Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dylan Flaherty (talk | contribs) at 01:37, 23 December 2010 (→Charles G. Koch). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• Archive 1

incidentally...

totally off-topic, but do you realize that the CSS on your signature is a bit like (pardon the HHTTG reference) "having your brain smashed out by a slice of lemon wrapped round a large gold brick"? I'm just saying... --Ludwigs2 01:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Way cool :D........ thanks..............um.......I guess......LOL......BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about Chiropractic

There's more discussion going on, this time about whether/how to incorporate sources which address the underlying/specific claims made by Ernst. It'd be good to have you check the sourcing and presentation in Talk:Chiropractic#Proposed_edits_to_Safety. Thanks! Ocaasi (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Still watching?

Hallo. I am a registred user, now.

I wonder 1) an user push his own POV 2)I ask him "your evidences, please" 3)he presents nothing 4) I revert him 5) he revert me 6) I revert again.

Well... it seems that in this way i do "edit war". But the results is that, the user push his POV, even if he has no sources at all. So, what shall I do?--IP IP Hurra! (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless you can prove your apparent claim that traditional sources don't make the claim , i don't see any way that your viewpoint can stay in the article. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Citation internal format in Bruce Harris

Discuss at Talk:Bruce Harris, please. --Lexein (talk) 05:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin

This is a well established article. Please discuss your point(s) on the article talk page Here Mlpearc powwow 04:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Chiropractic

If you could help us out with the multitude of discussions on talk:chiropractic, specifically this one, it would be greatly appreciated. I noticed you in the archive making some very reasonable comments. Talk:Chiropractic#Controversial_changes_to_safety --Axxaer (talk) 05:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I would, but find myself lost on that page. It requires much more knowledge of the subject than I am likely to have time to acquire. Last time it took me hours, and I just don't have the time or courage to attack it right now. It's too bad this is the case, as it leaves the article to the dedicated users, but it seems to be so. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 09:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Article Jatt hijacked

hi this article has been hijacked over the past weeks by the writers of article jat which is a geographicly religiously different tribe to the punjabi Jatt tribe they have inserted the history of their own region while Jatts are only found in Punjab and speak Punjabi. any help would be appreciated i have attempted to discuss this with the user involved but he refuses to listen. --Qaleechpuri (talk) 11:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

the guys from article Jat who speak a different language and have different music, culture and do not even live in the region of Punjab have pasted all their history into Jatt article. while we have an all together different history different language different culture. its like the brits writing only their own history to speak on Australia Canada America that is how absurd it is. also in wiki ifyou look at Ethnic groups, social groups and tribes of the Punjab section you will find the tribe in Punjab pronounced and listed as Jatt pronounced with a hard double T while tribe Jat is pronounced Jaat with a soft T yet they have diverted all info on Punjabi Jatts to their own article Jat which is wrong because they have no history in the Punjab where MAJORITY of Jatts live.--Qaleechpuri (talk) 09:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

If I may add, world knows that Pakistan was carved out of India and the ethnicity is same but the partition was done on the lines of religion. One would also like to add just because someone speaks a different language cannot guarantee it to be of different ethnicity. Mr Qaleechpuri's reasoning that Canada, Australia and United States is different is got to do more with nationalism than with the race. It is well known and documented everywhere that Europeans migrated to these respective places. Irish for one have been a strong integral force of US and many Britishers migrated to US, Canada and Australia.The recent Prime-minister of AUSTRALIA Kevin Rudd's ancestry comes from Britain. Additionally to counter the argument of MR Qaleechpuri , the Blacks of America must be different from those in Africa according to his argument and same may be the case for Jews. No doubt there are linguistic differences in the the regions but is doesnot undermines the genetic affiliations. One understands Mr Qaleechpuri's argument since he is in quest for making different identity on the lines of Pakistani State. We the Indian jatt have no problem in this regard ,Mr Qaleechpuri is invited to give his valuable contributions on the lines of Pakistani Muslim Jatt. We would be happy to have his contribution but his attempt seems to be in trying modify and distort history for his regionalism and religionism gain.

