Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:32, 22 August 2007

Template:Attempting wikibreak

• THF (talk · contribs · count)

Sarbanes-Oxley

Hello Ted. This is Farcaster. Fixing SOX is a project and you and I seem to be the folks most interested in it. Please go ahead and include the Butler/Ribstein work if you wish. Their draft whitepaper has a "do not cite" on it and I am not buying the book, as I think most of their arguments are absolute nonsense. You will note that I included their discussion about the ability of investors to cheaply diversify their holdings in the cost / benefit section some time ago, which is an important point. Also, there is a good summary article from late July in the Economist (just go to their site and type Sarbanes-Oxley and it comes up) that identifies a series of whitepapers relevant to SOX. Rather than criticize, please just edit.

Business process reengineering

Thanks for reverting the vandal's edit. Kai A. Simon 22:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of atheism‎ reversion

Thanks, Ted, for your vigilant reversion of two edits by 68.6.209.141 - you marked your own edit as minor, but had the previous edits stayed, they would have effected a major loss. -- Jmc 06:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Nelson Frank

Is your grandfather the reporter Nelson Frank? Just curious and you don't have to tell me if he was. Vassyana 02:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Why? --TedFrank 11:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Spurred by the AFD discussion, I looked out of curiousity. It seems he actually is notable. ;o) He was quite an active figure during the Red Scare, often cited by commentators and government officials of the time. It was actually interesting reading. Also, I found that I admire his rhetorical talent. As a writer, I really enjoyed reading his skillful use of language. You've got some excellant literary genes in you. o:-) Be well!! Vassyana 12:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to get back to library to find some of the references, but I'll gladly send you what I could find. Give me a day or two to compile some notes. If I neglect this (that is you don't receive a mail from me by Thursday), please drop me a reminder on my talk page. Sorry for the delay, I just researched it out of my own curiousity, not intending to keep notes. Cheers! Vassyana 17:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

AIV

Thank you for making a report on Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Misplaced Pages and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! John Reaves (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed a few of yours, look through the history of AIV, you can see the ones I've removed. John Reaves (talk) 13:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A vandal has been repeatedly blocked for vandalism; his talk page is littered with "last warnings" and a statement that he can be blocked without warning. The block expires, and he starts vandalizing again. Does one really need to waste time issuing another "last warning" before reporting to AIV? -- THF 14:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

ANI

Thanks for fixing the noticeboard. I was about to start doing the same thing, after seeing the edit that annihilated 8 days of threads: these kinds of repairs are difficult and fraught with edit conflicts because the place is so active. There is a bug that sometimes causes previous threads to disappear (it's happened to me on ANI) but I'm not sure that's what happened here. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Denny Seiwell

First, thanks for the cleanup. The account is indefinitely blocked, dozens of vandalism edits over months. However, in my research of those edits, I found one which may be correct, possibly just by chance - this edit seems to actually have the correct information per this site. Do you know anything about it, or by chance, can you read Farsi/Persia/whatever check out the University of Yazd official page? --AnonEMouse 16:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

. Color me stumped. -- TedFrank 17:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Farewell

If you must go, I bid you go in peace. But I too have a conservative employer (not my day job, I'm afraid) and I've managed to stick it out here at Misplaced Pages for over 5 years. Please don't quit now, just when we're starting to get somewhere. I know on the Internet a few days can seem like a lifetime, but it really takes weeks or months for people to even realize something - and even longer to change a habit. Give it time.

I'm hoping to see Misplaced Pages pull back from endorsing either side of controversial issues. Patience and courtesy will help just as much as logic here. --Uncle Ed 20:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Liebeck

Thanks for pointing that out; it was a wretched way to say "tort reform". For whatever it's worth, I think you've done an excellent job editing. Few editors announce their potential biases so clearly as you do on the talk page, and I find that admirable.

