Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:23, 21 April 2012

If I left a message on your talk page, please do not post your reply here. Reply on your talk page instead. I will be notified of your response. Click here to start a new discussion. I will reply on this page. If you like, I can post a notification on your talk page when I reply. Simply request it.

solar and co

seen your work on the page, impressive efforts, sorry to mess the article a little, will do my best to improve--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologize, you can mess with it :) I'm just making sure the article doesn't start sounding too sure of itself, when it's talking about a future technology. Equazcion 23:38, 6 Jul 2011 (UTC)

Did I get a little overzealous?

I've always been loathe to edit the ecig article too heavily, but I looked at it recently and felt like it was filled with weasel words and the like and not encyclopedic enough. I noticed that you edited it a lot of it back. I don't do a lot of work on here, so I'm not the most qualified person to judge exactly what makes an article less encyclopedic. I just wanted to ask what your thoughts are and the reasoning on your changes so I can be more up to date on editorial policy and style guidelines. Did you change everything back that I edited? Or was it just some portions? Thanks. Vnarfhuhwef (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at where the changes came from at the time, but I see now that you're the one who removed all the "often" and "some" speak from the intro, which I later returned. I believe I did revert the entire intro, though I don't think I touched the rest of the article, in case you made other changes there.

You weren't overzealous, no need to apologize or anything, I'm not in charge of the article. It's just that qualifiers (some, often, mainly) are not always weasel words. In this case the ones present in the intro are necessary, since electronic cigarettes for example don't always deliver nicotine, are not always portable, sizes don't vary ONLY based on battery size, etc. So it's necessary (in my humble opinion) to add qualifiers that indicate we're saying what the case is generally, rather than across the board, as electronic cigarette designs are so prolific that no description could definitively encompass them all accurately.

Aside from that, there were other changes that I felt lowered the quality of the writing and sometimes introduced grammatical errors. Aside from accuracy, articles also strive to be artistically written (for lack of a better word). Of course that's a subjective judgment and my opinion is no better than yours, so wording changes could be discussed on the article's talk page if you feel strongly that your changes are necessary. Equazcion 22:27, 8 Nov 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point. I guess what I did was just try to completely sterilize everything. You're right that there should be some style to the articles. My brain just doesn't operate that way when I'm doing strict editing. I don't feel especially strongly enough to discuss it on the page itself. I just wanted some insight from someone with more experience than me.

Though it's funny that we both edited it because we each thought that the quality of the article was lowered. Maybe I'll look at it again eventually with all of the above in mind. That particular article is one of those that I have on my watchlist that I always think in the back of my mind, "this could be much better somehow", but I haven't figured out how yet.Vnarfhuhwef (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

bct/ait

thanks for the info on bct/ait. my daughter left for jackson in oct, and came home for christmas exodus. she tried to explain, but this army mom(being a blonde, and easily confused)was thoroughly confused. your article helped me to understand just what she has and will go through. again, thank you so much----maribaltitas@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.130.232.246 (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping to shed some light on basic training for those going in. It seemed so needlessly mysterious, since everyone has the same basic experience. So you're very welcome, it's great to know the article helped a parent! Equazcion 05:56, 27 Jan 2012 (UTC)

Holography page - modification

I am proposing some relatively minor changes to the 'How holography works' pages, and would like your opinion - see talk:Holography page. Epzcaw (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Which section on the talk page? Equazcion 01:15, 5 Feb 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - should have made that clear. It is in the Section called 'Revamp'. I guess I should have added it at the bottom. This is what I said just to save you time:

I think the 'How holography works' section needs a further few amendments.

The requirements for a reference beam should be mentioned at the beginning

It should be made clear that the complicated arrangement of multiple mirrors and beams-splitters is not necessary for making a hologram - a point made by 71.218.130.13 in the disucssion unded the heading 'Hologram Kit'.

I have created a modified version at user:epzcaw and would welcome comments.

Epzcaw (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. When you recently edited Reactions to Occupy Wall Street, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Chinese and Indian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Feeling overwhelmed and need to take a break

Hello Equazcion, I would like to write a essay response to what you wrote to me on the ows talk page here where you said:

How dynamic or static an article has been isn't really of consequence. Editors sometimes get excessively attached to articles, feel it's their "duty" to maintain them, and therefore think they need to serve as gatekeepers so as to lessen their burden in the future. Content doesn't need to be agreed upon beforehand -- the nature of a wiki is that we all edit the live content, rather than craft it on the talk page first. This is the case no matter how "dynamic" the article is. If you feel overwhelmed by how often it changes, take a break. But don't make up new rules.

In the 2nd sentence, are you referring to me or Gandy (or someone else)? 완젬스 (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to Gandy, but also to your specific interpretation of Gandy's stance, where you said too much change "creates" too much work for her and "there has to be some sense of sanity". The only way frequent changes would create work for an editor is if that editor felt a little too responsible for an article's stability, and I feel it's improper to fend off bold edits so as to "lower their workload", so to speak. It's important to remember that even when someone cares about an article, they should also remain vigilante in being accepting of bold changes rather than developing a policeman-like attitude to keep the article "stable" or "sane". Equazcion 10:51, 10 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Point taken, let's just focus on the 2nd sentence only, and let me say that through like-minded editors working alongside each other, a "pact" was implicitly enacted that no hijacking editor should cause 2 or more in-pact editors to devote >= 51% of their time working on stuff they would rather not work on. For example, amadscientist's merge proposal was a huge waste of time and if I spent 30 minutes getting wasted into pointless discussions to "fend off bold edits" and as a result only have 15 minutes to improve parts of the article I think needs attention, then 66% of my time was wasted.

This next example may not resonate with you, but I'll tell it anyway. Back when the article was so out of shape, there were literally easy grammar errors & nonsensical corrections which we were unable to work on, because every day there are "bold edits we must overturn through concensus" which became routinized and systematic.

Now here is my remedy to solve the problem: use the talk page any time we can stave off an edit war. Although there are some editors whose recalcitrance & staunch fervor in WP:BRD strikes me as possible mental illness, and some editors who argue the right to "edit freely" or whatever floats their boat, I can vouch for Gandy & myself personally as always fair communicators. Simply put, the way to resolve the problem is to reach consensus on the talk page.

To change topics, can I ask if sentence 3 is a straw man? (I personally do not find Gandy or myself ever advocating such an easily denounced argument؟) 완젬스 (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

What you're advocating here, albeit in a more long-winded way, still constitutes the same problem. If an edit war starts merely because a new change was boldly implemented, that isn't a good reason to require a demonstrated consensus on the talk page. Reverts should occur if an editor feels the content shouldn't be there, rather than merely because they think someone might have a problem with it being there so it "should" be discussed first. With that in mind, no, my third sentence wasn't a strawman argument -- it is a restatement of what I feel you're advocating, which if you're doing it unintentionally, I feel needs to be pointed out. The talk page isn't for discussing every content addition; that's only necessary when there is actually controversial content to discuss. Equazcion 12:00, 10 Mar 2012 (UTC)

I see we're making some progress. If I made you feel that I'm advocating that, let me just flatly say I don't. With that said, I can see how my explanation seems like I'm sympathetic or in favor of what I've observed. But, that's all it is--just my post-hoc analysis--looking back and describing patterns that weren't specified a priori. It's my position that WP:Consensus trumps all rules, and can be used to make unpopular judgment calls on an article which attracts WP:Owners who Gandy & I have faced our fair share in the past. If I can be criticized as an editor, it's my Npov or Coi issues, not these issues. Let me also welcome you to the article, and I'm optimistic that we will be able to work together amicably, as you've been a great host to me on your talk page. Thanks, 완젬스 (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

If you're not advocating what I think you're advocating, could you explain this edit? Your edit summary states that you were cutting it down, but didn't state the reason. Equazcion 12:55, 10 Mar 2012 (UTC)

It's stuff which could be chopped & cropped to the reaction article. It's 4 paragraphs now, and it should only be 2 paragraphs & contain a much better summary than it currently stands. However, I'm fine with NorthAmerica who reverted me and I'll let it stay for at least 1 week. The "zuccotti park occupation" section is 10 paragraphs, and way too long. Yesterday I did this edit but after two tries, I'll start trimming the article somewhere else. I'm much more in the "BRD crowd" than you give me credit for. ;-) 완젬스 (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you say let's tackle something together

