Revision as of 05:49, 20 September 2013 editJohn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers215,553 editsm →The actual request: t← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:52, 20 September 2013 edit undoJohn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers215,553 edits →On sourcing and the yellow press: ?Next edit → | ||
Line 114: | Line 114: | ||
:::::I don't care as long as you stick to "People is a garbage source because it's a garbage source". But this issue isn't going to go away so I'm ''hoping'' you'll have some good insights and arguments in the forthcoming discussion. As I stated above, as soon as you start doing that, your opinion matters to me. --] <sup><font face="Calibri">'']''</font></sup> 20:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC) | :::::I don't care as long as you stick to "People is a garbage source because it's a garbage source". But this issue isn't going to go away so I'm ''hoping'' you'll have some good insights and arguments in the forthcoming discussion. As I stated above, as soon as you start doing that, your opinion matters to me. --] <sup><font face="Calibri">'']''</font></sup> 20:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
::::::Where did I say "People is a garbage source because it's a garbage source"? A diff will be fine. If you can show where you think I said that, maybe we can have a conversation. --] (]) 20:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC) | ::::::Where did I say "People is a garbage source because it's a garbage source"? A diff will be fine. If you can show where you think I said that, maybe we can have a conversation. --] (]) 20:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
*<small>]</small> --] (]) 11:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:52, 20 September 2013
A Note on threading:
Interpersonal communication does not work when messages are left on individual users' talk pages rather than threaded, especially when a third party wishes to read or reply. Being a "bear of very little brain", I get easily confused when trying to follow conversations that bounce back and forth, so I've decided to try the convention that many others seem to use, aggregation of messages on either your talk page or my talk page. If the conversation is about an article I will try to aggregate on the article's talk page.
I may mess up, don't worry, I'll find it eventually. Ping me if you really need to. please note this is a personal preference rather than a matter of site policy |
(From User:John/Pooh policy)
Click to show archived versions of this talk page
ScotireA few FYIs regarding this user:
The last of these is particularly worrying, as I expect there are many more affecting many articles. Do you have any idea on the correct process to follow?--Nilfanion (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Shires of ScotlandI am attempting to follow the debate on the removal of categories referring to Scottish 'shires'. The term 'shire' is in common use in Scotland. I understand that the Post Office no longer uses that element in an address, and that Scottish Council areas are an administrative delineation, but shires do still exist. There are at least ten Scottish Westminster constituencies which are shires. Who has made the decision to make these changes? And where can I find that recorded?Shipsview (talk) 09:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
obsolescent / obsoletehttp://en.wiktionary.org/obsolescent gives a definition inconsistant with usage in warrior article , surely one must be incorrect ? 78.105.186.64 (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
What do you think of this?What are your thoughts on this closure? GabeMc 19:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:3RR warning on Brad PittBefore you claim a WP:BLP exemption, please note "hat counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Neither the BLP board or ANI have given any indication your actions are exempt from WP:3RR. --NeilN 23:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Shoah (film)I've just spent a wet Sunday trying to improve Shoah (film) only to see a lot of it undone. I wonder if I could trouble you for your opinion whether the article was better before or after . I am a slow editor and reluctant to throw good time after bad, but if you think it was better before, I am prepared to have a go at defending my edits per BRD. Thanks. TwoTwoHello (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Military history coordinator electionGreetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill 17:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC) user: Y45edA couple of weeks ago you blocked user Y45ed for genre warring. Just wanted to let you know that he/she is at it again. ChakaKong 01:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
QuestionYou obviously don't have to answer this, but it would be a kindness if you're willing to, and would help me personally in getting a better picture of you as an editor: what's your class background? For instance, what's your profession, to what level were you educated and where, what were your parents or guardians professions, that sort of thing. Thanks! Herostratus (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Here's why I asked. Sorry this is so long, but there's a lot to think about here. I was pondering the recent contretemps re People magazine and the New York Daily News and so on. I'm sure you're thoroughly tired of the subject and I don't want to pile on, and I'm not personally invested in the answers to those questions, but I am personally invested in User:Flyer22. As founder of WP:PAW, I need her, and was disheartened by this edit at Talk:Pedophilia where User:Flyer22 said "On second thought, I'm taking this article off my WP:Watchlist for now, and for