template, your revert and notice, and my reverts and notices are all within minutes of each other. (just an fyi). - wolf 06:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Thewolfchild, Thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

RFPP

I do understand your frustration; in general, our articles about shows and movies (especially those with younger audiences) seem to endure a steady onslaught unsourced additions and other pointless fiddling. For those cases, it seems more effective to target the disruptive editors (and their IP ranges) versus trying to protect all of those articles. I did block one range in Poland that had been warned numerous times for unsourced edits. OhNoitsJamie 15:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your experience and advice; that approach makes sense. Would you like to be pinged into discussion at Talk:Tarzan (1999 film)? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

No, that's OK, but you can ping me if there seems to be an IP or range who continues to make unsourced edits after being warned. OhNoitsJamie 16:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

regarding an edit i made which u say is archived cuz i didnt source it

hi u messaged me saying " edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now." which article was that? Im positive i can source my edit though i think i might have overlooked something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.47.200.65 (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello! That was in reference to this edit at Shooting of Walter Scott and this one at Shooting of Rekia Boyd. I encourage you to read our verifiability policy and our policy on biographies of living persons (which applies to the police that shot and killed them). Also, when participating on talk pages, you should "sign" your posts by putting 4 tildes at the end of your comment (~~~~). Hope that helps! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Farokh Tarapore

Hi. Thanks for your help with this article - much appreciated. Lugnuts 16:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thanks for clearing up the "deleting comments" fiasco, and resolving the images problem. Voraciousdolphin (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Voter suppression in the United States pre-Civil-War content

Hi, you just reverted my addition to Voter suppression in the United States in which I quoted an 1824 South Carolina bill asserting the importance, over all other laws, constitutions, and treaties, for the government to "control and regulate" political causes; your edit comment said that this was "not needed" in the article, which currently does not have any material on pre-Civil-War voter suppression.

This certainly wasn't meant to be thorough coverage of pre-Civil-War voter suppression in the United States, just a start. But an official government declaration about control of political activities and related subordination of "their" colored population seems pertinent and reliably-sourced, as the WP:P&G jargon goes.

I'm not terribly thrilled at the idea of throwing the work away but maybe you could give me an idea of what sort of pre-Civil-War coverage of the topic is needed, that it might be combined with? --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 19:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, amending my above comment, I'm noticing that I missed the "1838 Gallatin County Election Day Battle" subsection. The South Carolina thing seemed like a better contrast to voting rights being granted post-Civil-War, but would you prefer it be added next to the existing pre-Civil-War content about Mormons? --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 19:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Struthious Bandersnatch, I was impressed by the quality of your writing and very much on the fence about reverting. I am not 100% sure that my viewpoint is correct. Probably the best place for this discussion is at the talk page. Could you copy your message there? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Shame on you

Soul in the Bible

You said I need a verifiable source. Seeing as the subject is soul in the bible and my comment had 2 sources of it, would not finding verses that have soul in the bible count as reliable information. If I were to read any book, and talk about it, I would reference the book as evidence to what the book says. I would assume soul in the Bible has to do with the word soul in the Bible? Or does the reference of the parts in the Bible need different formatting? Anyone can verify that it is what was written there with extreme ease. Was this a formatting problem? I don't see how the references mentioned in the sentence cannot be verified? If it is over semantics, there are plenty of people who would think that naphesh meant soul in some of the occasions it is mentioned. Tim Mackie has a PhD in Semitic Languages and Biblical Studies. Here is him talking about the word nephesh with another person. Here is a list of the ESV translators, just a modern English translation of the Bible. A list of over 100 PhDs. Not all of them would have worked specifically on the word soul in the Bible obviously and some served as advisors, but still came to the conclusion the Hebrew word should be translated soul in some cases. The 72 translators of the Septuagint all thought that sometimes the Hebrew word meant soul as well? I am a noob at using Misplaced Pages, however I don't see how what I said is not verifiable in the Bible? Or do I just need to provide a link to a secondary website to an online Bible? Or is it due to some people questioning whether Nephesh meant soul in some instances? Of which, I think I provided some reasons in my talk, however if directions to secondary sources is necessary, I can add those. I kinda figured when I mention Psalms, anyone can figure out what that is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traviscove (talk • contribs) 03:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Traviscove, first, sorry about your comment getting hidden in another section. That was caused by my using a template incorrectly higher up in the page. In fixing it, I deleted your duplicate section. I hope that's okay! I am glad that you are here to improve Misplaced Pages, and I wish you all the best! You will find that your edits go over much better if you carefully read WP:V and WP:OR. I am happy to answer any questions you have about either of those. In this specific case, it's not about doubting what's written in the Bible, it's about how to interpret what is written there. You made the case that those Psalms contradict other statements; that case should really be made by a reliable, secondary source (see WP:RS). You also phrased your edit in a way that makes one part of the article argue against another part, and I hope you'd agree that isn't an appropriate style for an encyclopedia. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I hope this reply doesn't mess up any formatting. So if I just reference things that would support the interpretation of nephesh as soul, that would be okay? And I have read several Misplaced Pages articles that have points from both sides. If in this one, someone is allowed to refute and show fallacies in Dawkins statement, referencing others, I would think that in a topic Headlined; "Soul in the Bible" I would be allowed to show where in the Bible soul is mentioned, and show how that word means soul, and to mean the other things would not make much sense. I have no problem showing sources of people who agree with that statement. and explaining the logic. I have tried to give some as mentioned above. Also, in my talk I did elaborate my reasons? I don't know if that's where to have the argument? --Traviscove (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Formatting is fine! Yes, it would be fine to include info about nephesh in Psalms if it is cited to a good source. Yes, the talk page there is the best place to make the case for your edits. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Greater Manchester Police

The IP editor you reverted this morning for unsourced BLP subsequently added a reference (diff). I determined that even with a reference the contribution was newsworthy, but not encyclopaedic WP:NOTNEWS. I would appreciate you view if you don't mind at Talk:Greater_Manchester_Police#News_not_worth_of_inclusion 10mmsocket (talk) 08:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I shall accept that this is the way in which Misplaced Pages wants to do things. I only wanted to spend about five minutes on the whole thing, indeed I fully expected that someone else would add a reference or two. I saw the section marked controversy, and really didn't think anyone would say it was out of place there. It seemed odd that nobody else had written it up, indeed I fully expected to find an entry already there when I went to look for the first time. After-all, why would the first entry on the neo-Nazi connections be allowed? Someone might say that there could be neo-Nazis in any police force and so what is the point of having an entry here for this one? Perhaps it would be better not to have any sections anywhere to do with any sort of controversy if they are inevitably deemed to be unencyclopedic? 81.101.239.132 (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

My IP address is exclusive to me !!

I assure you it is. Indeed, I would not consider using a shared ip address. That is what I pay for. I trust that this is satisfactory to you, so please don't feel offended when I remove it. I fully understand your concern. Thank you, Nicky. 81.101.239.132 (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

1. https://bibleproject.com/podcast/you-are-soul/
2. http://www.bible-researcher.com/esv-translators.html
3. https://biblearchaeology.org/research/new-testament-era/4022-a-brief-history-of-the-septuagint
4. https://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/chapter.asp?book=24&page=22
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit