| Revision as of 07:55, 31 May 2012 editJeff5102 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers15,247 edits →Carlo Bon Compagni← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:34, 2 June 2012 edit undoMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 30d) to User talk:Roscelese/Archive 8.Next edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{archive box|] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]}} | {{archive box|] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]}} | ||
| == False Reporting Section == | |||
| I understand you have strong personal feelings on the matter, but Misplaced Pages entries should stay as neutral and impartial as possible, avoiding any strong, definitive statements and opinions. Anyways, I have started a section on the Talk page about it to discuss the matter further. Thanks.] (]) 05:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Wrt your first point, that's exactly why I've reduced weight (in a summary article) of a widely debunked study, and restored a better-regarded one. The second, however, is not true; there's no "that's just, like, your opinion, man" in cases of scholarly consensus, and scholarly consensus is clear that Kanin's study, if not wholly worthless, is such an outlier that it is unnecessary to include it in a summary. –] (] ⋅ ]) 08:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Firstly, I think it would better to have this discussion the Talk page, where I've started a new section, as opposed to here. Secondly, stating that a study has been "debunked" and is thus so incredibly worthless that it shouldn't even be in the article requires very powerful sources that state this fact. At present, the study is included in the article with the caveat that it has been "much criticized", which the sources certainly indicate. However, until you can cite precisely how and where it has been "debunked", there is no reason for deleting that study. The links you have provided (incidentally, all from researchers that have conducted RIVAL STUDIES) hardly show a "scholarly consensus" that the study is "debunked" or "worthless". (Also, those researchers are in no way the majority or form a "consensus" all by themselves, even had they used such language) Also, I would appreciate it if we could discuss this issue without you reverting my edits each time.] (]) 09:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::I could say the same of you. Please read ] to understand why you shouldn't be repeatedly restoring this material. Gain consensus on the talk page first. (Also, are you seriously arguing that scholars are pointing out the serious methodological flaws in Kanin's study because they're, y'know, ''jealous'' or something? "Rival studies"?) –] (] ⋅ ]) 17:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm a mathematician by education. If you make a powerful statement alleging that a study has been DEBUNKED and is WORTHLESS, ''the onus is on you to provide proof''. So far, you have not done so. Making a powerful statement and then claiming the burden is on someone else to prove it wrong is not the way things normally work.] (]) 23:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If we were stating in the article that the study was debunked, we would obviously need a source that used those words. But we don't say that in the article; rather, we're not including it because it's a single study and a particularly poor example of one. –] (] ⋅ ]) 23:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You used words like "debunk" as the reason not to include the study, and are now using the weaker, but still extreme phrase "particularly poor" to describe it. Once again, '''you need sources and proof'''. I have asked for these again and again, and you still have not provided them, all while making proclamations that "we will not include the Kanin study" on the Talk Page. At present, the study is listed with the caveat "much criticized", which is certainly accounted for in the links.] (]) 23:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'm perfectly happy to continue using the phrase "debunk" if it would make you happy. The fact remains that we have no reason to include ''any'' individual study in a summary article, and that if for some reason we decided to do so, Kanin's would be the ''last'' one we would choose because it is such a very inaccurate picture of scholarly opinion. –] (] ⋅ ]) 23:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::You keep making statements like "debunked" and "very inaccurate" without a shred of proof. This is not a message board or a blog. This is an encyclopedia. You need sources and proof, something you have failed to provide after repeated requests.] (]) 01:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Still, that's no excuse for you to edit war.--] ] 01:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I don't believe that I have? I made 3 edits on the page in about 24 hours, and the last one was not in any way a revert, marking a substantial difference from the original. Anyways, I will gladly abstain from making any further edits on the page for a couple of days, but sincerely hope that Roscelese will discuss the issue and attempt to provide some evidence for her powerful claims.] (]) 01:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::ChessPlayerLev, you have been edit warring because you've been single-handedly reverting the contributions of two users, ] and myself. ] was the third editor who undid your changes. People have been reverting your edits because many are unhelpful: for instance, you've repeatedly tried to remove the most reliable source we have, a 2006 literature review, with the explanation that the study is ; you have been trying to conflate the FBI category "unfounded" with "false", disregarding the fact that not even the FBI claims that "unfounded" = "false"; you've been trying to selectively delete one individual study which, due to its sample size of n=2,643 and other aspects, was deemed particularly good by Lonsway, Ashambault & Lisak and Rumney while simultaneously doing anything to retain the Kanin study which, as you yourself admit, has been "much criticized". Please try to gain consensus for your edits on the talk page rather than edit-warring. Thank you. --] (]) 16:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::SonicYouth86, I am hardly "edit-warring" considering that I created topics on both this and the Article's Talk Page (after making a total of 2 edits, one a revert) with the sole purpose of discussing this issue and gaining consensus. However, with the exception of a single passage which I put back into the article, '''you have failed to discuss the topic on the Talk Page at all'''. If anything, you are the one that prefers edit-warring on this issue (which you seem to be trying to "win" and will probably accomplish, considering there is one other editor, Roscolese, making the same reverts, also without providing sources for her claims), instead of rationally discussing it. For instance, right after this message, you made a revert on the Article on an issue you haven't brought up at all in the Talk Page. I won't revert it myself, but would kindly ask you to discuss it on the relevant Talk page first. For the record, while a sample size of n=2,643 may indeed be the largest, a couple of fellow academics with studies that showed similar numbers (both of them abnormally low compared to the mean rate of 10-20% false allegations found over 20+ different studies) stating a study is the "most rigorous" does not mean we can include that statement without quotes. I am fine with including "most rigorous" as long as it is properly sourced and quoted.] (]) 02:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Reverting is edit warring regardless of whether there was a discussion on the talk page, and regardless of sourcing.