Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:06, 13 June 2005

Useful links

• M:Foundation issues
• Misplaced Pages:Policy Library
• Misplaced Pages:Utilities
• Misplaced Pages:Conflict resolution
• Misplaced Pages:Pages needing attention
• Misplaced Pages:Peer review
• Misplaced Pages:Boilerplate text
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types
• Misplaced Pages:Template messages
• Misplaced Pages:Category
• Fundamental categories
• Polytonic orthography
• User:RoyBoy/The 800 Club
• Misplaced Pages:Welcoming committee
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' reading list
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' how-to guide
• Article VfD instructions
• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion
• Special:Newpages

Censorship info.

Thanks again -- "Refactoring" -- sometimes the most difficult thing about Misplaced Pages is determining what people have named things. Your expertise is appreciated. WBardwin 15:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Clearing the air

I'm not sure exactly where we stand with each other, having disagreed on my actions on the Persia article, so I thought I'd just discuss the situation with you and try to clear the air. This was brought about after seeing your comment about me on User talk:SlimVirgin.

I really have no preference regarding the use of BC/AD or BCE/CE, but don't like the arguments for the enforcement of either one. My involvement in the article, as I've tried to explain, was merely about reverting the article to the choice of the original author and thus before the change that sparked the war. I see that as the best solution to an edit dispute – it existed in that state for a long time before someone changed it. I have no problem with it being changed, just that it was clearly an ongoing dispute and the article had to be protected. I was the one trying to help out, re-adding lost changes and trying to initiate talks. Obviously I can understand your view that I was editorially involved, but I don't see it that way – my presence was an attempt at mediation. You may still disagree, and that's fine by me, but I fear that it has discoloured your view of my actions elsewhere. The recent problem with Jtdirl being an example, and your comment to SlimVirgin being another.

Regarding that comment, I have very little to do with AN/3RR. Looking up the page I saw that you had blocked quite a few people and I didn't look any further than that. I assumed, therefore, that you'd done perhaps more than you have. Do please note that my comment wasn't intended as negative about you (in fact, quite the reverse as I didn't really want to see you blocked but saw no way out of it) and I apologise if you took it that way.

Basically, I'm hoping that further meetings between us won't be influenced by differing views on previous topics. violet/riga (t) 17:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Childishness

I have no gripe with you save for your petty attempts to harass other editors. Knock it off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.1 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Harass other editors" = ask them to provide copyright details for up-loaded images, and remove images from article when they refuse. An interesting definition. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

About Pakistani Leaders

Well, I didn´t notice the mistake about their term in office, I will try to fix them in each of one of them Thanks for noticing this. BTW, I was going to ask your opinion about deleting (or mixing it with East Pakistan) the article about East Bengal (province) since the info is practically the same. Thanks Messhermit 20:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Hello once again. This time, I was going to ask your opinion about reorganizing the hole Pakistan article, since in the way that its now, it's realy confusing. I was going to expand the Pakistan article in the Spanish Misplaced Pages, but I found myself completely unable to understand it at various points. I would be really helpfully if we can work to clean it a little bit. Also, there are some articles related to pakistanis leaders (Presidents and Prime Ministers) that have a lot of POV in it. I would try to clean things around, but most likely some of those articles could be deleted. Anyways, thanks for the help with East Bengal. Messhermit 05:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Parenthetical Citation

On Suharto's entry, the bit you listed as "comment out obscurity" was a parenthetical citation of an article ("Tapol Troubles") in a 1999 edition of Inside Indonesia. Please see the "References" section of that page.--Daniel 03:54, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

User Ted Wilkes

User:Ted Wilkes is still accusing me of "vandalism" simply for inserting additional information in some Misplaced Pages articles, which seems to be not in line with this user's personal opinion. He is still accusing me of "deliberate misinformation", "unfounded statements and outright fabrication", "distortions" and even of a "disinformation campaign". See, for instance, Talk:Nick Adams. He also calls me a liar. See Talk:Elvis Presley. As everybody can see, all my additional contributions are verified and supported by several independent sources cited on the discussion pages. In my opinion, it his high time to put this user in his place and tell him that he should stop accusing me of "misinformation" and "outright fabrication" until such times as he actually shows that something I have written is wrong. – 80.141.xxx.xxx

I've contacted him. You have also called him a vandal, and the same strictures apply. Neither of you is vandalising Misplaced Pages, and it's not acceptable to makes such personal attacks in talk pages or edit summaries.