Let's take on a project of your choosing on improving/shortening any of the various occupy articles. I'm game for it if you're feeling readiness to get some sweeping work done anywhere it's needed (at your choosing, ows related). 완젬스 (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with cutting down articles or sections just for the sake of making them shorter, so I can't help you there. If you have an idea for crafting a better summary (or article, section, etc) then great; ditto if you feel there are specific reasons particular content doesn't belong. I'm not sure where your two-paragraph suggested length comes from; craft the content first so that it constitutes a good summary, and whatever length it ends up being is fine. I see you're acclimated to thinking in terms of lengths and percentages, but quality of content should be the first concern. Equazcion 13:15, 10 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Tell me a little bit about yourself as an editor. I have 3 main questions: What areas of the occupy wall street article need the most improvement? What other "occupy articles" do you want to improve the most this month? What does the occupy movement mean to you personally? Were you displaced from your home by mortgage or are you affected adversely by the economy (sorry if too personal, discretion is up to you.) Also, what is its message, in your opinion (and not necessarily supported by reliable sources) and how well does it resonate? Has the movement lost a lot of momentum to you personally? Thanks for our interactions today--I'm fascinated by your ability to not get upset at the article talk page while having a separate & unrelated discussion here, without letting the tension affect you here. You must be an INTJ personality, and my first impression is that you're in the upper quartile of editors I've experienced. You just leave me hoping that you're satisfactorily pro-OWS! 완젬스 (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't like to state my political leanings here, as it takes focus away from accuracy and opens the door for people to assess each other's edits in a less objective way. Adding a pro-OWS statement into the OWS article, for example, can take on new meaning when the editor has advertised themselves to be pro-OWS. Such things don't matter. I want to help make accurate and unbiased information available to anyone looking for it, while hopefully presenting it in a well-written way, and that's all anyone should be concerned with here as far as my motivations go.

I also don't (generally) view editing as a project, but make improvements whenever I happen to come across something that I feel I can contribute improvement to. Equazcion 14:42, 10 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Stratfor leaks

woops...caught it from dyk dint know a discussion took pace ;P(Lihaas (talk) 12:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)).

Media Response

Five days into the protest, Keith Olbermann criticized the initial media response for failing to adequately cover the protests. The protests began on Saturday, September 17. The following Wednesday, The New York Observer reported on the nascent protests in Zuccotti Park. On Friday, September 23, Ginia Bellafante panned the movement in The New York Times. Joanna Weiss of The Boston Globe found it difficult to take the protests seriously, criticizing Occupy Wall Street for its "circus" atmosphere."

http://en.wikipedia.org/Reactions_to_Occupy_Wall_Street#Media_response

See the article talk page. Equazcion 20:49, 17 Mar 2012 (UTC)

It's already been covered on the media responses on the split page. To include Olbermann hoists his significance somehow. Can you tell me what you see as so significant? (he implies there was a media conspiracy not to cover the occupy movement, which was before there was any journalism stories to compare to)완젬스 (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

See the talk page where I just answered you. I'm not discussing this here. Equazcion 20:54, 17 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Too many edit conflicts

Can I ask a simple question here? Are you for or against the chart: 완젬스 (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

(because there are 2 issues--the chart & infobox being 1 of them, and the other being the paragraph which was re-added here) 완젬스 (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

No, you may not ask. I'm not interested in any of your requests for clarification on my personal opinions, as I attempted to tell you politely, and repeatedly, before. You would do well to argue points logically regardless of who makes them and whether or not they've demonstrated an allied status with you. Equazcion 22:40, 17 Mar 2012 (UTC)

I'm not asking about the blackout question. I'm trying to ask if you are for or against the chart, because there are so many edit conflicts on the ows talk page. 완젬스 (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I know what you're asking, and I answered you. Equazcion 22:46, 17 Mar 2012 (UTC)