Incidentally, I happen to be a student at the University of Chicago Law School. Cool Hand Luke 06:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Just make any edits you see fit; you seem to have a good grasp of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. I'll keep an eye on tort reform though. I just spent over an hour reading it and checking citations, and you're right that it's POV. It's not even formatted very well. I support any improvements you can make. Cool Hand Luke 21:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the article requires a complete teardown. I'll finish a rewrite in my sandbox (where I'm working off an older version of the article that also has problems, but not as many), and run it by you and the talk page before I do the change. -- THF 21:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

apology for my behavior towards you

I deeply apologize for my April 3 personal attack on you on the talk page of the Israel Shahak article. I particularly regret having written: "If you feel you can't be objective about this article, move somewhere else. There's plenty of work to be done in Misplaced Pages." You were right to refer to this outburst as an act of bullying, seeking to chase you from the page. You have written: "I hope admins don't reward that sort of bullying". You will not be petty to seek administrative sanctions on me for this statement.

Again, i'm very sorry for my part of that altercation. It's no secret, that my opinions about the way the Shahak article should appear is vastly different from yours. I also disagree with you on a number of other substantial issues. But that's no excuse for me to treat you aggressively, as i did. I believe our joint collaboration on this article, along with the many other fine editors, may actually benefit the article, by promoting, in the course of time, the article's balance, as per Misplaced Pages's NPOV ideal. Itayb 16:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Thank you. I am all for a balanced article. For example, I recognize that there are reliably sourced defenders of Shahak that Misplaced Pages requires be cited, even though I find their views abhorrent and bigoted. I hope that we can reach a consensus on an NPOV article, and I appreciate the apology. I have no intention of seeking administrative sanctions. -- THF 22:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your selfless and gentlemanly reply. :) Itayb 22:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Your message

I'm afraid that I agree. If you want to open an RfC on him, I'll endorse it and add evidence. If you don't want to down that route, WP:AN/I is the place to go (again, I'll add comments and evidence). I can sympathise up to a point, and I know that he's been driven to poor behaviour by a succession of editors with PoV agendas and no interest in Misplaced Pages's policies, but it's not an excuse for some of the things that he's been doing. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking at that discussion, I relaise that I was wrong about WP:AN/I — it's for complaints about admins qua admins. Your complaints are about him as an editor, for the most part; I don't think that you're saying that he's misused his admin tools, only that he's behaved badly in his behaviour at the arrticle and (especially) towards other users on Talk pages. An RfC is probably the only course, then, to be honest. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I would definitely support an RFC, and add evidence. The key here is to keep it short and sweet; lots of diffs with minimal commentary is crucial. It is very difficult to argue against a mostly stand-alone collection of obviously improper edits; it is much easier to argue against extended commentary and muddy the issue. - Merzbow 22:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind the proviso at WP:RFC "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors" (emphasis is in the original). Given that the skeptical editors do not come to the issue with clean hands, the results could be interesting. Raymond Arritt 22:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This sort of intimidation tactic is typical, which is why I am not going to bring an RFC. I've done nothing wrong, but I don't trust Misplaced Pages to judge the issue fairly when an administrator makes a personal attack while simultaneously (1) falsely accusing me of violating WP:NPA and (2) ignores another user who used profanity against me. I don't want anyone blocked or banned. I just want the rules adhered to evenly. If I made this attack, I would have been blocked instantly (and justifiably so), but because someone said it to me, he doesn't even get a warning. -- THF 22:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not intended as intimidation, so I'm sorry you see it that way. My point is that these things often wind up making all concerned look bad. I'd strongly prefer everyone settle out of court, rather than spending a lot of time and energy on a formal process that could be spent writing an encyclopedia. Raymond Arritt 00:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly there is ridiculous behavior on all sides (like whoever is currently using a sockpuppet to re-add a clearly unrelated section to An Inconvenient Truth). It would be great if, for the next week, people would make only clearly policy-abiding edits, not make controversial changes without discussion, and be civil. From the most senior editors to the least senior editors. - Merzbow 01:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was driving at. Unfortunately there's a tendency to see incivility and edit warring only as "what the other guy does." Raymond Arritt 01:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

