Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:16, 27 September 2004

Boilerplate text

• Listed for deletion: {{subst:vfd}}
• Stub: {{msg:stub}}
• Spoilers: {{msg:spoiler}}
• NPOV: {{msg:NPOV}}
• Factual errors: {{msg:Disputed}}
• Inclusion dispute: {{msg:inclusion}}
• Protected: {{msg:protected}}
• Editing in progress: {{msg:inuse}}

Note: though I'm not sure why anyone would complain, I would just like to give credit to head off complaints; I copied this 'Boilerplate text' section from Exploding Boy.

Misplaced Pages:Boilerplate_text seems like a better resource, however. Closer to the source, and all.

Other useful links: Help:Formula

Misplaced Pages:Template messages

Scratchpad

My Scratchpad notion stolen from David Gerard

RE Catholicism

No Problem, I've listed it on Vandalism in Progress and asked for a 24 h page protection.--Samuel J. Howard 02:05, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you on the removal of the inappropriate section, and have reverted to your version twice now. If it is reverted again, I will list this on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment. However, I would ask that you please tone down your comments on the talk page. Yes, the anon is being childish, but your comments come across as unnecessarily acerbic. This simply fuels the "flames." I think if you deliberately restrict yourself to neutral-toned comments and refuse to stray from content related aspects, you'll steal his fire. Just think of how you would write if you were *discussing* this with your mother instead of *arguing* with a stranger. It might be a good idea to archive the talk page and start fresh. Just remember to stay on topic (the topic is the article, not the other user) and friendly. Logic is on your side, so don't let it get emotional. SWAdair | Talk 03:05, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Heh; since my mother isn't the kind of person who would vandalize talk pages or litter even the most heated discussion with insults to the family of the person she disagreed with, it's hard to picture this being a discussion with her. I do agree with you -- the discussion should be about the content, not about the personalities. However, when you articulate numerous reasons, based on the content and the article, why the content should not be in the article, and the response you get is not any actual answer to those points, but "I see you've decided to pick on little semantic things, to make yourself appear to be in the right" -- honesty, as much as we both wish there was, is there any basis to believe this is someone acting in good faith? After this user has vandalized both the talk page of the article and one's own user page?

I'll try to take the high road. However, since ClarityMS07 and his various alter egos have shown their willingness to take the lowest of low roads, it won't be easy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:17, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have very little doubt about the reasons for this anon's actions or methods.  ;-) That's why it is even more important for you to take the high road. I expect he'll revert again and then I'll be listing the article for RfC. When that happens a lot of eyes will be trained on the article, the article's talk page and this talk page. Let's make sure they see sane, rational discourse. Your version has logic going for it, but others coming into the middle of this need to see that you are focusing on logic. I expect the anon(s) will continue using flame bait for argument, which will only show his "C of RCC" section for what I believe it to be -- a deliberate attempt at disruption. SWAdair | Talk 09:25, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good point -- and good prediction. ^_^ -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:39, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to archive the talk page and start fresh. I agree; for obvious reasons, I don't think ClarityMS07's slanders on myself and my family should stay there any longer than is needed to convince anyone getting involved but as yet undecided that one side is arguing from logic and principle and the other side, the side resorting to personal attacks, is arguing from spite and pique.

However, because of the obvious conflict of interest, I think I had best leave it up to someone else's judgement as to when the archival should happen. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have archived the talk page (it was getting really long) and left a clear note directing people to the archive for previous discussion about the "C of RCC" section. Anyone checking into it will see it. SWAdair | Talk 02:50, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• With no sign of the anon in the last few days, it looks like the article may be back to normal. I'm removing the article from my watchlist, but feel free to contact me if that section reappears. Happy editing! SWAdair | Talk 04:10, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

User page

I reveted an anon edit to your user pageGeni 03:25, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dracula

I just reverted an edit of yours to Dracula (you removed the mention of love story: ). As I made a second edit to the page straight afterwards, I thought I should mention it, in case you wanted to object and/or discuss it. Why'd you remove it, as a matter of interest? It's the most beautiful love story ever written (imho), which was pticly amplified in the Coppola film, albeit in ways not in Stoker's novel. Anyways, just thought I should let you know. :o) — OwenBlacker 22:53, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Because I really cannot fathom how it reasonably can be described as a love story. Coppola's film, yes. Certain other renditions of the story, yes. Stoker's novel, no. Dracula is at best a seducer in Stoker's novel, and not in a way that has anything to do with love.

Furthermore, I asked the question how the original novel could be described as a love story back on July 21, 2004. That was two months ago, and no one who believed in the "love story" interpretation bothered to answer the question in those two months. To ignore the question for two months and then revert the edit still not having answered the question strikes me as very rude. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:44, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd not seen the item on the Talk: page (I've been on a bit of a Wikiholiday, so not really paying as much attention as I would otherwise). Rudeness really wasn't intentional. If noone else has justified it either, then evidently consensus is against me (I put the link in in the first place), though I would still assert that it is, in part, a love story between Dracula and Mina. Sure, the Coppola film amplifies that beyond recognition, but I never got the impression he was just a seducer. Maybe I've seen the film too many times and not read the book recently enough. I'll put it back on my list of books to read and get back to you if I still care… :o) — OwenBlacker 12:57, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Well, the film is highly revisionist. Which is not, in and of itself, a bad thing -- except if you then go on to name the film "Bram Stoker's Dracula", as Coppola did, and was roundly criticized for. Coppola turns all Stoker's heroes into fools and hidebound squares, and brings in the "Dracula seeks Mina because she's the reincarnation of his lost love" aspect, which is nowhere to be found in Stoker's novel. The original novel really doesn't show Dracula as having any capacity to feel for another living being -- perhaps because he isn't a living being! -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:32, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Stolen Honor

Your additional material was removed for reasons posted on talk page. It belongs on Sherwood's personal article page, not on Stolen Honor. Please read the talk page archive. This issue has already been debated and resolved. ] 17:36, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is, to put it bluntly, a lie. The matter has not been "debated and resolved" on the talk page. What you probably mean is that you have already "resolved" what you will believe on the subject and have decided to ignore further debate on the subject; however, this is not binding on myself or upon anyone else.

Now, looking at the article, I see the following paragraph:

Sherwood previously worked for former Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge, whom George W. Bush subsequently appointed as the first Secretary of Homeland Security. In 2003, the Bush administration chose Sherwood to create and manage a new federal website aimed at first responders (police officers, firefighters, etc.). While working as a Ridge administration official, "Sherwood directed then-Gov. Ridge's award-winning broadcast TV and radio operations in Harrisburg". (http://www.insiderpa.com/archive/insider6-2003.htm) He currently works as an executive vice president of the WVC3 Group, an anti-terrorism, security firm headquartered in Reston, VA.

Who added that to the article? You did. To quote you, "Stolen Honor article is not about Sherwood". Yet you decided that this information was relevant to the article. If Sherwood's employ under Tom Ridge is relevant, if Sherwood being picked to manage a federal website is relevant, if his direction of Ridge's media operations is relevant, if his current employment in the private sector is relevant, then surely the previous praise and criticism for his jounalistic activities is relevant -- seeing as how the article is about one of his journalistic activities, not about himself, a fact you seem to frequently forget.

Now if you would like to debate this further, I would recommend doing so on the talk page of the article itself, rather than my user page. Perhaps they would be interested in your claim that the issue has already been "debated and resolved"; they might find that information interesting, and just possibly surprising. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:30, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you restore that text again, I am going to file an RfA against you. ] 19:16, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)