(ec)see here there are 30 edits in 41 minutes. I am trying to prevent more confusion because two of your comments seem to be ambiguous if we're all on the same page here. 완젬스 (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you only participate in a discussion if you first divide everyone into teams? What if I'm not for or against anything, but I want to discuss the merit of content with an open mind, hoping to arrive at an unbiased conclusion? You need to stop thinking in black & white. Equazcion 22:52, 17 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Understood, I just wanted to point out the two separate things. Sorry for the frustration today--I just want to make the article cleaner and I think from our earlier discussion here on your talk page, I'm a deletionist and want the article considerably shorter. I'm also reducing the number of occupy articles (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Occupy_movement_in_the_United_States#Occupy_Berkeley_merge_proposal_into_Occupy_Cal ) so don't misinterpret my desire to avoid further edit conflicts as me badgering you. I have had about 15 edit conflicts during those 30 minutes, and I just wanted to keep the discussion over there more clean & easy to follow, which is why I wanted to clarify what I thought was your misinterpretation of the two over-arching discussions between becritical and artist. 완젬스 (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

If you want to avoid edit conflicts, I would suggest using your preview button more often, rather than adding afterthoughts onto your comments within minutes afterwards. Most of the edit conflicts I've had in discussions in which you were participating were due to that. Equazcion 22:56, 17 Mar 2012 (UTC)

rfc on rtne

Regarding Template:rtne:

Hi Equazcion, I was wondering if you had feedback to offer on the rtne template, I noticed that you removed it, I wasn't sure if it was intentional or not, as your summary just said "header stuff" and re-organized a few things. I would very much like to know how you feel about it, as there has been little or no critique in regards to it's ongoing usage on many pages, and I would very much like some! Can't tailor it even better to do it's job without new ideas. Penyulap ☏ 06:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed it because the page was suffering from a very long list of header boxes, and something to aide finding info on a Russian news site seemed rather inappropriately specific, especially for an American topic. I'd suggest thinning out the template (cutting down the width of the icon will probably make the whole box thinner vertically), and/or providing a "small" parameter that optionally snugs it over to the right side of the page (like you can see in some other templates on that page). Still though, I'm not sure what the rationale is for pointing users to that site in particular for general sourcing, and would need some clarification there. Equazcion 11:05, 20 Mar 2012 (UTC)

I added two optional parameters to the template: "thin" and "small". I also clarified which site the template links to, as it wasn't clear what exactly "RT" was. Equazcion 12:08, 20 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Equazcion ! I badly need those ideas. I will implement them,(inserted: wait a second, I just notice you did!!) as well as pointing out somewhere, maybe on the template or a little 'read more' link, that the Russian state news service may provide a different perspective and / or a source of news for a topic which may be stifled by the domestic media outlets. I guess I need a wordsmith now, but for good ideas, thank you. OMG, I just noticed what you did to the template, thank you so very much! That is incredible. Such an improvement. Penyulap ☏ 13:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is a 1 TB dose of programmers crack for you, to thank you for your help on the Rtne template. Penyulap ☏

Glad I could help -- thanks for the crack, I can never have too much :) Equazcion 17:17, 20 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Miszabot

Hi. On Talk:Occupy Wall Street, you said

(manually archiving some pretty old stuff, auto-archiver doesn't seem to be hitting this page lately, gonna check settings)

The problem isn't in the page(s) to be archived, but in the server that normally runs the archiving bot. See User talk:Misza13#Re: Bots down & stuff for more. Hopefully, sooner or later, it'll be back to normal.
—WWoods (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah I see, thanks for letting me know :) That had me pretty mystified. Equazcion 01:32, 22 Mar 2012 (UTC)

ContribsTabVector

Hi Equazcion, I started using your ContribsTabVector script, which looks very useful. Do you think it would be possible to make it project-independent, so that the script could be used in other Wikimedia projects as well? Currently if I import the script in another Misplaced Pages, the tab works but the link brings me to en.wikipedia's contributions page. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 02:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. I just edited it to hopefully make it compatible with other Wikimedia projects, give it a try on yours and let me know. Equazcion 03:36, 22 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Works great in fi.wikipedia now. Thanks! Jafeluv (talk) 03:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem :) Equazcion 03:41, 22 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Hi again! I decided to make a local copy anyway, because I wanted to include a link to the user's SUL contribs among other things. In any case as a FYI, there seemed to be a bug when using the script on Commons – it links to en.commons.org instead of commons.wikimedia.org. I parsed the values from wgServer to get around this, dunno if there's an easier way to do it. Just wanted to let you know :) Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

