Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:27, 15 January 2014

Tu ne cede malis

		The Austria Barnstar of National Merit
		Presented to User Steeletrap. For tireless editing to improve difficult articles on WP SPECIFICO talk 21:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Happy Halloween back at you.  :) Arzel (talk) 02:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much Arzel. I will have to break my diet to eat your treat! Steeletrap (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I hope you like kitty. Thanks for your sweet Halloween surprise, Steele.

SPECIFICO talk 03:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Kitty is adorable. I will take good care of her. Steeletrap (talk) 03:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

And one for Caroldc

This is for Carolmooredc, leaving it here for pickup.. I hope you enjoy this pussy cat!

SPECIFICO talk 03:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Happy Halloween Carol Moore!

Trick or Treat! Happy Halloween User:Carolmooredc! I am out of baked goods but I brought you this Jack-o-Lantern. I am banned from your page but you should come over here and pick it up! I hope you enjoyed your night and picked out a good costume.Steeletrap (talk) 02:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Congratulations indeed, and thanks for your civil service here at WP. Personally, I think this is one of the ugliest barnstars there is, but what the hell? Enjoy it in good health. SPECIFICO talk 22:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Holiday Greetings to You

	The Homemaker's Holiday Honorific
	A shout out to you, "Chef Steeletrap" for household heroics. Preparing both Thanksgiving and Hanukkah specialties today for your growing family and friends. SPECIFICO talk 19:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For steadfastness in the application of WP policy and NPOV in AfD discussions. SPECIFICO talk 22:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Can you puh-lease be more specific? Perhaps I have been naughty, but this post doesn't even tell me how to be nice! Steeletrap (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Compare with . --Rschen7754 02:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh noes! I promise (no fingers crossed, I swear) that I didn't see that. I totally would have had you posted it on my talk page. I know you can't prove I didn't see that, but you can unblock me. I promise (*unctuous grin*) to drop the naughty editing altogether, and just be plain nice.

Most of all, you should unblock me because it's Christmas eve! Steeletrap (talk) 02:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome to appeal the block through the usual means, but I'm not inclined to unblock given the number of problematic comments you have made recently, even just looking at your talk page. --Rschen7754 02:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Tedious as it would have been, don't you think you should have taken a few minutes to post to the talk page of users allegedly engaged in DE? Placed in the middle of a muddled SPI thread, there was a substantial chance that editors didn't see your warning, and were thereby denied fair notice. Steeletrap (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

No. You should not have been making those comments in the first place, and should have known better. --Rschen7754 03:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Alright alright I git it, Mister. Is there any chance I can bribe you with a digital candy cane? Steeletrap (talk) 03:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Wait a second: Steele was blocked for saying she was the Pope? Really? Since when is that considered a problem? MilesMoney (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, at least we've seen the Pope on TV. You, Miles, may not exist in any corporeal form. SPECIFICO talk 20:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

You boys are just stumbling over each other at the chance to defend me! Confession: I totally deserved a ban with the Pope edit.

First, it was libel and misrepresentation, since the language I used implied I was the *current* Pope, when I'm actually the Pope Emeritus. I am lucky Srich hasn't loosed his law students on me.

Second, I may have offended the many Catholics who don't like the idea of a Jewish atheist being Pope -- I also imagine the whole being a trans girl thing didn't help. Steeletrap (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not often that anything at SPI makes me laugh out loud. (Seriously. The last time was in 1927.) Much appreciated. Writegeist (talk) 11:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC) And "Inspector Gadget"—lol—perfect. Writegeist (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

A sickly kitten for you tonite!

Sock and block around the clock.