When administrators violate WP:CIV like this, I don't see any hope for productive collaboration on the global warming pages. There are too many pages on Misplaced Pages that need improving for me to want to bang my head against the wall there, but the systematic violation of Misplaced Pages policies are fairly appalling. -- THF 19:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Rofecoxib

Interesting that you suspect that counsel may have had a hand in that edit. I believe conflicts of interest happen all the time here. Single-purpose accounts like that one almost certainly exist for pushing a real-world agenda. I'd be curious if, from time to time, you let me know about similarly suspicious edits.

I'm thinking about writing an article on Misplaced Pages citations in briefs and judicial opinions. Sunstein has written about the phenomena in various forums (for example), but I was interested in the subject before I even started law school. I'm hoping to discover some concrete examples of interested lawyers editing Misplaced Pages. Cool Hand Luke 05:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting MSG. As you know, junk science memes can be very contagious. Some people are convinced their views are correct and seek to exclude contrary evidence. You may also be interested in multiple chemical sensitivity, which is currently a train wreck because I have almost no time right now. Interested parties have almost exclusively edited it in the past. Well-known parties too, if "User:Dr. Meggs" is related to the clinical ecologist by the same name.

I agree with many of your sentiments above above. Although I am personally unpersuaded certain arguments, it's POV to systemically exclude significant contrary views. Cool Hand Luke 08:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

AIT

according to McKitrick, Gore did fake a graph - sounds dubious. Whats your source? William M. Connolley 13:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you're already familiar with McKitrick's work debunking the Mann graph used in the movie. Iain Murray also accuses Gore of misleading graphs. I also see from the Murray article that Peiser wasn't able to replicate the Oreskes study mentioned in the AIT article. -- THF 14:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As I'm sure you're aware, using a graph published in Nature and never retracted doesn't count as faking your graphs. As far as I'm aware, not even McK has accused Gore of that: if you think he has, please provide a quote. A generic "McK's work" isn't good enough William M. Connolley 15:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I acknowledege the synthesis: I don't think a use of Mann's graph now that it has been debunked is intellectually honest, but you're entitled to disagree. NPOV, however, means that all points of view, not just yours, get included in articles; NPOV also means that editors don't get to decide that information meeting WP:V standards gets removed just because they feel it incorrect. For example, the Guardian hit piece in the AEI article is false from beginning to end, but NPOV prevents me from removing it. -- THF 16:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The subject is your dubious (now incorrect) assertion that Gore faked his graphs; its now clear that he didn nothing of the kind and that you're well aware of it. As to debunking: this is mere skeptic propaganda: no-one else agrees William M. Connolley 16:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Several reputable and verifiable sources state that Gore used faulty data that had been debunked before he used it. Several other studies in the global warming articles have also been debunked but are treated as fact. You can characterize it as you like within your own head. What Misplaced Pages policies state is that all points of view should be fairly and proportionately represented: "None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one." There are plenty of articles in Misplaced Pages where that NPOV policy is violated that I'm not going to beat my head against the wall when administrators announce that the "absolute and non-negotiable" NPOV policy will not be adhered to in the global warming articles because they disagree with one of the points of view. -- THF 16:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you are blowing whatever reputation for honesty you may ever have had. Weaselling around with definitions to try to include "faked" within them is undignified. Just admit you used the wrong word and be at peace William M. Connolley 16:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not engaging in this pointless debate, because nothing relevant turns on whether "fake" is the precisely correct verb for Gore's use of faulty data and exaggerated projections; I don't dispute that "fake" cannot be used in the article without a source, and I don't believe I ever used the word "fake" in any of my article edits. The issue here is NPOV, and what significant verifiable and reliable sources say, and the fact that an entire class of articles does not comply with NPOV. -- THF 16:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page :)