What did you ever need me for? ;) Nice work yo. SUL contribs is a good idea, maybe I'll add that to mine. Equazcion 10:59, 13 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back

(talk page stalker) Totally unrelated to this: Equazcion!!! Welcome back! I was looking for you when dealing with this back in January, but you were apparently on an extended wikibreak. The longest-lasting sock to date, but the same things gave her away: the stalking, mainly. Just FYI, since I know you two had quite a history ;> Cheers... Doc talk 03:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow she's still kicking? Yeah every once in a while I kick the addiction but I appear to be back off the wagon again. Thanks for the welcome :) Equazcion 03:58, 22 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann friendly jesting

You are right to revert my edit here since I was unable to shore up sufficient argument on the talk page. Discussions through "edit summary" are like passing notes in high school while the teacher is watching. Anyways, I have no urgency with regard to our respectful disagreement about whether there is merit to inclusion of the feistily debated newsbit. To me, it seems I have 3 ways of winning the argument:

1. Convincing you to change your mind (offhand chance, but not betting my chickens on it)
2. Daring you to feel "crisis" that the article is too long/detailed (but I don't know where to begin)
3. Engaging you in back-alley talks, seeking to unify each of our mutual objectives (bingo!)

Let me thoughtfully entertain what you see as the merits of the Keith Olbermann "media blackout" tidbit into the parent OWS article. Please have patience with me as I'd really like to resolve this before mid-April. Thanks, 완젬스 (talk) 07:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It's one line, so you shouldn't bother looking for a place to begin with the article length one. As for entertaining the merits, I smell more proof coming that there was no media blackout, and if that's the case, you shouldn't bother; it's irrelevant, as I've tried to tell you. The allegations themselves are key and belong.

The problem with your edit wasn't so much that you couldn't make a sufficient argument, but that you weren't even making an argument for a while there, and decided to revert nonetheless. The reason talk pages work to avoid edit warring is because the side that doesn't have their version in place takes it on faith that the other side won't stop talking just because their version is in place. You failed there -- you left the conversation for 3 days and chose to revert anyway -- doubly so since you were in the minority. It's BRD, not BRR. Equazcion 07:25, 24 Mar 2012 (UTC)

I understand. I was wrong to revert you and I hope you accept my apologies. Here is my first "quick jab" (before I prepare you for my uppercut!) ready? Why is the Keith Olbermann tidbit included in the parent article yet not this tidbit about OWS costing the Bloomberg regime a cool 17 mill? (Obviously you can say "both are allowed" if you're ready to go down that route, which leads to inclusionist editors all getting their pork-barrel "pet edits" into an amalgamated article) but I won't predict your next move if you're willing to refrain from predicting my next move. So what say you--if I were to argue that this $17m tidbit, or a tidbit about antisemitism which we communally deleted a couple months back, or any other valid tidbit of information about the occupy movement--which policy should an editor look to when deciding whether or not a verifiable fact belongs on the parent article, or a leaf node or on both?

Re: your point that I was making no argument--well just look and see if I'm back here again in full throttle. I have spent a good chunk of my time making various arguments on 3 different ows topics. Let's be the judge right now of whether or not I'm ready, willing, and able to make a more sound argument than you re/against the inclusion of the Keith Olbermann tidbit. I'll totally drop the "if there was no blackout" argument because you're not willing to let this one go. I'm ready to argue head-on whether or not this Keith Olbermann tidbit can hold up to the argumental prowess of my finest "A game" or if you can defend your one line, while rejecting my various tidbits of information simultaneously.