SPECIFICO talk 02:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Socking just isn't as fun when you can only use one profile. *tear*. But thanks for the kitten, hon. Steeletrap (talk) 02:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

You be sure and share your kitty with MilesMoney. SPECIFICO talk 02:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Ooops, my bad

I owe you an apology. Without looking, I assumed it was your friend Miles who reverted me at Norv Turner, thus the Wikihounding accusation. I withdraw that. We can discuss the edit on the Talk page, but I wanted to get this to you more directly. Roccodrift (talk) 03:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about regarding "hounding." I did not follow you to the Turner page; you followed me there. I do hope you consider removing the damaging OR you've restored to the lede of that BLP. Steeletrap (talk) 03:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I know you didn't. I ASSumed. You know how that goes. Again... a careless, stupid mistake on my part.

I stand behind the edit, and I've addressed that at the article. Roccodrift (talk) 03:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit war revert on Murray Rothbard

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

When you reverted back a removal of this edit of yours. Misplaced Pages:BRD#What_BRD_is.2C_and_is_not reads: Note: "BRD" is commonly used to refer to the principle that a revert should not be reverted again by the same editors until the changes have been discussed, as that could constitute edit warring, which is a policy that all editors must follow. So Steeletrap reverting someone's revert of their material is editwarring. Your friends MilesMoney/Specifico both are confused about that but I've clued them in. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For grace under fire while defending yourself from ridiculous attacks. MilesMoney (talk) 01:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Austrian economics, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

'Gun control' article arbitration

I don't know if you are aware that issues concerning the Gun control article have been submitted for arbitration (see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gun Control). I've just realised that in the initial statement, Gaijin42 has provided a couple of diffs for talk-page edits you made - suggesting that they constitute "Attempts to redefine the topic of the article to exclude unwanted material". Clearly Gaijin42 should thus have named you as an involved party, and notified you accordingly. You may like to respond either immediately, or when (as seems likely) Arbcom formally agrees to take on the case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

DNA history of Egypt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Egyptian

White Hispanic and Latino Americans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Native American

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Re:North/South

I think you misunderstood my edits to African American awhile back. By no means am I saying that your average American of Egyptian or Moroccan or Maghreb descent is African American/back. I am saying that some small minority of North Africans (defined as Africans whose geographical origin is not south of the Sahara desert) look and identify as black/African American. Nubian Americans and many people from (Northern) Sudan are an example of this. (For proof that Nubians are classified as "white" (North African) by the U.S. Census, because they are technically not Sub-Saharan in origin, see: http://www.clutchmagonline.com/2012/09/egyptian-immigrant-in-detroit-still-fighting-to-be-classified-as-black/detroit-immigrant-race/) Steeletrap (talk) 06:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. You appear to be confusing two separate things. African American is first and foremost an actual ethnic group consisting of individuals who trace a large portion of their ancestry to people from West and Central Africa. This population until relatively recently was known by other compound appellations (the "African" is new). In 30 or 40 years time, the "African" will probably be dropped altogether since the population will by then likely trace most of its ancestry to Europe and ancestral Native American communities, much like many present-day Puerto Ricans already do. Such is the evolving nature of ethnogenesis. On the other hand, the census designation is exclusively based on self-reporting. The Nubian man you linked to could thus just as easily tick "North African" if he were so inclined. By the way, Nubians are hardly the only people in North Africa who resemble that gentleman (nor, incidentally, is there an absence below the Sahara of populations with phenotypic, cultural and linguistic ties to North Africa; particularly in the Afro-Asiatic parts of the Horn, Sudan and Sahel). There are many Egyptians, Libyans and Maghrebans who do as well. In fact, certain rock art in North Africa suggests an early Khoisan/Bushman-like presence in the region . So there has never really been a complete separation between Africa's northern and southern hemispheres, especially during the Wet Sahara phase. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Well certainly, the term historically applied to West/Central Africans, because that's who almost all the slaves were. But as immigration has increased, black East Africans have been increasingly accepted into that community.

