Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arcayne (talk | contribs) at 23:19, 21 January 2007 (→Children of Men). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Arcayne, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  NatusRoma | Talk 07:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Duckworth & Roskam

I suggest that you discuss on the talk page before making major changes, such as deleting paragraphs, to controversial articles. — goethean ॐ 14:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, Goethean, you don't seem to practice what you suggest. The paragraphs, inappropriate 'controversial articles,' and statements I have removed through the editing process have been to preserve the neutrality of the entry. It is inappropriate to include statements not made by the person for whom the entry was created. It is highly inappropriate to include yellow-page ads of an entrant's law firm when there are public use pictures available on the internet, and you should know better.

My personal political opinions aside, Misplaced Pages does not afford us the luxury of posting anything but the NEUTRAL truth. Statements by campaign staff or national political organizations does not speak to the individual entrant.

The Illinois races are exceptionally ugly this year, and I will not allow Misplaced Pages to be used as propaganda. I am not suggesting that you are actively trying to do so, but I think it is clear to more than just a few people that you allowing a personal bias to influence your prodigious abilities as an editor. As a co-editor and out of respect, I would ask you to take a step back and recognize that your personal bias might be coming into play here. Pete 21:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)arcayne

There's Help:Contents and Misplaced Pages:Help desk. Let me know if you have any specific questions. — goethean ॐ 14:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I will likely take you up on that, Goethean. Thank you for your kind offer.Arcayne 08:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Arcayne, the vandal's name is User:Joehazelton -- lowercase 'h'.

Thanks for reverting the vandalism at Tammy Duckworth. To revert a page, you can follow the directions Help:Revert. — goethean ॐ 15:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Got here via the talk page for User:75.2.250.145; where you state that User:75.2.250.145 is User:Joehazelton, a "permanently blocked user with a history of unbalanced and flagrant violations of WP policy." User:75.2.250.145 is also causing a bit of a headache on the Talk:Neil Patrick Harris page. Can anything be done about a blocked user resurrecting themselves with an anon account? An RfC, or maybe some admin intervention? Thanks! -- weirdoactor -- 20:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Children of Men

Sorry about that.72.196.213.82 19:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Agent Cooper's addition wasn't worded as well as it could have been, nor did it appear in the correct section, and I didn't even bother looking at his cited source, however, this type of criticism has appeared and should be represented in the article in some way. —Viriditas | Talk 20:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you feel more comfortable with the re-wording of the citation? I've honestly never seen the film or the book, but I'd rather transform the citation into something useful than remove it entirely. Of course, I feel that the sole negative citation shouldn't be one of the few in the underdeveloped Reception section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am not very comfortable with it, Erik, and I will explain why. You are adopting a Defender pov which is not really conducive to neutrality. I would strongly recommend is that you read the book or see the movie before making an edit on a film. Otherwise, its like a person writing about the experience of piloting an airplane after having looked at a picture of one. We are not in the fair and balanced business; we are in the neutrality business. The two terms are not synonymous. :)

I understand your reasoning. It did seem to me that the edit was made with an agenda, so I tried to construct it so that wasn't so obvious. However, when I do get the chance to see the film, I'll explore both the positive and negative reviews to see if there was really a prominent issue with the theme change in the adaptation process. The article is in the history, so if it needs to be re-summoned for additional discussion down the run, I'll do that. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That won't be necessary. I've tried to remove all trace of my involvement in the article and its discussion, deleted my User page and am vacating my account. If you were to look at the history of my edits prior to October, you would see that I have fought mightily and with great difficulty for NPOV in articles that elicit strong opinions in others, and have generally been thanked for it by those more distant from the topics. This is the first time I've had what started out as a perfectly reasonable proposed edit suppressed for political reasons and then abused as a rightwing nutjob spouting paranoid nonsense for protesting POV-motivated deletions. The shame of it is not that the CofM article will be the worse without me; this film itself will be largely forgotten as soon as Bush leaves office. It's that you people drove away someone who has usefully contributed thoughtful discussion, cite-hunting, grammatical corrections, and informal mediation for months now. I guess the hive mind must have its say, but did you all have to be so fucking nasty about it? Signing off. Agent Cooper 20:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't working with any personal agenda, Cooper. You just starting blathering on about how it was some vast "political inversion conspiracy" to prevent your edits.

Your edits.

Specifically.

Are you aware of how friggin' loony that sounds? And then to accuse me of being a part of it when all I have done is to ensure that a NEUTRAL point of view is preserved. You needed to chose better citations, and not some over-biased nonsense that went far afield from the subject being talked about.

If you want to be gone, then be gone. If you want to be part of the larger community - a community that largely can't agree on the color of shite - then be the larger person and do that. But don't waste my and others' time by telling us we are all biased and you are the only one who can save us from ourselves because honestly, you don't have the bricks or the rep to to do so.

I will be entering this on my user page as well, since you seem all so very keen on removing comments that disagree with your own, delicate viewpoint. I actually think you can get banned for doing those types of deletions on legitimate commentary.Arcayne 22:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the history. Yllosubmarine restored the comments by Agent Cooper that were removed by Cooper himself. I don't think there's a relation between the accounts. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, i did misunderstand it. It apparently changed while I was looking at versions (kinda freaky how that happened, actually) seeming to appear as if Yllo had blanked the entries. I have already addressed the header and the topic. I will now go to Yllo's user page and remove the comment with an apology.