Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:54, 19 June 2009

24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

/2004-2007 2008

Checkuser

Despite the "not related" result from that new guy, I'm convinced he's the same guy, so we'll just have to keep an eye on him. Baseball Bugs 21:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News

I have found over 30 reliable sources with significant coverage. Schuym1 (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Over 30 was only from the first few pages. There are many more and there is also more in Google Books and Google Scholar. Schuym1 (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

On IBM's dubious patents

Hi Blaxthos,

On slashdot: "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process."

In any case, there is plenty of material concerning IBM's dubious patents:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/06/ibm_paper_or_plastic_patent/ http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/03/30/ibm-applies-patent-offshoring-math http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/12/ibm_patents_sys.html;jsessionid=4BEPM0NZUXQDAQSNDLRSKH0CJUNN2JVN http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2006/10/ibm-patent-policy-apparent.html http://joi.ito.com/weblog/2002/10/13/ibm-eliminates.html http://www.halfsigma.com/2009/03/ibm-makes-more-money-by-destorying-value.html

I've assembled them all here: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1227341&cid=27885503

But I don't think that a larger number of dubious patents is needed to make the case. I think one is enough. I am not biased against IBM, but I am biased against claims to have record number of patents and no wishes to see the highly dubious exposed in a NPOV. (My opinion: Society is not being improved by these patents, neither IBM.)

˜˜˜˜ Linhares (talk) 04:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

removal of my edit

Hi Blaxthos,

I have read a number of Misplaced Pages articles about various political commentators, and took note that only conservative commentators have the term "conservative" in front of "political commentators."

In an attempt to make Misplaced Pages more consistent (and I hope more unbiased), I added "liberal" in front of "political commentators" in a format consistent with what was done to those on the other side of the political spectrum. Anyone who watches Rachel Maddow like I do, knows that she is a liberal commentator, but that is not allowed to be revealed on Misplaced Pages?

No offense, but your editing reveals YOUR own bias and is not becoming of the Misplaced Pages community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eobrock (talk • contribs) 04:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That topic was pretty much handled on the talk page itself

Hey you just sent me a message regarding the Bill O'Reilly controversy page. Like I said in the section header that topic was pretty much handled on the talk page itself. You should check it out. That is before I put that tag on. Lighthead 02:27, 20 January 2009

Keith Olbermann RFC

Thanks for taking the time to open an RfC -- and the notice about it. Hopefully we can find a resolution to this issue -- there's probably "better" wording waiting to be discovered that will satisfy all involved parties. Warren -talk- 20:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be cute and I wasn't trying to be snarky. I used the level 1 because it assumes good faith, not because I made any assumption about you. I see my error now and I apologize for the edit as well as the warning. Since you are someone who has recently cited Misplaced Pages's core policies, I would appreciate it if you would assume good faith on my part as well. You have had no interaction with me until now; therefore there was no reason for the harsh tone of your comment on my page. It was, as you say, inappropriate. Henrymrx (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Blaxthos, I got your message to me at my talk page. No offense taken. But I feel really bad about what you said, because I can see that, for perfectly understandable reasons, you completely misunderstood what I meant, and what you took from it was actually the complete opposite of what I intended. I was not referring to your placing the RfC at all. Rather, I was referring to the comments of Badmintonhist that were directly above my second comment, and to which I was directly responding. Thus, when I said "personal arguments among other editors," I was talking about when Badmintonhist had said "Blaxthos!! Good to see you come out of your "I don't like it – the other guys are insane" defensive shell..." and I was not talking about anything that you had said. What Badmintonhist said there to you sure sounded personal to me, without any assumptions about good or bad faith on my part, just taking the words at face value. And you yourself said on the talk page, after I had already made my second comment, that Badmintonhist's comments were "baiting" and "snarky." And when I said that the RFC is "being used by editors already in the dispute to keep re-arguing their same arguments" I was, again, referring to the fact that Badmintonhist had made those comments after already arguing the same things pre-RfC on the talk page. (You, in contrast, had simply and neutrally stated the basis for the RfC.) If you look at the substance of what I said in both my comments (the correct logic of your argument about synthesis, the low relevance of the others' source materials), I was arguing in defense of your position. So, let's file this under no good deed goes unpunished. You misread my comments supporting you as, instead, finding fault with you, and so I unintentionally made you feel bad when I intended the opposite. I came to the page in response to the RfC and was just trying to help, and now I feel sorry for having made you feel that way. Let me close by repeating what I said at the beginning of my first comment at the RfC: that the differences between those two versions are ultimately pretty small and not worth anyone getting too concerned about. Please understand that I mean well and I think that you do too. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! I'm glad we got that worked out. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I see that you removed a SPA template on the Olberman talk page. Thank you. I am definately not a SPA. Regards, --72.221.70.224 (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Dude.