I still believe that a short sentence about how some North Africans identify (and are perceived to be) black/African American, even though they fall outside the governmental (and dictionary) definition of the term, would enhance the article. It's not just a matter of 'self-identification' in the U.S.; you have to meet certain criteria for identifying as a certain race. This Nubian man is legally barred from identifying as anything but white, because he's not a sub-Saharan African. Steeletrap (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

"Black" is a totally arbitrary designation, one that can just as readily be applied to North Africans as other Afro-Asiatic speakers to the south of them. This is because there is no cut-off point between these communities; not in language family or primary haplogroups or major cultural traits. There is instead clinal continuity and overlap (e.g. ). Discussion of how North Africans may or may not identify is also completely off-topic on the African American page, which is instead reserved for that particular ethnic group. The U.S. census entries are also not "directives" like that link laughably claims. They are options based on self-reporting, as the bureau itself states ("For the 2010 Census, the question on race was asked of individuals living in the United States An individual's response to the race question was based upon self-identification" ). The Nubian man can thus certainly identify however he chooses, including Egyptian. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

As per the census-taker-in-chief we can check any (and all) of the boxes. (Which is wonderful. I checked all the boxes.) But when it comes to affirmative action, what happens? – S. Rich (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Midway, please do not think I am defending these categories at a biological level. I agree that the Census definition of "Cacuasian" is arbitrary to a great extent (though not entirely), and downright ridiculous at the margins. But it's not arbitrary in a legal sense. Legally speaking, a Nubian or a dark-skinned man from Southern Egyptian cannot identify "however he wants"; government officials say that this Nubian -- and all Africans who descend north of the Sahara -- must identify as white or "other" (rather than African American) on federal forms, because they're not sub-saharan africans (that is what he's suing the government over). North Africans, even those who couldn't pass as white in a million years, must check it or "other" on federal forms, unless they identify as having sub-Saharan African ancestry (which Hefny doesn't).

I agree that it is quite silly to say Hefny (or for that matter, an Iraqi or Afghan) is of the same race as an Icelandic man, but it's how the categories are constructed. (and they make sense sometimes, for some North Africans/Arabs, even if they have glaring limitations.) Self-identification is the means by which the government collects data, but the categories are fixed, and you can't self-identify as a category you don't fit into. People have gotten in legal trouble for "self-identifying" with a race that have no claim to when they stood to gain from it. In Hefny's case (and those like it), common sense dictates that no sanctions be brought, as he is socially perceived to be black and identifies as such in good faith. But he's still legally barred from identifying himself as black for affirmative action or other legal purposes. (See: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/09/07/egyptian-immigrant-wants-to-be-reclassified-as-black/) Steeletrap (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Srich, legally speaking, there are two parts to identifying as a member of a certain race: ancestry and personal identification. Rashida Jones, like Obama, is half black and has at times only identified as an Ashkenazi jew (white); she is legally entitled to check both or neither. Obama is half white but only identifies as black; he is entitled to check both or neither. These are personal decisions. It wouldn't be a "personal decision", but misrepresentation (and material misrepresentation, if I were applying for a job or to a university), if I checked "black" or "Native American (Cherokee)" on a job application, when I'm neither.

I agree that the practice of racial classification is awkward and at times simply ridiculous (e.g. Yemenis and Swedes being of the same race). But it's also necessary, if you favor policies to increase minority representation in the professional sphere. Steeletrap (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

. Yes, I agree about the two parts and the ridiculousness that you speak of. But I worry about the necessity of certain policies that seek to increase minority representation in any desirable sphere (professional and otherwise). If, when applying for the job, ethnicity or race or skin color or religious heritage or religion or gender or baldness or any other trait, not based on merit, becomes a basis for job preference/entitlement we loose equal protection under the law. Thanks for letting me make my small comment. – S. Rich (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