--] ] 02:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::ChessPlayerLev, I replied on the article talk page. --] (]) 14:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Thanks man, appreciate it.] (]) 15:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready == | |||
| Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through ]. | |||
| * Account activation codes have been emailed. | |||
| * To activate your account: 1) Go to | |||
| * The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code. | |||
| * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to ], or ask ]. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration. | |||
| * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at ]. | |||
| * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at ] | |||
| * Show off your HighBeam access by placing <nowiki>{{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}}</nowiki> on your userpage | |||
| * When the 1-year period is up, check the ] to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be. | |||
| Thanks for helping make Misplaced Pages better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, ]<sup> ]|]</sup> 04:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- EdwardsBot 0266 --> | |||
| == New article on Edward S. May of Gates of Vienna == | == New article on Edward S. May of Gates of Vienna == | ||
Revision as of 18:34, 2 June 2012
 Archives |
|
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
New article on Edward S. May of Gates of Vienna
I was wondering if you could give us your advice, as a senior editor, on the question of notability in the case of Edward S. May. While the rules for biographies tells us the criteria, I believe long-term experience as a Misplaced Pages editor can help us make a judgment call. I'm not sure I have it right. I lean towards deletion but I hate to dampen the enthusiasm of the author of the article, another fairly new editor and grad student in anthropology. However, the integrity of Misplaced Pages comes first. I’d appreciate your advice. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Looking at the references in the article, I'm not seeing anything that asserts notability. There may be more out there, and certainly it's a little difficult to search on a phrase like "Gates of Vienna" that returns so many unrelated hits, but the author seems to have tried very hard to pick up on any mention of this individual so I doubt there's much s/he hasn't found. I'll check back later and !vote in the discussion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Unfolded Film
Hello Roscelese. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Unfolded Film to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 00:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
War on Women
Quick Note, War on Women has been renominated for Deletion--209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Your perspective would be valued
Hi there. I would appreciate it if you could visit Talk:Muhammad. The article, Muhammad, has changed in a significant way since it originally passed WP:GA several years ago. It now states in the opening paragraph that Mohammad is the Founder of Islam and has relegated to a note at the end of the article that Muslims, themselves don't believe this. I have started a discussion on the talk page concerning this and would value your input. Thanks so much. Veritycheck (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- My involvement in that page has been very tangential so I'm not sure why you're contacting me. I'll take a look, but can't promise any valuable perspective. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- But still... how often on Misplaced Pages does someone tell you that your opinion would be valued? :) MastCell 00:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Template:LGBT rights table Europe
Hi. Could you give your opinion to edit by Eraserhead1? See Ron 1987 (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with the reversion. Deciding that some partnerships are to be considered marriage and some are not, when they're not officially marriage, seems like an OR-ish insertion. The problem could be solved by adding a note either by the specific case or as a general part of the header that some "recognitions" of unions confer more rights than others, sometimes approaching the same number of rights as marriage. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Could you add your opinion here? Regards. Ron 1987 (talk) 01:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you
I had tried to revert the edit where Qibla was moved without discussion, but I must have done it incorrectly somehow, it seems it only reverted the content of the article instead of the actual move. Thank you for correcting that. Peter Deer (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Carlo Bon Compagni
Hi Roscelese. Since you know the Italian language very well, could you please look at my stub on Carlo Bon Compagni di Mombello and the Italian version of the article? It would be nice if we were not having a heated argument about a controversial topic for a change. Best regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- I mean, I can translate the Italian article, if that's what you'd like? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- That would be nice, yes.Jeff5102 (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- And thanks for editing. For me this is more satisfying than our discussions on articles involving former muslims. If you ever would like to have some dutch text translated, you know where to find me.Jeff5102 (talk) 07:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- That would be nice, yes.Jeff5102 (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Coleman 1RR
Be careful with reverting going forward, thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Generally RR exempts obvious vandalism, and an unexplained revert by an account devoted to hounding me seemed to fit the bill. Nonetheless, thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)