I didn't even notice this until I looked at that users history. I give you a big smile :-). ~AFA 22:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Concerned person (talk · contribs)

and all socks have been blocked indefinitely. If this user posts further rants on your talk page or elsewhere, you can post a notice to WP:AIV for immediate blocking. Thanks for your patience, OhNoitsJamie 15:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Andijan massacre

Hi, When you get a chance, please take a look at the last few edits I made to Andijan massacre. The only controversial thing I did was merging the press section into the May 13 section. I felt it was not important/long enough to merit a separate section. Is that alright? KazakhPol 20:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look this weekend. //THF 12:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Darrell McGraw

I agree that there needs to be more about criticisms of McGraw in the article, but WP:BLP requires that assertions of criticism need to be well-sourced and very specific. Here are some conservative-leaning but well-respected sources that have been critical of McGraw: Charleston Daily Mail and West Virginia Media Holdings. This would allow your edits to have much more credibility than if backed by one report from a group that pretty much exists to gripe about McGraw.

While, outside of Misplaced Pages, I am no fan of McGraw, we have to leave our feelings at the door here, as we are building a neutral encyclopedia here.

I'm pretty familiar with Misplaced Pages policy and whatnot, so if you need any help or need me to check anything out, just let me know. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 22:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

PS--Good working catching VíaVienté and sending it to AfD. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 22:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

One more thing: West Virginia Public Radio has also called McGraw out a couple of times. They might have some stuff, too (and no one could accuse them of being Tory-leaning). youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 22:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add to what I have added. But the cite given is a comprehensive listing of criticisms, including from more than just the narrow band you've identified, and complies with BLP. NPOV requires major controversies to be listed. THF 23:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The addition of the WSJ cite satisfies my concerns. Thanks. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 23:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

John summers (basketball player)

Thank for your input on this article's entry at WP:COIN. I don't know enough about the college game to know who or what is notable. Can you place a delete tag on the article? Bearian 02:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Neo-Theosophy

I had added a note to the article's talk page, that it might be better to merge it with another article, or otherwise to remove it. Perhaps that note set the deletion process in motion. In fairness, it seems to me that there should be more time for Alan to expand the article or merge it with another article. I know for a fact that he writes only on subjects about which he is very knowledgeable, and he is respected in those areas for his knowledge. Kwork 19:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Much thanks...

Just wanted to stop by to thank you for your help in undoing many of those vandalism edits! That was about a days-worth of my WikiLife.... Thank you, thank you, thank you.... —  MusicMaker 18:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Unbalanced tag

I'm leaving you a note out of good will and in good faith, in the hope that we can work together to resolve the unbalanced tag dispute. —Viriditas | Talk 21:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've mostly worked on expanding and cleaning up the synopsis section. At this time, it is 839 words in length, which is acceptable according to WP:FILMS guidelines. If there are any outstanding issues with the synopsis, or areas you would like to see developed/expanded/corrected, please do not hesitate to contact me on my talk page. —Viriditas | Talk 05:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines actually say between 400 and 700 words, and my version was at the high end of that, but in the interests of compromise, I'm not going to make a fuss over an extra 100 words. I'm stepping away from WP for a few days, and I hope the broad strokes of that consensus are retained by other editors in my absence. Thanks for your patience, good-faith efforts, and willingness to compromise. THF 06:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. The guidelines are speaking of an average plot length, and plot lengths for films just under 900 words are very common and rarely controversial. Take a look at Category:FA-Class film articles. A random sample of five out of 51 featured film articles gives the following plot lengths:Casablanca, 697; Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, 761; V for Vendetta, 812; Borat, 838; and Jaws, 886. As of this post, Sicko has 834 words in the plot section. If you have any interest in getting further clarification on this matter on the film project discussion page, I'll join you. —Viriditas | Talk 11:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI...There's a discussion in progress at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films#Plot_synopses_too_long.3F. —Viriditas | Talk 11:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Ted, I restored exposé and removed the criticism from the lead as it was unbalanced. The film is described as an exposé by dozens of reliable sources, however, I am willing to add the most notable criticism you can find into the lead as long as it is covered in the body of the article and is balanced with citations going the other way. In other words, if you can take some time to WP:WFTE, I would be happy to support the inclusion of notable criticisms and accolades in the lead. —Viriditas | Talk 09:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I've identified at least fifteen critiques of the movie on the talk page, only a small fraction of which have been covered in the article. I have been WFTE, as I added Moore's rebuttal of criticisms of his lauding Cuba. The article is one-sided, so there's no need for me to WFTE here; it needs balance more than anything else. THF 10:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

