Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:06, 27 January 2007

Welcome!

Hello, Arcayne, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  NatusRoma | Talk 07:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Duckworth & Roskam

I suggest that you discuss on the talk page before making major changes, such as deleting paragraphs, to controversial articles. — goethean ॐ 14:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, Goethean, you don't seem to practice what you suggest. The paragraphs, inappropriate 'controversial articles,' and statements I have removed through the editing process have been to preserve the neutrality of the entry. It is inappropriate to include statements not made by the person for whom the entry was created. It is highly inappropriate to include yellow-page ads of an entrant's law firm when there are public use pictures available on the internet, and you should know better.

My personal political opinions aside, Misplaced Pages does not afford us the luxury of posting anything but the NEUTRAL truth. Statements by campaign staff or national political organizations does not speak to the individual entrant.

The Illinois races are exceptionally ugly this year, and I will not allow Misplaced Pages to be used as propaganda. I am not suggesting that you are actively trying to do so, but I think it is clear to more than just a few people that you allowing a personal bias to influence your prodigious abilities as an editor. As a co-editor and out of respect, I would ask you to take a step back and recognize that your personal bias might be coming into play here. Pete 21:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)arcayne

There's Help:Contents and Misplaced Pages:Help desk. Let me know if you have any specific questions. — goethean ॐ 14:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I will likely take you up on that, Goethean. Thank you for your kind offer.Arcayne 08:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Arcayne, the vandal's name is User:Joehazelton -- lowercase 'h'.

Thanks for reverting the vandalism at Tammy Duckworth. To revert a page, you can follow the directions Help:Revert. — goethean ॐ 15:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Got here via the talk page for User:75.2.250.145; where you state that User:75.2.250.145 is User:Joehazelton, a "permanently blocked user with a history of unbalanced and flagrant violations of WP policy." User:75.2.250.145 is also causing a bit of a headache on the Talk:Neil Patrick Harris page. Can anything be done about a blocked user resurrecting themselves with an anon account? An RfC, or maybe some admin intervention? Thanks! -- weirdoactor -- 20:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Children of Men

Sorry about that.72.196.213.82 19:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Agent Cooper's addition wasn't worded as well as it could have been, nor did it appear in the correct section, and I didn't even bother looking at his cited source, however, this type of criticism has appeared and should be represented in the article in some way. —Viriditas | Talk 20:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you feel more comfortable with the re-wording of the citation? I've honestly never seen the film or the book, but I'd rather transform the citation into something useful than remove it entirely. Of course, I feel that the sole negative citation shouldn't be one of the few in the underdeveloped Reception section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am not very comfortable with it, Erik, and I will explain why. You are adopting a Defender pov which is not really conducive to neutrality. I would strongly recommend is that you read the book or see the movie before making an edit on a film. Otherwise, its like a person writing about the experience of piloting an airplane after having looked at a picture of one. We are not in the fair and balanced business; we are in the neutrality business. The two terms are not synonymous. :)

I understand your reasoning. It did seem to me that the edit was made with an agenda, so I tried to construct it so that wasn't so obvious. However, when I do get the chance to see the film, I'll explore both the positive and negative reviews to see if there was really a prominent issue with the theme change in the adaptation process. The article is in the history, so if it needs to be re-summoned for additional discussion down the run, I'll do that. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That won't be necessary. I've tried to remove all trace of my involvement in the article and its discussion, deleted my User page and am vacating my account. If you were to look at the history of my edits prior to October, you would see that I have fought mightily and with great difficulty for NPOV in articles that elicit strong opinions in others, and have generally been thanked for it by those more distant from the topics. This is the first time I've had what started out as a perfectly reasonable proposed edit suppressed for political reasons and then abused as a rightwing nutjob spouting paranoid nonsense for protesting POV-motivated deletions. The shame of it is not that the CofM article will be the worse without me; this film itself will be largely forgotten as soon as Bush leaves office. It's that you people drove away someone who has usefully contributed thoughtful discussion, cite-hunting, grammatical corrections, and informal mediation for months now. I guess the hive mind must have its say, but did you all have to be so fucking nasty about it? Signing off. Agent Cooper 20:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't working with any personal agenda, Cooper. You just starting blathering on about how it was some vast "political inversion conspiracy" to prevent your edits.

Your edits.

Specifically.

Are you aware of how friggin' loony that sounds? And then to accuse me of being a part of it when all I have done is to ensure that a NEUTRAL point of view is preserved. You needed to chose better citations, and not some over-biased nonsense that went far afield from the subject being talked about.

If you want to be gone, then be gone. If you want to be part of the larger community - a community that largely can't agree on the color of shite - then be the larger person and do that. But don't waste my and others' time by telling us we are all biased and you are the only one who can save us from ourselves because honestly, you don't have the bricks or the rep to to do so.

