Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Herostratus (talk | contribs) at 19:56, 21 September 2006 (Misplaced Pages:Protecting children's privacy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Everything pre-2006 January and February 2006 March, April and May 2006 June, July and August 2006

I archive as-and-when the page gets too long. I will reply on your talk page, and if the conversation is important, I will copy it all into my talk page as an easily-readable record for the future. I may reformat conversations to make them easier to read. I will not delete any comments made here unless they are obviously simple personal attacks against myself or anyone else; in that case, I will censor just those bits, leaving the rest of the message intact. I will never delete criticism of myself or any other user if it is made politely. If you wish to contact me more privately, I do have email enabled, although I hope that my conduct is such that this feature will be used sparingly.

Jan Smuts's youth - FAC

As someone who has expressed an interest in Jan Smuts in the past, I thought you might be interested to know that Jan Smuts's youth, covering his childhood and early adulthood (1870-1895), is under consideration for Featured Article status. Any contribution, whether a vote for/against or a suggestion for improvement, would be very much appreciated.

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Jan Smuts's youth

Best wishes, Xdamr 00:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Poll on CC vs RCC

Hi, Batmanand. I’m here hoping you can reconsider your view in Talk:Roman Catholic Church. Bellow, I’ll explain my position on the matter.

First I'd like to say that, according to WP naming conventions, the choice of the name for the articles should not be a matter of "one POV" over "another POV". The question is not if the entity has any "right" to call herself CC, but if CC is the best name for the article according to WP guidelines. According to the guidelines, any POV issues should be resolved inside the articles – and not by the choice of its name.

You said that "when most people in the West say "Catholic Church" they mean the Church of Rome; but that is not necessarily indicative of what the rest of the world thinks." That's true. However, the official WP policy says that: article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize... (emphasis mine). AFAIK, English speakers typically live in the west, or at least have strong contact with Western culture.

(As a side-note, Eastern English speakers might even be more aware of the inadequacy of the modifier "Roman" when applyed to the CC as a whole, because of the closer contact with the non-roman Eastern Rite part of the Catholic Church).

When more objective procedures are applied, the results so far seem always to favor CC over RCC. For example: no one has come up with a good rebuttal of Vaquero's analysis in CC vs. RCC.

That’s it, thanks for your time considering my arguments. Best wishes. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 00:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"in" or "during"?

Copied from User talk:Bastin8

What is your opinion on this grammatical puzzler: should the two "German Occupation of Luxembourg" articles say "... of Luxembourg in World War I/II" or "... of Luxembourg during World War I/II"? I have been thinking over it for a good few minutes, but cannot come to an answer. It seems natural to ask either "what did you do in the war?" or "what did you do during the war?"; although I suppose the former suggests that you were in the war itself, whilst the second is perhaps concerned with the time period the war was in. I suppose in that case maybe we should come to a decision on whether the military occupations were part of the wars, or happened contemporaneously? Batmanand | Talk 00:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There is certainly a difference between the two adjectives (in this sense, specifically), and, originally, I believed that the articles should be moved to 'during', to reflect just that distinction. However, I have since changed my mind on the grounds that the German occupation was an intrinsic part of the war. This was certainly the case in the Second World War, and to quite a degree in the first (German high command was in Luxembourg City, Clausen was bombed by the RAF, Luxembourg's evacuation was a term of the Armistice, thousands of Luxembourgers did fight, etc).

Another question is that of the general case. The reason that they were titled as such in the first place was that they were being standardised with other occupations in the Second World War. Although (IMO) Luxembourg was a part of the World Wars, other countries might not be classified as having been, yet would still be burdened by the incorrect adjective ('in') for the purposes of standardisation. 'During' is applicable whether one is part of the war or apart, so would probably be preferable for the entire article series, such that it might then embrace those countries that weren't actively engaged. Bastin 00:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Some support from an opposer

Hi David. I waded briefly into the discussion about the main page article count a couple of weeks back, and opposed your decision to remove it from the top of the page. I have not been involved more recently, but have followed the discussions as they have unfolded, and still am of the opinion that you are wrong. However, or perhaps furthermore, I am disgusted by the personal attacks, the lack of good faith, the incivility, the plain, old-fashioned rudeness that has been displayed by those who seem to share my opinion on the matter. You have been subjected to vitriolic hatred, and I am sorry for that. I am ashamed that there are those who cannot argue cogently and politely who are "on my side".

I am glad to note that you yourself have behaved impeccably. I feel it is important that someone who disagrees with you can come forward and say that the behaviour of others who disagree with you is wrong, and should not be tolerated. I hope you understand that - leaving the dispute itself aside - you most certainly have my whole-hearted support in the way you have conducted yourself. Batmanand | Talk 14:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your kind words. I always make it a point to view people on an individual basis (not based upon their positions on particular issues or the conduct of those who happen to agree with them). In other words, rest assured that I would never lump you together with the likes of Juicifer or condemn your viewpoint because it happens to overlap with his.