RUReady2Testify

I'm calling it a night. Some of sens reverts on your talk appear to have been complex—adding different combinations of invented warnings—but I doubt admins could come to differing conclusions about the block. Hopefully sen learns the policies. Cool Hand Luke 05:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability concerns

Re: your comment on Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Sonic's_Rendezvous_Band (bringing it here because it doesn't pertain to the AfD at hand)

To be honest, I 100% agree. The notability criteria, as they currently stand, are extremely stringent in some cases (for example, for authors -- because they have to pass WP:BIO), and somewhat lax (in the case of WP:MUSIC) in others. When I first got here, I thought it was more of a hierarchy, where something had to pass WP:NOTE first, then the other notability guidelines were something to help after the fact -- but that's not how they seem to stand now.

Luckily, we're here at Misplaced Pages, and all editors are free to contribute, and edit not just articles, but guidelines too! Perhaps we need to propose a change or two to WP:BIO, in an effort for all the notability criteria to support the same general concepts. I would actively support a change to make WP:BIO less stringent for to allow inclusion of, for example, an author that's sold a million books. spazure (contribs) 06:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Multiple chemical sensitivity

Thanks for helping keep the NPOV. I know we can't wander over to pure SPOV, but science certainly isn't supportive of this diagnosis. OrangeMarlin 19:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Tagging pages for problems

I've plagiarized a talk-page comment you left to create an essay, and would like your input. THF 02:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't have said it better myself? 8) -- Beland 02:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sicko (film) RfC

Hi Ted. I'm trying to respond to the RfC on this article and, as I'm sure you can appreciate, there's a lot of material to wade through. Could you point me, for my own convenience, to the dozen sources you've cited on the subject of criticism of Sicko? It would make my job ever so much easier. Sarcasticidealist 07:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

copying from the talk page:

I have cited to multiple substantive and detailed criticisms in talk-page comments above. Each time I've tried to insert them, they were reverted out. I welcome others to put them in to fix the POV problems with the article. Here are some others: THF 17:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've commented in the article's talk page. Sarcasticidealist 11:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Cicero books fan

Articles such as The Middle Pillar A Garden of Pomegranates etc, do you think they can go to AfD eventually? I do think these books by Regardie are noteable, but the purpose of these articles by User:IPSOS seems to be to push the editions by Chic Cicero and include extreme detail of that particular edition's specifications, rather than the content of the book. Then a link to Amazon at the bottom so people can buy that edition. They would be difficult to rewrite. Do you see my point? Or shall we just keep trying to redirect as you have, maybe to the original author of the books, Israel Regardie?Merkinsmum 13:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll support an AFD nomination if someone makes it. THF 13:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Re : Bureaucrash

The sources are definitely give much more credibility to me. (The original article only carried the Gazette). Don't think how I would object to the recreation of the article so long the new article addresses the concerns raised in AfD. :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 17:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Reality film

Hi THF, its usually a good idea to make compromises to maintain a positive aspect of community. If someone wants to remove a message they left from your talkpage, its usually a good idea to do so. All helps to maintain a cooperative working atmosphere around here. I wonder if you might reconsider removing David's comment as he clearly wishes. Best wishes, WjBscribe 01:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to do so in response to this polite request. THF 01:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent COI stuff