If you want massive expansion of our various OWS articles, then take on an "everything's included" policy for not just your tidbits, but mine also: here I'm not saying I want an "everything under the sun" article about Occupy Wall Street, but I definitely don't want duplicate material repeated twice when it's both superfluous and redundant. I welcome either your claim that both your tidbit (but not mine) be included; or, that both our respective tidbits be included, or some other variant--I'll read over what reaction you have, if any, about my similarly "key, belonging" tidbit before I try to remove the Olbermann sentence. I very much want it removed, especially as it already appears on the branched article. Either way, this shall be a pleasant, learning experience for us both, and for me especially! Your move, Ivan Drago... 완젬스 (talk) 09:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It's one line. The full Reactions article has a paragraph. That's not a duplicate, it's a summary, as is appropriate. On second look the Reactions article actually only has the one line as well, but there's not much we can do to shorten that. It is nevertheless the first sentence of the media section in the full article, and I think that's for more reason than mere chronology. The possible blackout was prominent.

You're still not presenting any argument for its removal other than duplication and "if we can't include the rest, then..." Well I'm not against adding material going in the other direction, so go for it -- as long as it makes sense in a summary of notable responses; though I'll note that stating the cost to the Bloomberg administration doesn't seem like a response. If there was a notable response that happens to mention the cost, then maybe. Add it or propose it on the talk page and let's see.

I'm not going to negotiate with you abstractly on what will and won't be included in the article before actually seeing content to be included or excluded, and it's not up to the two of us anyway. Equazcion 09:50, 24 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I have read twice what you said. You seem to be in favor of including pertinent facts about OWS which are verifiable & npov. That's perfectly within the rules and you'll find a myriad of policies and guidelines which are on your side in this issue. The problem with that approach is that in practice it leads to bloating of susceptible articles. I scanned a few random articles and found a parallel between the bloatedness of the OWS article and the bloatedness of Wavelength which is simply the length of one complete wave. I still don't know what to do for this lighthearted disagreement involving friendly jesting. I am partly inclined to take the Olbermann bit to WP:RSN because some of the other stuff he said in his speech was factually non-sequiter and even nonfactual. On the other hand (pardon my personal bias, I consult Occam's Razor to be far better in aiding my judgment than watching CurrentTV, no offense) I'm also eager to make the case for invoking WP:Fringe theories because while, if true, there was indeed a media blackout, you are equivocating in Misplaced Pages's voice that there is indeed a factual claim asserting an unexplained lack of coverage had occurred. Why not soften your words to more carefully convey that a particular source (or two/three whatever) claim that there was some form of media blackout, rather than pass along this propaganda to our readers without reservation? Regardless of how insignificant you think this is, what about if I can find a source that says there is too much coverage? (which I can't, but I'm trying to elucidate the policy here) Why can't you agree to qualify/pre-condition the statement as follows:

Five days into the protest, political commentator Keith Olbermann of CurrentTV vocally criticized other mainstream media outlets for failing to adequately cover the Wall Street protests and demonstrations.

or

Five days into the protest, political commentator Keith Olbermann from CurrentTV criticized the mainstream media's initial failure to adequately cover the protests.

By sticking some identifiers to the guy & linking him to CurrentTV, it more properly puts this information in a non-conspiracy context, which is what I'm after. If you read the sources closely, they're not aggrandizing the issue to some far-off witch hunt--they're merely pointing out that a shortage of coverage exists--nothing more & nothing less. A real "media blackout" is what they do in the Korean Central News Agency but maybe you're too American to have a world view about these things. I don't want to bring this discussion too far off topic, other than to say you have no true appreciation for what is actually a media blackout unless you have lived in China, Iran, North Korea, or Mississippi. I look forward to your reply. (and if by chance, one of these two sentences are good enough for you, then I can finally sleep good after having added those two minor modifications) Thanks, 완젬스 (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

break

You're making an unwarranted sort of legal argument here, essentially saying I'm setting a precedent for inclusion that you'll like to use later. Don't make any generalizations about what I think should be included in the future beyond what I've said explicitly. No, not everything NPOV and verifiable should be in that summary section. I said no such thing.