Again via you we the Indian Jatts would extent the hand of friendship and ask Mr Qaleechpuri to keep science above petty regional and religious politics.--Sheokhanda (talk) 05:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I do hope Qaleechpuri can give us some reliable sources here. The recent post by Sheokhandaa serves to give me the suspicion that Qaleechpuri has a point. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 08:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Becritical and thx for your efforts. i must make it clear that these are two different communites and are recognised as such by its respective members. for example the Jatt community of east/west Punjab share a common wesbite to discuss their culture and traditions by the name of www.Jattworld.com while those who are known as Jaat share their culture and beliefs on a website called www.Jatland.com spelling and different pronounciation is clear to those on those websites that a Jatt from punjab is never called a Jaat or Jat with a soft T. apart from when i started the article Jatt i quoted from the well known ethnology books compiled by great british scholars called the glossary of tribes and castes of Punjab and the NW Province by HA rose. Denzil ibbetson and Alexander cunningham. In those references which sheokhanda has included in his own tribes history it is very clear that the ethnographers are refering to the Jatt tribe of Punjab and not anywhere else. i am refering to the following texts in article Jatt which sheokhanda copied.

   * 1.1 Are the Jats and Rajputs distinct?
   * 1.2 Jats and Sikhism
   * 1.3 Jats as Zamindar Landlords
   * 1.4 Jat Characteristics.
   * 1.5 The Position of the Jat in the Punjab
   * 1.6 The Jat Elements
   * 1.7 Social distinctions among the Jats

above references in no way address the tribe called Jaat of haryana or rajastanbut the Jatts of Punjab who clearly have a different history and status from the Jaats or Jats. Yet sheokhnada included these references in his article which is misleading. Also the language barrier is different between these two peoples the Jatts speak Punjabi they have their own ancient folklore in the punjabi langauge like the romances of heer ranjha Mirza Sahiba Sassi Punnun Sohni Mahiwal which are sung by Jatt people these folklore and songs of romance are NOT shared by the Jaats/Jat tribe nor are they in their language. the language of the Jaats is Haryanvi language and historically this has nothing to do with the Jatt population of punjab nor is it spoken in anywhere in Punjab the home of Jatts.

In the article Jat sheokhanda has translated the word Jat in urdu/arabic script and is clearly written Jaat not Jatt. i myself am able to read the script anyone can confirm that it is written as Jaat and not Jatt a clear admittance on his part that his tribe is named Jaat/Jat and not Jatt with a hard T. even the page Jaat has been redirected to article proving that is the correct name of their tribe and is exactly how it is pronounced where Jaats are found.

Also the article Jat is giving misleading information for ex the section # 5.2 Balhara rule in Sindh states that Balhara was a Jat king yet if one reads the actual book (Ancient Account Of India And China By Two Mohammedan Travellers in the 9th century)from where this references is taken there is no mention whatsoever of the tribe of this King or if he was a Jat! yet the article protrays him as one. again we find the same in # 5.6 Rai Dynasty where the writer claims these kings belonged to the Jat tribe yet there is no historical proof for this.

so my aim is to portray what is correct and accurately written by historians on the Jatt tribe of punjab irrespective of religion and not on the Jaat/Jat people of haryana/rajastan india! much appreciated for your help on this --Qaleechpuri (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Becritical, i guess Mr Qaleechpuri would accept this only when it will come from a punjabi sikh jat, then so be it I will help in that regard too. Though one would like to ask what you found in my post which led you to believe that Mr Qaleechpuri words have credibility even though I have given so many references ?--Sheokhanda (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Additionally If I may say so the Jats of India accept Jat as one race though the word that he says Jaat is associated with hindi mainland Jat whereas word Jatt is associated with Punjabi speaking Jat since in Punjabi language there is an extra effort while speaking. Though regarding his Mohammedan travelers one might say that they choose to wrote what they felt fitting and since the conversion in the north India of Jats did not came peacefully but rather with invasion via arabs they might like to had hide that fact. This fact is well documented in any books whose references that I have given.

This fact is documented in Indian history books too. There another race in India called Rajputs who have muslim Rajputs too, they were converts but Punjabi Rajputs speak Punjabi whereas the Rajputs of Mainland India speak Haryanvi, Hindi, Rajasthani and other regional languages.Same goes for another race Gujjars they are in India and Pakistan and follow sikhism, Islam and hinduism.

The references that Mr Qaleechpuri about www.jatland.com and www.jattland.com, I urge you talk there and you will get answers that jat and jatt is same. India constitutes of 18 official languages and people have been moving from places within India learning various languages. Mr Qaleechpuri attempt to claim that he knows India well is not authenticated since I doubt he has ever traveled to India.

I would like to reinstate that if anybody did hijack something then it was Mr Qaleechpuri, that too my identity.