You should archive this page! Timneu22 (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge: POS and HPOSS

I suggested that hospitality point of sale systems be merged with point of sale. I remember seeing you on these articles from time to time so I thought I'd bring this to your attention. Timneu22 (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

NTSC

Could you have a look at NTSC again and see what might need to be done so as to remove the copyedit tag? Your specific recommendations would be helpful. Thanks, --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the NTSC critiques - nw I have a better idea of what attracted the cleanup tag. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

CU

You might want to ask User:Raul654 if he thinks there's grounds to pursue a checkuser request. My guess though is that thing kinda thing brings the Coulter fans out of the woodwork. By now just about everyone has a Misplaced Pages account... On the other hand, it might be a useful way to ferret out socks. Guettarda (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Unarchiving

The discussion has nothing to do with improving the article. That's not the place for general rants against "liberals in Misplaced Pages". And it's a magnet for unsourced smears. Archiving discussions like that is pretty normal on controversial articles, in my experience. Guettarda (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the term you're looking for is tendentious editing Guettarda (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Smile

Rsrikanth05 (talk) 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, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Seriously?

I didn't bother to reply to Switzpaw's comment because, although s/he was totally on the wrong track, it just wasn't worth arguing about. But seriously...while I appreciate what you're trying to do on the Olbermann article, you really should familiarise yourself with policy before choosing to lecture people about it.

To begin with, policy trumps "convention". An argument based on convention is always weaker than an argument based on policy. If you bothered to read Johno7777's assertion, it was obviously untrue. So there's no need to make the far weaker argument based on "convention". The first requirement is that you pass WP:V. Only after you've gotten past that burden do you bother to talk about other policies like WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, and then you move onto guidelines like the WP:MOS and then onto unwritten conventions. Don't start with your weakest argument. Start with your strongest. Guettarda (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

He said "not the Ivy league Cornell". Quick-fail on any RS. No reliable source would repeat that nonsense. Guettarda (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I'm not new to this. I've dealt with every sort of specious argument you can imagine over the last 4 years at the intelligent design article. You don't win against True Believers by pointing them to convention - you point to policy first, and you shut them down when they start repeating arguments that have been settled. To say that "we don't do that anywhere else" invited "othersuffexists". Saying 'give a good reason why we should deviate from the norm' is a more powerful argument, but it it's an invitation to argue more.

When it comes down to it, disruption at articles like these (or the recent on at the Obama article) can easily be orchestrated outside of Misplaced Pages - and often are. If you tell people "no", they cry "censorship". If you tell people "provide sources", the average person comeing from outside, with no real clue about the arguments they are repeating, will stop. Granted, there are people (as we say at the KO article) who will misrepresent sources and argue the same thing over and over. But appealing to 'convention' is no better than appealing to policy with people like that (which reminds me...I don't know how many times I've seen an editor, when stymied by policy, start editing the policy page...) But my experience has been that you're best off starting with policies. Even the Cornell issue, when it comes down to it, is more hangs more heavily on WP:UNDUE than on 'convention'...because talking about the college rather than the university gives undue weight to the college, and is likely to leave readers with a false impression. Guettarda (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Praise Olbermann

Hey. I've noticed that you're more biased, annoying and stubborn than most trolls and that you have a clear agenda when editing but still take yourself seriously and present yourself as unbiased. How is possible that you have not been banned and that you're allowed to edit articles?

Thanks for reading.--DystopiaSticker (talk) 03:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You may find my response here. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Taking this elsewhere

I'm making a distinction between making a point, and disrupting wikipedia to make a point that's apparently being lost.

I will not answer any more of your accusations of bad faith, as I feel they are unproductive. SDY (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Your input is requested here. SDY (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Dude...