It is a great pity that, instead of presenting facts as I do, User:Ted Wilkes is still continuing to accuse me of "vandalism", "fabrication", "fraud", etc. See Talk:Nick Adams. He calls my contributions to this discussion page "nothing but ramblings and with zero defense of their vandalism and 'fraudulently doctored text'." This is not in order and I really think we must defend against this sort of user who totally, and repeatedly, refuses to follow the netiquette code of conduct and the Misplaced Pages guidelines on at least three discussion pages. Significantly, Ted Wilkes seems to be identical with users NightCrawler and JillandJack who are, or were, under a Misplaced Pages hard ban. See also User:DW.

When signing, by the way, you need to use four tildes, without the "nowiki" tags (those are used in explanations, so that the tildes show up rather than the writer's signature). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. 80.141.195.138 17:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why are you constantly re-changing my edits?

Why are you contantly re-changing my edits? Isn't Misplaced Pages supposed to be objective? I'm only attempting to increase this objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IlluSionS667 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removing links to the Nazis, KKKK, etc., from Supremacism articles isn't adding objectivity, it's the usual white supremacist vandalism that we get here occasionally. I don't know who you are, though I expect we'll find out, but you should know that you won't be allowed to get away with it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The links I removed referred to "write nationalist" websites, while they were put in the "white supremacist" section. None applied to the definition of "white supermacist" as defined on WIKIPEDIA. This website makes a clear distinction between the two. How is this vandalism? How is this not adding objectivity? Perhaps rather than deleting the links, you should transfer them. Some of the links (such as Skadi) don't even technically belong in the "write nationalist" section, by the way, but that's acceptable as this applies to forums that do contain "white nationalist" members. IlluSionS667

• I was told that[REDACTED] is a website where objectivity is treasured. If deleting links that do not apply to the subject those links are supposed to apply to, is regarded as "vandalism", than I seriously question that supposed premise of objectivity IlluSionS667

Thanks

Hallo. I'm watching the new page about Nowy Sacz, right now. I think about Misplaced Pages it's a brillant idea. Good job.

--Rysiekzklanu 19:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)Rysiekzklanu

With regards to the atheism article

Here is my justification on the discussion page of the correction I had made to the article, which you conveniently glossed over while reverting to an old, incorrect edit.

"An illiterate (or biased) contributor misquoted the Larson-Witham 1996 study (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html) as stating that 93% of all natural scientists rejected or disbelieved god, thus attempting to support his opinion that there had been a momentous decline of religious belief in the scientific community between 1914 and 1996. In fact, the linked study clearly states that among randomly selected natural scientists, that percentage has only marginally increased, from 58% to 60.7% in the past century. The 93% number refers to a completely unrelated sample of "leading scientists" of National Academy of Sciences surveyed members, who were questioned by mail in a different study in 1998, and among whom only 50% agreed to answer. Misplaced Pages's relevant entry in "the relationship between religion and science" article also makes a good point wrt this study by stating that "the phrasing of the question could be criticized as presenting an overly narrow definition of God. The survey among NAS scientists was conducted via mail and had a low and perhaps statistically biased return rate of 50%." In any case, regardless of the merits of the 1998 NAS survey, the statement regarding the 1914-1996 studies, as found in the previous version of this article, is clearly fraudulent and I am revising it to reflect the truth. Feel free to reincorporate the 1998 study as you see fit (WITHOUT disguising it as something it is not)."

In response to your reverting to the previous misrepresentation of the survey with nary a rebuttal, I got a bit angry and answered thus..

"MELETITIS, have you been reduced to vandalism? I made a correction to the fraudulent misrepresentation of the 1996 Larson-Witham study while referencing the relevant article, and you responded by reverting to the old fallacious misquote? Are you joking? The study clearly states that, when using the 1914 method of inquiry, the results of the survey were identical in 1996 to those of 1914 (58% vs 60.17%). This is why Misplaced Pages is useless for anything but the most non-controversial matter, in my humble opinion. Kids with too much spare time in their hands will systematically vandalize corrections "just because", without answering to the comments and concerns of those who made them in the first place."