Additionally to kindly tell me what made you feel that Mr Qaleechpuri has a point is it the reference of European history or the Jews or the Irish ? One would love to hear from you .....--Sheokhanda (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

One more thing plz visit this too http://www.jatland.com/home/Jats and

http://www.jatland.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-24986.html and —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheokhandaa (talk • contribs) 16:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

http://www.jattworld.com/jattportal/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=6655&forum=1&post_id=72620#forumpost72620 

plus a link that was written by one the most eminent journalist of India Rajdeep Sardesai http://www.hindustantimes.com/A-level-playing-field/H1-Article1-616119.aspx

--Sheokhanda (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I have limited time to look into this. Yes the reference to races and blood instead of culture is what made me suspicious. You said "the Blacks of America must be different from those in Africa according to his argument and same may be the case for Jews," and I thought "well yes they are very different, as their culture is very different." Anyway, this is a lot of material and I need to read over your posts again later. But just reading the first paragraph of the Jatt article, I note that you should look at other similar articles such as Irish people as an example." BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

If I may ,on the argument of just Blacks and Jews here, the page of Misplaced Pages extensively gives in the account of the things which I used in my argument.Here in blacks and Jews section you can get a sense about what I am talking about.Apparently the US president Barack Obama also seems to have ancestry of Africa via father's side, though yes not all blacks are from Africa some are from Oceanic region but many are from Africa who were brought to south America,Europe, America ,middle east and Asia as slaves which is well documented everywhere in books or in documentaries on many educational channels.Even in India there is atribe of african decent in southern states and in state of Madhya Pradesh.Times magazine had a very big article on his genealogy before Barack Obama got elected.Regarding Jews,there are over 100 jewish lobbies in US doing good for Israel, how is that possible if they do not have any ethnicity affiliations with Israel ?Though the culture you might argue is different in terms of National laws and way of living life.still the ethinicity debate is firm --Sheokhanda (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I did find that the articles surrounding these subjects require extensive cleanup both to comply with the NPOV policy and to avoid other policy violations. I will make a series of edits in the next few days which will help to clean up, but it may be that neither of you are going to like what I do. However, it's my hope that it will head the articles toward a better and more encyclopedic status in the end. I also think we will eventually have to involve other editors. I'm only able to go so far with this and one thing I'm certain of is that this will require quite a lot of time and energy. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

really appreciate your efforts i hope we have not diverted you from more important issues. i am available to assist in any way if required. thx again! --Qaleechpuri (talk) 08:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

we also have plenty of glorification of one Jatt called Bhagat Singh who was practically a terrorist who came to england and shot dead a police man for which he was hanged. i do not think he is a worthy Jatt role model for the younger generation in this day and age especially with all the extremism we have today.--Qaleechpuri (talk) 10:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC) --92.15.133.255 (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, so it seems. This little nest of articles is such a mess that I fear there are not enough other editors currently interested to help clean it up. Misplaced Pages has had less and less participation. Well, we'll see. Try to edit under a username okay? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 16:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

For your records Bhagat Singh did not go to England but rather Udham singh went and shot Michael O'Dwyer who was was responsible for Jallianwala Bagh massacre shootout in which innumerable innocents people lost their lives.I strongly believe the one posting nonfactual information on Bhagat singh needs to have a history lesson in which Indian government will be happy to comply.Pakistani have a habit of misguiding and misleading world especially west but on the other hand are active participants of bombing namely London bombing on 7 july, Failed new york Time square bombing attempt, 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack. We as Indian have been committed towards eliminating extremist and fundamentalist people who have been killing innocent civilians all across the world. We are committed as a nation to help Misplaced Pages get true facts about the historical events.--Sheokhanda (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm really not trying to master the factual details here. I'm not qualified to judge who is right and who's wrong in such cases. I'm only trying to look at it from the standpoint of what is okay in a general encyclopedia article. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 08:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

hi there whats the out come of this dispute as the article seems to be diverted to Jat by another admin. cheers.--Qaleechpuri (talk) 08:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's an "outcome" yet. I found a lot of plagiarism in the article and removed it. I think the consensus of those editors is that we already have an article on Jat people, and that this should be the only article. Your argument, of course, is that there is more than one Jatt people. If I were you, I would get a bunch of quotes from reliable sources clearly stating your argument that Jat and Jatt are not the same. Once you have this documentation on a page here so everyone can see it (use a sub-page of your userpage), then present this argument on the talk page of Jat people. The following discussion should reveal whether anyone is pushing a non-NPOV POV, and we can go from there. Is that something which is doable for you? I can show you how to make a sub-page if you want. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

thx Becriticial for all your efforts. these days i have been really busy hopefully at the weekend i will make sometime to clear this up. thx again --Qaleechpuri (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I'm looking forward to seeing where this goes (: BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