THF & David: I'm posting this simulataneously to both of your talk pages. I just want to say that I hope we can move ahead with no hard feelings between any of us. No two of us agree entirely on the issue, and I know how easy it is to get all het up. I'm pleased that you both decided to step back and calm down, and I'm hopeful that the COI guideline discussion can be resolved with a good, useful compromise — at least between the three of us! SamBC(talk) 01:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. You've done really stellar work on WT:COI, and the resulting guideline page is going to be much improved. THF 01:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok

I have responded. Navou 02:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

issue with Frederick Day

Ted, I noticed you commented on Frederick Day's user talk page. I wonder how your issue resolved. I currently have an issue at: ]. I would welcome your comments on it. PS: I also have an interest in Sarbanes-Oxley, particularly its employee protections.r3 19:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply WP:CIVIL

I wasn't stirring the pot or making personal attacks. His inability to take responsibility for his own actions is childish, and should be brought to his attention for the good of the community. I'm not going to add my comment on his page back, as long as he's read it that's all I can do and it's up to him to grow.►Chris Nelson 22:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Rossi

Thanks for filling me in on that tidbit of info. I'm going to notify WP:COIN about the article. - Crockspot 04:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

RE:Jewish Right

I don't know what he's doing... but I do know that he does seem to have a creepy edit history. I'd report it to AIV, after all, there's nothing to lose by reporting a vandal, but a lot of damage can be done by not reporting one. –Animum 23:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You can always go to ANI (btw, I am an administrator ). –Animum 23:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

None taken. –Animum 23:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

AEI

You are correct and I have removed the edit from the article. As with the McGraw article, there are secondary criticisms of AEI that can be found and, if carrying weight, should be included. That edit, however, was an attempt at speculating the reasoning behind AEI's action (or, in this case, inaction) and violates our guidelines RE: original research. Kudos for seeking a second opinion, too. youngamerican (wtf?) 00:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_posting_real-life_name_and_phone_number.

Hi THF. I have asked Llyrwch to step back and let someone else deal with any concerns you have about your privacy, as he is a little too involved at this juncture - if he indicates he is happy to do so, please pass on any concerns you have to my talk page (old edits that need attending, etc) and I'll deal with them as best I can. Best, Neil ム 08:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked spammer

Hi THF. Thanks for the heads up - misunderstanding based on time of warning (I'm on BST, not server time, so I saw edit at 20:46 and warning and 19:45). I'll unblock now. Once again, thanks for telling me :). ck lostsword•T•C 20:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Jeff Winter

Hi. Thank you for your edits to the above page. You may be aware that the freemason reference was the subject of dispute (albeit not directly through the article talk page). Your edit seems to have assuaged the disputor, as it has not been further reverted. I am also happy with the edit, as the other party in the dispute, so I thank you for your input on this. Best wishes. Ref (do) 09:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

A star for you

discussion

The next time you leave a note on my page, start a new heading at the bottom, as I've done here. It's much easier to find. I've discussed the existence of the controversies about sicko page repeatedly and got nowhere. Then I walked away in disgust. Misplaced Pages demands neutral point of view. smb and others refuse to allow a neutral point of view in the article because they refuse to allow criticism of the movie on its own page and refuse to allow existence of an article that meets ALL Misplaced Pages standards on the controversies about page. If NPOV is followed and the controversies page remains, then there should be no problem. If certain wikipedians refuse to follow Misplaced Pages policy on neutrality, I guess we have a problem. Noroton 23:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As a glance at the Sicko talk page will show, I share your frustrations with the status of the article. But edit-warring won't solve anything, and will only be counter-productive. I've had great success using dispute resolution to improve the NPOV status of Sicko. It has a long way to go, but it's better than it used to be. THF 02:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Shannen W. Coffin