"Misplaced Pages's voice that there is indeed a factual claim asserting an unexplained lack of coverage" -- No. But, a claim that a lack of coverage was alleged? Yes. This is the difference you don't seem to be grasping. It's not fringe because we're not claiming that a reliable source is making a factual claim. We're pointing to a notable response. It was alleged that this blackout occurred, and that allegation was a prominent event. If you feel clarification is needed regarding that point, let's hear how you'd like to word it.

PS. You really don't have to continue this "we're jesting friendly but I'll take take this up with RSN if I have to" thing. Good to be civil, bad to be disingenuous. I find this transparent and annoying. You'll find I respond better if you say what you mean without the window dressing. Equazcion 11:12, 24 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Edit: I hastily replied before seeing your question of why it couldn't be reworded, and your suggestions for rewording. I never said it couldn't be reworded -- you just never suggested it before, and kept removing it. They both look fine, I think I personally like the first more. Equazcion 11:19, 24 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Sounds great! I add it then write my reply, thanks! 완젬스 (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Thanks for your help with the Wikiproject Occupy PNG your recently created, however it is not properly attributed to the original CC 3.0 work with a similar license. If you would like to make these changes your contribution can be saved from deletion and be used on the project page. You must show the original file location to show that you did not originate the artwork yourself as well. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Would you do the honors? I give you full permission to alter the licensing as you describe above. I'd do it myself but u no speeka english from my perspective. As an undergrad I skipped the Misplaced Pages image copyright paranoia class. File:Wikiproject OWS logo.png Equazcion 08:25, 6 Apr 2012 (UTC)

In other words...you can't just take an CC image and claim it as your own work. It is not needed, as the SVG file generates a PNG image as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I feel the image is needed because the SVG produces aliasing problems especially against background colors, whereas the PNG provides smoother transitions. In the summary I noted it was re-created based on your design, and included a link to your original. Tell me what else needs to be done to validate the license and I'll do it, or like I said, you can edit the summary directly. I'm bad with the copyright stuff. Equazcion 09:19, 6 Apr 2012 (UTC)

There are other ways to to that.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I chose this way, since my abilities lie more with PNG than SVG. If there's a way to fix the SVG to make it smoother I'm open to that as well. I'm not sure where your adversarial attitude is coming from. I'm fully willing to credit you for the design, as I've shown. There was no need to CSD tag. Equazcion 10:37, 6 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Since it was a CC 3.0, as long as you are not claiming the work to be your own (funny thing...you were. So I changed that) I can live with the file, however...simply replacing your version over the original at the project level is not acceptable. Join the project if you are so inclined and help gain consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't intend to explicitly claim anything. I used the image upload wizard and left the text it placed. I'm glad you eventually chose to do what I suggested originally, albeit only after your CSD was rejected. So glad this worked out. Equazcion 11:13, 6 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Why do you keep uploading the same image to File:Wikiproject OWS logo.png? Please reply. You can edit the image description without uploading a new image. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware that a new image doesn't need to be uploaded when making summary edits. I've been fixing the image, sometimes subtley. The first version didn't have a transparent background. I deleted some more white from the background a couple of times, and finally changed the font in the sign. Equazcion 11:23, 6 Apr 2012 (UTC)

True the last version did have a different size. Apologies for fussing. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem :) Equazcion 20:18, 7 Apr 2012 (UTC)

OWS economic section

What do you think about the claim that it is OR? And do you think there is any way to get the others to work with, instead of against? Their objections could be addressed were they willing to work with me instead of against, and if they heard others. There seems to also be an element of POV pushing over technicalities, ignoring the obvious correctness of the material (in that the economics are the background). B——C_ritical 06:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not OR. They're rehashing the same old discussion, invoking the claim that unless the sources mention a link between the stats and OWS, the section is POV. Articles use refs that don't mention their subjects all the time in order to support surrounding facts. There's nothing wrong with it, even if it could be incidentally construed as "supportive" of the movement.

