| Revision as of 02:15, 15 November 2010 editResidentAnthropologist (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers7,071 editsm Reverted edits by The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) to last version by ResidentAnthropologist← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:05, 15 November 2010 edit undoDavidOaks (talk | contribs)6,973 edits →Folk etymology: Your input requested: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
| |text = On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ''... that ''''']''''' was published just before ]'s death and the ]'s reorganization of the ]?'' You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page <small>(], )</small> and add it to ] if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the ]. | |text = On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ''... that ''''']''''' was published just before ]'s death and the ]'s reorganization of the ]?'' You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page <small>(], )</small> and add it to ] if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the ]. | ||
| }} ] (]) 06:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC) | }} ] (]) 06:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC) | ||
| == ]: Your input requested == | |||
| Hi, RA-- I am looking for people with interests in folklore (editors I’ve encountered on folklore/mythology articles as well as elsewhere) to visit ], where there is an ongoing edit dispute. One view (three people) holds that the term is exclusive to linguistics, and another (just me) finds that the term has been formally defined within folklore, and used in academic journals in that sense for more than a century. The page is currently locked. I ask your input not in support of either view, but because discussion seems to have come to a standstill, it seems to be a page few stumble across, and needs fresh viewpoints to get unstuck. Thanks! ] (]) 18:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:05, 15 November 2010
|
The Signpost: 1 November 2010
- In the news: Airplane construction with Misplaced Pages, lessons from the strategy project, logic over rhetoric
- WikiProject report: Scoring with WikiProject Ice Hockey
- Features and admins: Good-lookin' slugs and snails
- Arbitration report: Arb resignation during plagiarism discussion; election RfC closing in 2 days
- Technology report: Foundation office switches to closed source, secure browsing, brief news
Talkback
Message added 16:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
ITN for 2010 eruption of Mount Merapi
 | On 7 November 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2010 eruption of Mount Merapi, which you created. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page. |
--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Curious
Curious how you came by to show up at this discussion??? Would appreciate a response. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Its happens to be on Watchlist, as are alot of the NRM articles on Misplaced Pages. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Curious, as you had never posted there before. When did you add it to your watchlist? Why? -- Cirt (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Because, NRMs topics are an area I am interested in and its an almost Iconic phrase of the 70s and 80s. I dont remember, I was to say its been within the the last month and a half. Probably mid october or so I added all alot of NRM topics to my watchlist. I frankly havent posted anything because a lack of things to talk about on the talk page. This is really the first thing I have had any comment on. Just as a note I have all the the articles that FA, GA, HIgh and Top importance articles that are part of the WP:NRM on My watchlist. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Understood. Thank you for the response. Most appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Because, NRMs topics are an area I am interested in and its an almost Iconic phrase of the 70s and 80s. I dont remember, I was to say its been within the the last month and a half. Probably mid october or so I added all alot of NRM topics to my watchlist. I frankly havent posted anything because a lack of things to talk about on the talk page. This is really the first thing I have had any comment on. Just as a note I have all the the articles that FA, GA, HIgh and Top importance articles that are part of the WP:NRM on My watchlist. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Curious, as you had never posted there before. When did you add it to your watchlist? Why? -- Cirt (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Its happens to be on Watchlist, as are alot of the NRM articles on Misplaced Pages. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 8 November 2010
- News and notes: Second Wikipedian in Residence, {{citation needed}} for sanity
- WikiProject report: WikiProject California
- Features and admins: No, not science fiction—real science
- Election report: The countdown begins
- Arbitration report: No cases this week; Date delinking sanctions reduced for one party; History ban extended
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Response
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Concerns
Would love to learn more about your concerns, and generally about WP and editing.
Mediation, Yes, that was suggested. I am attempting to disuss the issues, and we will see how that goes first. But I am learning, and I didn't think I a block would have been handed down when editors were section blanking referenced additions from major news sourses. I engaged in talk on article page, warned about them blanking my info on user pages, and I guess it was all me getting baited into a 3rr block, well played on thier part HAHA. That is if we move past assuming good faith. Frankly, I thought my references and edits met WP:V and were equal weight to the pro hannity anecdotes that the past editors chose to include. I thought WP:Well Known would have applied as well. I referenced this on the pages of the editors reverting my work, and on the talk page. The fact that they are writing "waterboarding' was a non issue, and nobody watched it" shows bias IMHO, and the fact that they want to include a rebuttle to an allegation (but not the facts themselves) shows the same, again IMHO. That is why I chose to edit the article, and investigate the issue. I have additional references no to support my changes and additions. The undue weight given to rebuttals to editors inclusions to the page, as well as the fast reverts and undo's smacks of "ownership" and scrubbing to me. I don't know if those are the right WP slang phrases though. Looking forward to your input. On both my edits and theirs.Thanks Bluebadger1 (talk) 03:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much
Thank you, for your positive comments about my work, in the deletion discussion for the article Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System at the AFD page Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System. Your comments are most appreciated. Thanks again, -- Cirt (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Re: What the devil was going on?
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Graham87 00:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
ITN for Pakistan CID building attack
| On 12 November 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Pakistan CID building attack, which you recently nominated, created and substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page. |
--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
COI on ANI
Greetings,
We can see that JJBulten has canvassed for support on the ANI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Griswaldo#Longevity_COI
This is typical of his misbehavior. I suggest that JJBulten is the one who really needs to be "reined in." His editing has made Misplaced Pages articles on longevity less reliable and a bigger mess than they would be if he were not allowed to continue editing on Misplaced Pages. This is something to think about.Ryoung122 20:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much
Thank you, very much, for your comments at Talk:Werner_Erhard_vs._Columbia_Broadcasting_System#Coatrack_or_not.3F regarding the attacks being made against me by users DaveApter (talk · contribs) and THF (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 04:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- I also posted another comment, in that section. I hope you are doing well. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Sex, Slander, and Salvation
 | On 13 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sex, Slander, and Salvation, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sex, Slander, and Salvation was published just before David Berg's death and the Love Charter's reorganization of the Family International? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project (nominate) 06:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Folk etymology: Your input requested
Hi, RA-- I am looking for people with interests in folklore (editors I’ve encountered on folklore/mythology articles as well as elsewhere) to visit talk:Folk etymology, where there is an ongoing edit dispute. One view (three people) holds that the term is exclusive to linguistics, and another (just me) finds that the term has been formally defined within folklore, and used in academic journals in that sense for more than a century. The page is currently locked. I ask your input not in support of either view, but because discussion seems to have come to a standstill, it seems to be a page few stumble across, and needs fresh viewpoints to get unstuck. Thanks! DavidOaks (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)