Hello and thank you for your work on the SW Coffin article I introduced. I've tinkered a little as National Review mentioned his wife being called Casey. I've also made it clear for non-Americans and those living in holes that Cheney is VP of the USA. I saw you took out reference to Coffin's current work for Cheney (vis-a-vis wiretaps and Senate subpoenas). I guess this is an ongoing issue and is mentioned elsewhere in Misplaced Pages where diligent editors can keep it up-to-date. By the way, I don't suppose you know whether Shannen is related to retired judge Frank M. Coffin? As an aside, I'm sure it wasn't your intention to upset but I have to admit to feeling a mite nonplussed at having my good-faith contribution to the Federalist Society reverted with the words 'so what?' Anyway, thanks again and best wishes. Wavehunter 23:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Random Smile!

WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

-WarthogDemon 03:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sicko pages

I've been looking over your attempts to get to NPOV on the page -- nice job. But I disagree with (a) cutting down the "plot summary" section, and (b) cutting down the criticism from an article to a mere section of the movie. The movie got millions of people to think about health-care, which many have said is the No. 1 domestic issue in the presidential campaign so far (I'm not sure about that but it's certainly one of the top issues). The movie also generated quite a debate over the points that it made. There's an interesting consensus on some points: Critics of Moore agreeing that the U.S. healthcare system is a mess; people on the left criticizing Moore's lack of balance.

To adequately describe the controversy, a separate article is needed. Thanks for being polite, but if you disagree that the controversy article is not worthwhile, I'd rather hear your reasons for that instead of a suggestion to just summarize it. Don't patronize.

Also, the critical response section (film reviewers) in the article as it stands now simply gives one-liner, drive-by blurbs when critical analysis is more useful to the reader. We don't need 19 critics saying the same thing, each in one line (I'm exaggerating, but not much); we need to show consensus opinion among critics, particularly major critics, and that gives the reader some insight, even in a relatively short space. Since the critical response blends in with the political response, it is best presented in the "Controversy about" article. The details in the "plot summary" section, which I had added and which have since been deleted, were useful for anyone actually interested in understanding (or perhaps trying to remember) the many, many, many details that Moore piled on in the movie. How anyone (you?) thinks a shorter summary is more valuable is something I don't understand. I can see a three-paragraph summary version with subsections, but not the vague summary that exists now.

You talk about smb's "invitation" to add to the article. I've dealt with smb. He's proven himself or herself to be a total partisan. I have not seen one edit by him or comment by him that didn't attempt to show Moore in the best light. For all I know, he is Michael Moore. He's shown himself to be a propagandist. I'm an editor who's added positive and negative information because I want to get at the truth. What are you?

Sorry if I sound angry. I am. I'm not walking it off. Noroton 03:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages is not a quote farm" Now you're talking. I guess I could exaggerate in the same way you just have ... but it's not worth it. When quotes work, they're worth using. If you have a more exact criticism, that might be useful. My mind is open. Noroton 03:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your quote farm comment or what you think I exaggerated.

As for your desire for what the article should include, I agree that the drive-by criticism in the article is inadequate. That's why I keep suggesting you merge the articles. Not summarize. Merge, so no content is lost: after all, there was a consensus to merge the pages, and Smb keeps telling you that's what he wants. If stuff gets deleted from the merged Sicko page that you think should stay, then people can discuss that.

But maybe what you're looking for is a Debate over United States healthcare policy in the 2008 election article? Or a Sicko and the United States healthcare policy debate article? I can't promise you if you create either of those they won't be deleted. For all I know, an article with a similar but different name on the same subject already exists.

I've found smb to be partisan, also. But he eventually accedes to consensus when WP:DR disagrees with him. There is a consensus that the plot summary should be under 900 words, and a consensus that there shouldn't be a separate article. (Though, given the history of the Fahrenheit 9/11, I suspect if you add enough reliably sourced material about the movie, Moore partisans will be asking to move it back to the separate article.) The problem with the latter consensus, is that the agreement was to merge the articles, and then the articles didn't get merged. You should be bold and do that.