I don't have any particular suggestions for dealing with this, except to keep arguing the facts. It would be nice to get more people involved though; however that can be difficult when the talk page is getting too long and complicated with pasted content that makes people gag and keep away. If we can boil this down to an RFC with two very simple options, that would help -- not options for entire section drafts, but rather a summary of the two ideals being fought over. Equazcion 08:20, 10 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Let's not make our argument weak: the sources DO state a connection between OWS and the data. I carefully picked them to do so. Where the connection is slightly weak, there are other sources connecting. That is, source A connects, and source A also connects to B and C. In addition to that, there are other sources which could be brought in, given specific enough objections to text. Let's go through the DR process on this: they don't like that because they don't have the facts on their side, but it works even if it takes a long time. B——C_ritical 13:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

B——C_ritical 19:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I was away for a while. It looks like you guys are sorting this out without me though, so well done. Equazcion 12:20, 11 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this? VegitaU is trying to edit war a bit on Antisemitism into the article over the objections of others, and I rather think abusing Twinkle also. B——C_ritical 07:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Sorry for the long wait, didn't appear on my watchlist. Jasper Deng (talk) 02:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

TUSC token 215b603434aa7a7ab2bd5ff675948c7d

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account. Equazcion 18:16, 18 Apr 2012 (UTC)

What time are you going to sleep tonight? (to call a truce/ceasefire)

I am ready to retire for the day whenever you wish to agree to resume tomorrow. You've given me an exercise in Misplaced Pages diplomacy, but I hope you are as tired/exhausted as I am. (not that I can't drink another red bull & smoke a couple lucky strikes and go for round 2 of our friendly jesting) but the ball is in your court. I am Korean and single so I'm born functional to sit in front of a computer for several hours, as I've already shown so far. I just don't want to open another red bull because you might be drinking 5 hour energy and we're upping each other's blood caffeine levels unneccessarily. I've had 3 already today and have a headache, but I'm fighting it. If you want to retire in about 30 minutes, I can give you more friendly diplomacy on WP:ANI tomorrow. I've had more than enough for 1 session. 완젬스 (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You seem to think this is a game. It's not. I've raised a concern that I feel is serious and hope it gets addressed. You've stated your defense in more-than-enough words. If anyone comments while you're asleep you'll be able to answer them tomorrow just as easily. Equazcion 00:15, 21 Apr 2012 (UTC)

This affects my physical and mental health. However stressful it is to you, multiply that x10 because you have nothing to lose and a lot to gain. The best I can come out of this is to keep my editing privileges. I have nothing to gain but a lot to lose. I won't sleep until I've observed your account dormant for a period exceeding a pre-determined number of minutes. If you want to retire early, then I'll give you the same courtesy while you sleep. We both know it will be instant straw-manning of each other's arguments if one of us goes to sleep while the other keeps posting. I'm trying to do us both a favor by telling you I'm the most sleepy right now. I'd like to sleep and ask what time you plan to cease editing Misplaced Pages (but I respect your privacy if you wish not to tell me). 완젬스 (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I also would like this to be addressed--but can't we address it tomorrow rather than today? I have a headache, I'm sleepy, and I'm tired of WP:ANI. This is my 5th consecutive hour of f5'ing. 완젬스 (talk) 00:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

1. Grant, Drew Grant; Sanders, Anna (September 30, 2011). "Media Coverage: Must Reads." The New York Observer. Accessed November 2011.
2. Goodale, Gloria (October 5, 2011). "'Occupy Wall Street': Why this revolution isn't made for TV." The Christian Science Monitor. Accessed November 2011.
3. Udstuen, Lukas; et al. (October 11, 2011.) "U.S. News: Occupy Wall Street Media Coverage." NewsNY. Accessed November 2011.
4. ^ Stoeffel, Kat (September 26, 2011). "Occupy Wall Street's Media Problems". The New York Observer. Retrieved October 6, 2011.
5. "Will Bunch on mainstream media's failure to cover Occupy Wall Street protests". Countdown with Keith Olberann. current.com. September 21, 2011. Retrieved September 22, 2011.
6. "The Wall Street Protesters: What the Hell Do They Want?". observer.com. September 21, 2011. Retrieved October 6, 2011.
7. Bellafante, Ginia (September 23, 2011). "Gunning For Wall Street, With Faulty Aim". The New York Times.
8. Weiss, Joanna (September 27, 2011). "The right way to get heard". The Boston Globe. Retrieved October 6, 2011.