I believe a simple proof-read of the survey in question justifies my corrections. If you want to distort facts in order to support your opinion, feel free to do so, as that seems to be the "beauty" of Misplaced Pages (the one with the most spare time wins?). I have to say, though, I've come to expect more from an editor, and I'd love to be proven wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.70.194.23 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks

You posted (09:50, 12 Jun 2005) insulting comments on my Talk page that I have removed. Personal insults violate official' Misplaced Pages policy as specified in Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. Please refrain from inserting a personal attack. Thank you. Cheers. Ted Wilkes 14:56, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I asked User:Ted Wilkes to remove all his personal attacks against me from the discussion pages. As a reply, he has written on his Talk page, "I stand by my words that you are a vandal as defined by Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. I made no personal attack on you of any kind..." He even invites me "to immediately take this matter to the administration". I think it's high time to permanently ban this user from the Misplaced Pages community, as he repeatedly called me a liar, constantly accused me of "fraud", "deliberate misinformation", "unfounded statements and outright fabrication", "distortions", a "disinformation campaign" etc. and refuses to discuss the additional information I included on the discussion pages. 80.141.196.241 15:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

May I ask you for comment on this page: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Ted Wilkes. Thanks. 80.141.225.96 18:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nathaniel Eaton (quotations)

"Quotations There is normally no need to put quotations in italics unless the material would otherwise call for italics (emphasis, use of non-English words, etc.)."

I assume you're saying that Colonial American English words are "non-English" words per se.

Down a bit further ...

"Quotation marks With quotation marks , we split the difference between American and British usage. Though not a rigid rule, we use the "double quotes" for most quotations—they are easier to read on the screen—and use 'single quotes' for "quotations 'within' quotations"

Also ...

You don't like schoolmaster? I think its necessary to understand that there's a difference between a "master" and a "schoolmaster"; some people on the open Internet have been trying to say that Nathaniel Eaton was some sort of "slave master" or something, which is far from true. "Schoolmaster" is just the title the English gave to such "professors".

WB2 06:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some unclosed VfD debates

Hi Mel!

I have found a couple of incomplete VfDs Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Kornica and Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Cardak, both by the same user, and both arguing that they are non-notable villages. I could finish the process and list them, but my guess is that a real place will garner about 20 "keep all real villages" votes. There is absolutely no way I can see these being deleted and from WP:GVFD: "Incomplete nominations may be discarded or ignored." I considered putting {{delete}}-tags on the nominations, but what do you think? Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lee Kuan Yew

I would be happy if you can give us a reply concerning the "Harry" in soon, or at least schedule a dateline to affirm User:Huaiwei, User:Khaosworks and me concerning the "Harry" issue. Thanks.

Mr Tan 12:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can you please see my message at Talk:Tsushima Islands first?

Mr Tan 12:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted because you reverted too fast; and everything is not ready yet. Please do not counter-revert. Sort out things first. I do not want confusions. Or you are creating trouble out of nothing.

Mr Tan 12:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mr Tan and Tsushima Strait

• I see from Tans talk page that you have had some 'exasperating' clashes with the the gentleman. I wonder if you would be so kind (I'm new to Wikipolitics, only recently making substantial changes) to look in on my TALKS with him on Tsushima Strait and tender me some advice. Here are quick links My talk (Article 11) and His Talk (Article 85). Reverting will probably escallate the situation, so I left that for another. (I don't know how short of a Ctrl-A... Ctrl-V cut and paste, but this has cost (a lot of) time I could have been researching or writing.) Part of me wonders if I should show him a Polack is far more stubborn than an any Chinaman that ever lived, but THAT would be juvenile. He does seem to bring one's blood pressure up - like dealing with my teens! Specific input on: How to Revert, How to Cry Vandal, and How to Ask for intervention, et al would be appreciated. Private comments on email are fine.
  • Just blot this out so it has a short shelf life: 'Glops'... Thanks Frank Fabartus 14:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see you intervened - Thanks, I just now filed a request for protection to go along with the matter I added to the RfC. Another admin suggested a graphic improvement, that can be explored once I get my teens out of bed... I'll sic him on that first thing. Where does one request map support - I need more for the military artys than this idiocy. Thanks again. Fabartus 17:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See how YOU like it, VANDAL