I truly am attempting to gauge consensus (or lack thereof) and help to apply it appropriately, and I'm especially glad to know that not all of my opponents believe that I'm acting in bad faith. Thanks again for reassuring me of this. It's also nice to be reminded that some people are still capable of disagreeing without being disagreeable.  :-) —David Levy 15:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, no personal attacks

The whole exchange, as copied from User talk:Juicifer

Juicifer, I agree with you with regards to the matter of whether or not the article count should be at the top of the Main Page. However, edits such as this are totally unacceptable, and not only do huge damage to the credibility of the point of view we are both parties to, but are also in themselves explicitly against all sorts of policies. Because of the sheer vitriol of the above diff, I have decided to formally warn you. I am sorry to have to do this, but I cannot see another way:

Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Batmanand | Talk 15:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not prone to personal attacks, but sometimes mockery is the only way. Specifically, in dealing with people that wont debate constructivly anyway. I wanted to put the fullest possible stop to the matter and make him realise that I was not movable on the subject of needing a vote in any way. Sometimes I just feel like breaking the rules to save time, but yes you are correct. juicifer 17:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but 1. there are rules that can be broken (perhaps in the spirit of WP:IAR), and then there are things so basic as courtesy and WP:NPA which should never, ever be broken and 2. the scale of you personal attack I felt was above and beyond mere "annoyance". I appreciate the fact that you admit that you have done wrong, and I hope you now stop, but that does not mean that the original act was right. I hope this is the end of the matter, and that the real issue, of what to do to article count, can now be resolved harmoniously. Batmanand | Talk 18:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Look a number of people had been trying to pin him down on the matter for 2 weeks and rather that making or responding to substantive points, discussing both sided of the issue etc, he simply kept responding with with word-games pedantry and obfuscation. I get the feeling that he would happily go on forever. Indeed he wore out zoggy and a number of other contributors with his trolling, and they dropped out of the debate begging others to take up the reigns. His behaviour has been utterly insufferable, as an admin he should be straightforward and productive, my response was not writ en not in anger but as a calculated way to put an end to the matter. I don't believe he would now be brazen enough to change it back without a strong consensus. That is all want, I think that has been achieved, and if I have underestimated his zealotry, he must know that he will only end up looking very very silly indeed. juicifer 18:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I find your attitude - that if a first you cannot win an argument by reason, resort to personal attacks - utterly wrong. However, given that David Levy himself seems less concerned with you attacks than me, I am going to say no more on the matter. Batmanand | Talk 18:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Reason needs to be a two way street. I tried reason and recieved patronizing pedantry again and again (which again, comprises the bulk of his fisking). Life is too short for endless polite conversation with timewaster IMHO. Thank you again for your advice. juicifer 19:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hiss, What is the accepted story?

Is it generally accepted that he was a spy but unproven, or merely a wannabee and a Soviet sympatghizer? Chivista 19:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:Great Question

Hi Batmanand!
Thanks! It certainly is a fascinating concept. And I must say I've really enjoyed the resulting conversation - I'll use the Reference Desk more often now. My teachers frequently complain about the questions I ask! --Fir0002 10:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the image

Hi Batmanand,

Thanks for adding the image to the Telecommunication article. It fits the lead well.

Cedars 23:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Bosnian Pyramid Rubbish

I've restored the cosmic energy rubbish. Yes, it's rubbish. The problem is, everything from Osmanagic and his Foundation is rubbish. See the talk page for the continued discussion on this. --Ronz 03:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, your changes will make it easier to pull the claims out of the intro and put in the proper sections of the article. The claim is actually made by Osmanagic, so it's a bit misleading with the "some commentators" inclusion, but easily fixed when the intro is cleaned up. Archaeological Park: Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun Foundation is the group controlling the promotion and management of the "pyramids". I don't think we've had any problems with them directly with editing Misplaced Pages, but they're responsible for almost all of the English-language news about the "pyramids" via their press releases that most news agencies print without the slightest fact checking. So far, Archeology magazine is the only source we have (that I can recall top-of-my-head) that has actually investigated the claims of the Foundation in any depth. The Foundation's tactics besides controlling as much of the information as possible is to directly attack anyone that holds an opinion contrary to theirs. To date, the Foundation's claims beyond the "pyramids" existance and locations are extremely vague: information on the age, structure, size, builders, etc all vary from report to report, one report often contradicting another, with no attempt to clarify the claims and providing little or no verifiable information on what the claims are based upon. --Ronz 14:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Belated thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA. Consensus to promote was reached, and I am now an administrator. I'll be using the tools cautiously at first, and everyone should feel welcome to peer over my shoulder and make sure I'm not doing anything foolish. --Robth 04:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 18th.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)