Please don't ask accusatory questions like "I'm an editor who's added positive and negative information because I want to get at the truth. What are you?" It's not civil and implies that you are not assuming good faith. I'm trying to help you. We both want an NPOV article, right?

If you're angry, WP:COOL. It's Misplaced Pages and not worth getting angry over. Moreover, getting angry is always always always counterproductive to whatever it is you are trying to accomplish. Here, you're about to alienate an editor who could be on your side.

If you think Smb is acting in bad faith, don't make personal attacks; make edits that conform to consensus and to policy. Then, if Smb reverts, he will demonstrate bad faith. If Smb is actually POV-pushing, and you have the diffs to prove it, then WP:RFC will solve the problem. But right now, if a third party were to look at what is happening, they would see Smb protecting the talk-page consensus, and you edit-warring and being uncivil about it. And if Smb is the one that's actually in the wrong, then your edit-warring only makes it easier for Smb to be wrong. Adhere to WP:BRD and no one can legitimately question you. THF 03:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If you look in the Sicko archive you'll find I've already been through nearly every one of your points. That's where the anger comes from. Regarding smb, assuming good faith is what you do before you have truckloads of evidence to the contrary, not afterward. I didn't think of WP:RFC but I'll look into it and perhaps haul the propagandist over there. Sorry if you didn't think I was civil to you. Perhaps I wasn't. Sorry. I didn't think "quote farm" was civil either. And it's Misplaced Pages and therefore worth getting angry over. But I'll do my best to pretend that what I spend time on is not worth my concern.

WP:MOSFILMS is something I'll look into, but no consensus is ironclad and no rule is without exceptions, and when you've got a movie that's a documentary and one of the biggest documentaries of all time and very controversial and one that addresses one of the biggest political issues in the U.S., you've got a pretty high pile of good reasons to make an exception.

And the article I wrote ("Controversies about...") was the article I wanted because that's the subject that meets WP:Notability. I'll continue to think about what you said. Noroton 04:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

In your anger, you didn't notice that I wasn't the one who used the quotefarm remark. Finally, comment on edits, not editors. Language like "Propagandist" is counterproductive, and far less persuasive than diffs showing propagandizing. Show, don't tell. THF 04:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

THF: "I keep suggesting you merge the articles. Not summarize. Merge, so no content is lost: after all, there was a consensus to merge the pages, and Smb keeps telling you that's what he wants." That is incorrect. Please look at it again. Consensus was that the "bloated" controversies page be "reduced", "trimmed", "summarised", then merged. Hence my comment about quote farming, which Noroton wrongly thought came from you. Please take this into consideration when making additions. Sincerely yours, Michael Moo... ahem... smb 04:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Smb is correct, though I note that the movie has generated considerably more controversy since late June/early July when the !votes were for merger. But let's talk about it on Talk:Sicko, not here. THF 04:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. What are you writing about for the WSJ (and when do you expect it to be done/published)? I used to read the WSJ quite often, but not very much anymore. ~ UBeR 03:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It's done (subject to fact-checking and editing), but they have a backlog of op-eds on legal issues, so it may be a week before it goes live. THF 03:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright thanks. Do you think you could be so bothered to let me know when it's published? ~ UBeR 04:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll mention it on my blog, and a free version will be available on the thinktank website, but I'll try to drop you a line. THF 04:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

award

Spin

Forgive the inquiry, but how am I "spinning" to note that "indicted" and "AP" is insufficient criteria under WP:BLP1E? That seems an uncivil characterization, but if I'm wrong about BLP1E, I'd appreciate the education an explanation could give me. Many thanks.

Your crap about "left-wing blogs" is the spin. Oh, nice double spin with your characterization above: generally, one is supposed to address arguments actually made by the person you're arguing with, not ones you've projected onto them. --Calton | Talk 05:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)