I will be entering this on my user page as well, since you seem all so very keen on removing comments that disagree with your own, delicate viewpoint. I actually think you can get banned for doing those types of deletions on legitimate commentary.Arcayne 22:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

My intention was to only remove my own comments, not interfere with anyone else's. I have not deleted one single thing that directly expressed disagreement with me. I did try to close down my usertalk page as a part of a general attempt to withdraw, and that meant deleting what was on it, but as you can see

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Agent_Cooper&diff=75382094&oldid=75226125

there was nothing unfavorable there that I was trying to conceal. I think it recreated itself when I logged back in to respond to some of these comments about me. I didn't think removing myself was vandalism, but I'm prepared to acknowledge that I might misunderstand the rules involved.Agent Cooper 02:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the history. Yllosubmarine restored the comments by Agent Cooper that were removed by Cooper himself. I don't think there's a relation between the accounts. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, i did misunderstand it. It apparently changed while I was looking at versions (kinda freaky how that happened, actually) seeming to appear as if Yllo had blanked the entries. I have already addressed the header and the topic. I will now go to Yllo's user page and remove the comment with an apology.

Please see my comments on the original article talk page, which you'll find are a sincere apology. I don't think I ever said that there is a conspiracy, though I did suggest that there may be unconscious bias. Surely that's discussable? There's a substantive question about what NPOV entails here, and if my interpretation of NPOV was correct, then unconscious bias would explain why you were violating it; I gather that what you think of me is something of the mirror image of that. And in the discussion there was a tone issue that I think neither of us were particularly sensitive to. I don't always hear how sarcastic I sound, and I think you may not be aware of how patronizing you sound. This whole thing was unexpected and exhausting for me, and I'd like to just let it go at this point. If you sincerely want to set me straight on the NPOV issue, I'll discuss it as best I can, but you should know that I really think that characterizing http://en.wikipedia.org/First_Things as "over-biased nonsense" looks itself like bias, since this is a very prominent intellectual journal with a POV very different from your own (and from my own as well!); and that after reading the NPOV policy page, it seemed clear to me that reporting on a controversy is not the same thing as taking sides--it's part of the story of the film (even if it is true, I confess, that my personal response to the film was much like Sacramone's). When you leave up favorable reviews of a film that has been commented on by all sorts of "mainstream" venues as being a parable/critique of the war on terror and take down negative reviews by very prominent conservative commentators that regard it as a perversion of a fine pro-life Catholic novel critiquing the so-called "culture of death", and then lecture me on my lack of neutrality in a "let me explain to you how we do things here, little fella" when I've been contributing productively in other areas for quite some time, it rankles in a way that you really don't seem to have grasped. Now I'm willing to retract my earlier thought that you can't possibly believe that this is what NPOV involves. I see that you do. And in other contexts (say someone demanding equal time for Intelligent Design in a biology article) I would whole-heartedly agree with you. But this context seems really different. Both of the items we've been discussing are works of art with cultural-political messages. Liberal commentators do not have a monopoly on mainstreamness, and what they think of the world is not the only thing happening in the world. Now I don't want to waste your time or mine by having either of us go on and on about this, so you don't have to go into this in huge detail if you don't want to. I just want to make clear that I'm owning up to my own investments and shortcomings, and I hope that you will appreciate that. Agent Cooper 02:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Archivng

Per archive guidelines, I suggest that you archive all sections in which there has not been discussion for a while. Maybe what you can do is when you move the extraneous text to the archive, you can provide a link on top of the decent discussion to the original discussion that had been exported. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Smallville

I think what you don't like is someone much younger than you telling you what's what. I've been doing this a bit longer, and I've quite familiar with NPOV and RS, thank you. There is quite a bit of subjectivity to certain things. Also, what you need to be aware of is the Three-revert rule, because both you and I have reverted that page 3 times in less than 24 hours. 1 more from either of us and it will violate that policy. So I think it would be wise if we both stepped away. Bignole 17:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, your first mistake was just deleting information because YOU believe a source does not qualify as reliable. Unfortunately, nothing is that black and white, and I'm sad to see that someone with any degree (says how old you are) actually thinks that it is. If there was no source, I can understand removing information, I've done it myself. If you disagree with the reliability of the source, what YOU should do is go to the talk page and bring it up. Obviously, unless the information is brand new, others have not shared your concern or they would have done the same thing. The fact that MM was in Smallville is not new, that was something that was established by the creators early in the season. Phil Morris' attachment was also established weeks ago, before they show came back to air Justice. So, did you "make a mistake", initially no. I wouldn't say you made a mistake. I mistake would be a little greater in degree, but it's my opinion that you used poor judgement. Just because YOU disagree with a source does not mean that YOU are correct if you try and cite WP:RS. Unless I'm mistaken, and you are the individual responsible for outlining the entire RS policy? Again, not everything is black and white. But, enough said. Bignole 21:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)