Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KillerChihuahua (talk | contribs) at 17:33, 13 September 2007 (→Talk pages: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Profg, 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 ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  --Flex (talk/contribs) 17:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

September 2007

A procedural note

When you AfDed Biologic Institute you listed it as a second nomination. That should only be done if an article has had a previous AfD. Previous proposed deletion tags and speedy deletion tags do not make it necessary to list something as separate AfDs, although it may be helpful to note them in the AfD nomination. JoshuaZ 11:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

My bad, I had done a "prod" previously, should have done an AfD. Thanks. --profg 13:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

CO

You said I have not been "unreasonable and provoking". I disagree. The reason I removed CO's block was because I think you did provoke him unreasonably, to the extent that you (hereby) get a warning for it. Please don't repeatedly restore comments to peoples talk pages.

Incidentally, your re-listing looks very dubious to me and probably WP:POINT William M. Connolley 13:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

And this looks like a spurious warning. CO has only one revert in the past week. This looks like yet more provocation of CO; this is your last warning William M. Connolley 14:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

You seem to be misunderstanding NPOV. Any POV may be allowed and even desirable in articles, when it is the stated position of a notable person or organization or the majority view or criticism. In other words, we must be NPOV. We may quote, cite, or give the position of individuals and organizations that are POV. You removed a clearly attributed and relevant statement here, the second time you did so. Our NPOV policy requires that conflicting views be given weight according to their relative importance. In short, stop removing views which do not support the view of the subject of the article merely because they do not support the views of the subject of the article. To do so is to write a hagiography not an encyclopedia article. This is not to say that tiny minority views should ever be included, but that is not the case here. KillerChihuahua 11:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

KC, I removed that quote because its POV was irrelevant to the context of that paragraph, was was incredibly poorly written - sloppy, in fact. I've tried to clean it up now (and rearrange those two paragraphs) to make it a better read, so please don't undo it, or no one who speaks proper English will even understand what it says.

I also had to change the uncited paragraph below; I hate using those weasel words, but until that statement is cited (as you noted above), it's simply some editor's unreferenced POV, and probably should be deleted if no citation is forthcoming. --profg 13:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thus far, three different editors have disagreed with you, and the content is indeed cited. Cease edit warring against consensus. KillerChihuahua 19:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoa there, big fella. What are you talking about? I left your quote in there when I edited for clarity this time. ALL I did was move a paragraph higher, so it could read better, and changed a word in the UNCITED paragraph in keeping with the rest of the paragraph. What's the deal here?

And I haven't seen ANYONE say anything about it on the talk page, so I don't see anyone "disagreeing" with me. If you'd like to actually do so, TAKE IT TO THE TALK PAGE. Thank you.

You have it backwards. The onus is on you, as the one attempting to change the article, to discuss your rationale. It is clear you are editing against consensus; it is incumbent upon you to make your case for any edits which you wish to make. KillerChihuahua 22:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No, you have it backwards. I made a valid edit, you came along and changed it without a valid reason, so it is incumbent upon you to make your case for changing it. --profg 01:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I assure you that you are in error. I did not make a change, I rejected your change, as did three other editors. You are the one desiring a change, you must make your case or consensus will remain against you. This is Misplaced Pages policy and it is common sense. KillerChihuahua 10:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you should both quit the sematic quibbling. Adding text is a change. Removing someones added text is a change. There is a minor presumption that changes to a stable article require more justification that removing such changes, but its minor. Far more important is whether the changes are justified, and whether they have consensus. Continuing to make a change after several people have objected is disruptive and the correct procedure is to take it to the talk page William M. Connolley 10:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Odd that you should chastise us both for "semantic quibbling" then proceed to echo precisely what I said. KillerChihuahua 11:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I partially disagree, and I'd hope my comment made that clear. TO be specific, I agreee that three different editors have disagreed with you, and the content is indeed cited. Cease edit warring against consensus is a reasonable agrument. But The onus is on you, as the one attempting to change the article, to discuss your rationale is weak. I think you should stick to the first William M. Connolley 11:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

WMC, I don't get it. So anyone pushing a POV-agenda can made a POV, unsupported, and spurious edit, repeatedly make the same edit against consensus, and the other editors who revert that edit has a weak rationale? By your logic, POV-pushing now is easy--just keep making the POV edit, whine to certain admins that their edit is legitimate, and it's done and becomes a part of the article. I think you're dead wrong. OrangeMarlin 11:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No. Why not read what I say? I said editing against consensus isn't good. I said that asserting that the onus of explanation lies on the side of someone adding a change is weak. Since KC has a good arguemnt, switching to a weak one isn't a good idea William M. Connolley 13:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

ah, in that case, I believe you may have misunderstood me. I was not "switching" I was suggesting that the only way for Profg to attempt to gain consensus for his desired edits is to "make a case" on the talk page. Without that effort, it seems not only unlikely but virtually certain that consensus will not change to support his desired edits. Thus, it was a natural extension of, and guidance for, my first point - not a different point at all. KillerChihuahua 13:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest on WP:NPOV and other issues, that you try to learn, slow down, take a deep breath, and not be so combative with other editors. You and your edits will survive on WP longer that way. --Filll 13:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages

Please read the