GAN

Well, the GAN process seems to be going relatively quickly now. Peer review might take longer, but that's because it's harder to do. Unfortunately, there's not much else you can do. If you think you can get it passed, try the GAN, but if you don't want to take that risk, do the peer review. I think you would rather have a good article than a rushed one. _EricLeb (Page | Talk) 20:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Why did you mark my edits as vandalism? I've been trying to create a good and referred discography of Milli Vanilli. I completed the singles area and was on my way of ending albums. My edits are definetely much more informative and cited than what is now.--Parapazzi (talk) 06:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I don't know what happened there. I suspect that I looked at one page, then hit ctrl-tab one too many times and then the vandal button. Being able to revert vandalism with one click has its disadvantages. Anyway I put your contributions back in. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 07:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Saint Francis Seraph Church

Thank you for helping with this article. I was afraid that the first registered user to edit the page would revert me, rather than removing more information that didn't really belong in the article. 71.79.64.65 (talk) 05:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for Participating

Keithbob has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Participating in noticeboards and other community forums is an essential part of making Misplaced Pages work and grow. Thank you for taking the time to add to my thread on the Notability noticeboard. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice about User:Delicious carbuncle

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- Cirt (talk) 07:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

SPLC

I believe you. -- Kim van der Linde 00:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Be Critical

Be Critical, your name makes me think. Go ahead, you can be critical, but as for me, I'd rather be legitimate, and even compelling. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

That is merely part of the critical process for finding valid data and ideas. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 06:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For being a fair minded, even tempered, and soundly analytical influence in Misplaced Pages; particularly in regards to the current issues at the Southern Poverty Law Center article. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks :D I'm trying. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

(Now that I'm in the right section) I have to admit that your reply was pretty damned funny. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Panyd has sent you a Christmas cookie! May its sugary goodness fill you with warmth and love this holiday season. But don't eat too many!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:Misplaced Pages:CONTRIB/Holidays/General3}} to your friends' talk pages.

Charles G. Koch

I have no objection to the changes you've made; they're pretty straightforward clean-ups. However, is it really appropriate to be shining up the article when it's still got a pair of ugly tags on top? Maybe there's more value in correcting those. All you need to do is figure out what the actual objections are that motivate the tags and fix those. Dylan Flaherty 21:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Um, to save me reading that whole talk page, can you give me a summary? Or better yet put it on the talk page so others can comment? I hate to have to read up on a talk page where mostly people are quarreling. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't remove the tags again unless there is a talk-page consensus that the problems I have identified multiple times are fixed. THF (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is something more on the talk page, this needs administrative action, as putting them back in would be disruptive. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

THF, I see they keep removing your tags. People did this to me. However, it appears they are all complaining that there is not some single Talk page section on the topic of your tags. Yes, I know you discussed it in a bunch of sections above, but it looks like it would be easier for everyone to restate your concerns in a newly created section, then readd the tags. This is just my opinion/suggestion, not me telling you what to do. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would support temporarily re-adding the tags if I could understand what the problems are, through a clear and concise summary which specifically states the problem. But if other editors don't agree that there are current problems, the tags would need to come off again. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far, 'BECritical. If the tags are placed legitimately, they should stay up until the discussion closes, not "if other editors don't agree that there are current problems". Naturally, everyone opposing the idea will not "agree that there are current problems", and that will be the excuse to remove the tags that really should stay up until the discussion is closed. THF needs to be given the respect and time needed to raise, disclose, and close his concern. There should be no rush here. We are building an excellent encyclopedia, not edit warring on tags because people keep complaining the tags are a "badge of shame". No, there's no shame in raising legitimate issues then following established policy to discuss and close the issue, then remove the tags. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages works by consensus. To take an extreme example, if someone had a problem with the main page and put an NPOV tag on it, should it stay till that editor is satisfied? No, only till the WP:consensus (see definition) is that it's not appropriate. Of course, if the concerns are legit and there is no consensus for taking off the tags (as there is now) they should remain. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

If the concerns were legitimate, much less compelling, we should simply address them, not mess about with tags. Dylan Flaherty 01:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)