I have no idea wtf you're talking about. Read my comment before posting crap like like this. You know what - if you can't be bothered to figure out what I'm saying, find somewhere else to post. Guettarda (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I think I misunderstood what you were saying. Withdrawn. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

DystopiaSticker

I saw your ANI report. You might be in his most recent bullshit here. Ward3001 (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed his comment per WP:BLP. Here it is in the edit history, along with my comments. Ward3001 (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The only BULLSHIT on Olbermann's article comes from Blaxthos himself. Dude, quit trying to make wikipedia a platform for spouting your far left viewpoints and censoring anything that doesn't comport. 68.40.123.217 (talk) 10:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't around for a bit, missed all the fun. I see that Dave has blocked the anon. I don't know if a CU request would be taken up though - while the anon has commented on DystopiaSticker's user page, there's no evidence of ban evasion or troublesome socking. If DystopiaSticker were to edit while the anon was banned (or the other way around), there's be justification for an RFCU. As is though, I suspect that the request would be declined. Guettarda (talk) 05:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Criticism of Bill O'Reilly

Heads up. A new editor (new to the page) is butchering entire, longstanding sections of the article.Jimintheatl (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Pace. Understand that I have been/can be a loose cannon, and appreciate your tolerance...Jimintheatl (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Dermatology

Do you have a specific interest in dermatology? If so, I am always looking for more help ;) ---kilbad (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• I did not realize it had been listed at DKY. Perhaps you could direct me to the article entry at DKY with a specific link? Thanks in again! kilbad (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

lable

Do you try to act like an ass or does it just come naturally? Arzel (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Just Curious

Blax, have you ever calculated the number of these "personal attack" warnings you've issued during the course of your Misplaced Pages career? It must be one hell of an impressive number, kiddo! Between these and other kinds of warnings you issued, and actions you've taken against other users, you've built up quite a portfolio of litigiousness. All to good effect I'm sure. By the way, I've never issued a single one since I started editing in 2007. Have never felt the need. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly

I answered you already. "Feel free" not to be patronising. Regarding #1, I agreed with you, but also pointed out your inconsistency in arguing between the two pages. I don't grant your #6, you're just trying to make a point. Fences and windows (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing the "instead" from my edit of May 5 is fine. As for the other comment on the O'Reilly talk page, I expected as much. As you've noticed, however, I'm far from the only editor who has been unfavorably impressed by your inconsistent argumentation. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Olbermann

Let’s be honest, it not a personal view: Olbermann is a liberal. Your argument doesn't make sense. It's like saying Bill O'Reilly isn't a conservative, O'Reilly is a conservative. B64 (talk) 04:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It not what I believe, it what is true. He is a liberal. Just like you belive he isn't your Injecting your believes in wiki. B64 (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The truly verifiable was just an extra. Olbermann's interview with a college newspaper is not the strongest evidence that he actually was rejected by Harvard but offered a full scholarship to B.U. However, the main reason for the deletion is that the info is gratuitous. Who cares if he was rejected by one college, or given a scholarship to another, or put on the waiting list for a third? Including it makes the article look silly. Wiki bios rarely detail a middle aged man's college application record. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

With regards to SPA...

Is there someone in particular on the Bill O'reily page you were referring to? Soxwon (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope; if I had any idea who I would have approached it differently. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note

No offense taken, even before your explanation. Yes, we've had some pretty harsh words, but I've never doubted that you've been sincere (maybe sometimes too sincere) in your efforts. By that I mean that you approach this unpaid job very intensely and meticulously. I can get intense myself when it comes ideas I feel strongly about. Perhaps both of us should keep this in mind as we go forward. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 02:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Blah, Blah, Blah

1. Don't template the regulars
2. Check the warning given on the user's talk page. It was about adding unsourced info, not vandalism.
3. Twinkly adds the edit summary about vandalism.
4. Any person who automatically assumes good faith is too naive to survive in 2009

Blah, blah, blah. --WebHamster 10:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Better late than never

I've left a reply to your query at Template talk:See also#Section link. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 11:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

RE:DemocraplypseNow

The feeling is mutual my wikiquaintance, I look forward to misrepresenting your arguments extensively in a vain effort to bring my credibility down to that of NewsBusters.org. Take care boss. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 01:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Kiss my ass

What the hell? I asked for one WP:RS, and you two gave me a hell of a time trying to get it. I looked through that list, thoroughly. And you know what, the UPI link wasn't in the top 50 for that particular G-news search, and after 50 or so, I guess I wasn't paying as close attention. Sorry, I'm human. So instead of a condescending, accusatory post like this one, you consider that I might actually be here to help the project. Throughout the entire discussion on both pages you made at least 8 accusations of either bad faith or me completely disregarding Misplaced Pages policy. So instead of an intelligent, beneficial argument, we had a heated discussion that accomplished little. Maybe if you weren't such an asshole more might actually be accomplished. Soxwon (talk) 04:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)