France, among many other nations, has shown that it actually is not necessary to attempt to sort people into such arbitrary groupings. Most North Africans also aren't of Arab origin (the pyramids, for example, were built well before the Islamization period). At any rate, Hefny sued the Office of Management and Budget/OMB. And the OMB's categories are still ultimately based on self-reporting ("Race and ethnicity data are based on self-reporting Although the race and ethnicity categories are explicitly defined by OMB, the respondents to Census Bureau questionnaires and the informants for state vital certificates are free to interpret the categories (and use their own mental templates of race and ethnicity) and answer any way they see fit" ). Those categories don't have any scientific validity either, as the government itself notes ("The categories in this classification are social-political constructs and should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature They are not to be used as determinants of eligibility for participation in any Federal program The standards have been developed to provide a common language for uniformity and comparability in the collection and use of data on race and ethnicity by Federal agencies" ). Middayexpress (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The "self-identification" thing is poorly phrased; it means you check any box which you identify with, but you can't claim to be something you aren't. Again, examine the Hefny case; he is denied (by virtue of stating he is of North African ancestry) the ability to identify as black for any governmental purposes. Steeletrap (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, you're attacking a straw man by calling these categories unscientific. Who disputes that? Steeletrap (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Per the census bureau, the categories are by definition dependent on self-identification. Based on his letter to Obama, Hefny seems disatisfied with this since he appears to subscribe to the Afrocentric Black Egypt hypothesis (e.g. "My complexion is darker than your I was born and raised in Africa (Egypt) and you were not, yet you are classified as Black and I am classified at White" ). In any event, this is a fringe issue. Also, with respect, you've used those terms like they have some sort of ancestral validity. For example, your assertion above that "Rashida Jones, like Obama, is half black and has at times only identified as an Ashkenazi jew (white)". There's no such thing as "black" or "white" ancestry. West African and Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry, on the other hand, certainly (incidentally, Jews are themselves ultimately of Levantine origin). Rashida's father Quincy Jones is also a multigenerational mixed person ; he was tested by PBS. She therefore indeed actually has more Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry than West African ancestry. Middayexpress (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Please stop making straw man arguments. Blackness and whiteness are not biologically sound concepts, and none of my reasoning implies this. You seem to be confusing my assertion that "black" and "white" are socially real and well-defined (if flexible) concepts with a claim that they are reflective of biology. Not my fault that you can't get the distinction. Steeletrap (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Stereotypes

Reading your user page, it would appear we have similar editing philosophies: expertise is required. However I bow to the guidelines and only add material with citations. I am surprised that you would delete anything without also providing support.FriendlyFred (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Removing the Warren example doesn't require expertise, but mere common sense. The claim of her opponents is not "haha, she's a blonde, pasty Native American!" It's "haha, she lied about being Native American to get affirmative action, and has no tribal membership, community involvement, or documented ancestry." Warren herself has conceded that she has no evidence of her "heritage", so it's undue and frankly absurd to use her as the *sole example* of a Native American who has been victimized by stereotyping on the basis of having too fair of a skin tone. 03:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there a difference between claiming expertise and claiming "common sense" when deleting a statement which has a published source? I revised the paragraph to make it clear that it is David Treuer's opinion, however I quickly found another article that supports the use of the example based upon Brown's comment in the debate; while claiming to deny her claims based upon lack of documentation, he is also appealing to the audience's stereotype of what a Native American looks like. And I am not using this as the "sole" example (whatever that means), just one example that was in the news recently. WP articles are always a work in progress. Deleting what you do not approve of personally without prior discussion does not seem to be in sync with WP editing guidelines as I understand them.FriendlyFred (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Brown's comment about how she "clearly isn't" a "person of color" because of how she looks was idiotic. But again, his comment was motivated by the fact that Warren has misrepresented herself as NA, apparently for professional gain. Do you really believe he would've said what he said if Warren looked exactly the same, but was 1/4 Native American and registered with/grew up among a tribe? To imply in any way that Warren was a victim of racial stereotyping is just absurd. Steeletrap (talk) 05:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Once again, I can only repeat that your opinion of what is absurd has nothing to do with the content of a WP article. My opinion is that stereotyping was among the reasons for the attacks on Warren, but rather than doing WP:OR I cite sources. In fact you appear to agree: why was Brown's comment idiotic? Because it reveals bias and appeals to the bias of the audience rather than sticking to the facts.FriendlyFred (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

== You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Austrian economics and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, ==

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Austrian economics and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)