the first time ever. I have too many other things, including stressful things with regard to Misplaced Pages, to have to worry about... Have a blast." Among the many useful tasks User:Flyer22 performs here is watching and engaging on articles like Pedophilia and related articles. In a nutshell, we're contending with the sort of editor who wants include material such as "However, some researchers contend that sexual experience even at a very young age, if done with care and mutual consent, can be harmless or even healthy ". As you might imagine, these people can be well-versed in obscure literature on the subject and on Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, tireless, and of course careful to use language much more subtle that the example I give. Contending with this sort of thing is stressful and unpleasing for a number of reasons, and there're not many editors willing to do it who have the requisite learning, intellectual chops, and patience to do it well. User:Flyer22's one, so you can see why her expressed retreat from that article due to "other things, including stressful things with regard to Misplaced Pages" troubled me and prompted me to look into that, and so I found this. In all candor, I have to say that that was a spectacularly bad edit. It's OK, we all make a lot of edits, and some of them are going to be bad edits. I know I make plenty of bad edits. The thing then is to move forward, be big enough to admit the mistake, and make corrections. Drilling down into the situation, I found a great deal of contention re People and the New York Daily News. I didn't read everything in detail, but I see where you (understandably, we're only human) got your back up quite a bit. Argument here is often contentious and stressful and taking fixed positions comes naturally and can be functional, but consider. Your position seemed to me fairly idiosyncratic. As the author of Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources checklist (check it out -- I'm a bit proud of it) I have thought about these things a little bit, and I'm not seeing your argument as the stronger, and certainly not incontrovertibly the stronger. OK, so anyway, I guess we don't agree about the veracity of the New York Daily News and People, and you've been pretty vociferous about that -- "not on my watch" and so on. This would not be my concern, except for the collateral damage described above, which makes it my concern. So, wondering about that, I tried to form a picture in my head of just what's going on here. Let's drill down through this together. The New York Daily News is a working man's paper. It's the kind of paper you'll find discarded on the subway, and maybe with grimy fingerprints at that. That's a data point, but in and of itself it's a minor point re reliability. It's a minor point because in my experience working people want the facts they read to be correct as much as anyone else. (People's pitched more to the lower middle class, but "the sort of person who reads People magazine" is also a construction that most people would "get".) I realize you don't believe in class, but that also is pretty idiosyncratic, and I'm only going to allow you one idiosyncratic position today =). That social mileu and so forth influences our attitudes is pretty established, I'd say. I believe -- along with, I think, most everyone else who's thought about it -- that social class (along with many other things) influences our thinking, often in ways we're not aware of. In fact I'm confident of it. Anyway, assuming that I (and essentially everyone else) is correct about that, what newspapers we read define us in class terms, to ourselves as well as others, just as do the clothes we wear, the pubs we frequent, and so on, I believe. A visceral aversion to publications of a different class follows from this, and in fact is rife in my experience. Everyone in my city understands which is the working-class paper and which the middle-class, and which one is proper for them, and from an early age. (FWIW they're about equally good, although no proper middle-class person will admit this.) Anyway, in "our attitudes" I include "your attitudes" (as well as "my attitudes"), and there's the rub. The facts as I've reviewed them lead me to believe that your position is largely informed by a visceral aversion to the publications in question. I can't prove any of this, could be wrong, and don't wish to debate this with you (I will if you want). Instead, I'd ask you take some time and just calmly consider this to yourself, within yourself, if you will. If I'm wrong, feel free to ignore me, blow me off, counterargue, or whatever pleases you (since it won't really matter). But if I'm right, you made an error in templating User:Flyer22. An understandable error, especially in the heat of the moment, but one that needs addressing. The actual requestSo, depending on the results of your contemplation of this matter, I'd like you to apologize to User:Flyer22 for the templating I mentioned earlier. Effusion is not required nor a complete reversal of your position re the publications in question, and of course you can't do it if you still think your edit was justified. However, if you could see your way free to do this, this would be a kindness, would be helpful to the project, and would speak well of your character and flexibility of mind, I think. Herostratus (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
On sourcing and the yellow pressI have walked away from the wankfest that the AN/I discussion has become as I have better things to do and little time to do them in. I have a job, a family and am still recovering from moving house. I thought I would make a final comment on the whole People furore.
So it goes. Onwards and upwards. --John (talk) 14:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
|