Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:44, 19 January 2007

• Known away dates at present: - weekends 26-28 January, 10-11 February.
• In the meantime, please leave any messages on this talk page to read on returning.
• Have a very good new year, whatever your version of a new year may be, and a healthy happy editorial 2007!

-- FT2

• Archived talk page comments: /Archive

Misplaced Pages IRC channel:

Services Link:

Others: society -- religion -- studies -- research -- ap -- asa -- terminology -- emo -- med

RFPC draft

A/guide: WP:SIR, Misplaced Pages:Canvassing Contribs tool:

NPOV Cite

"Misplaced Pages does not exist to determine truth. It is not our purpose to decide if NLP's claims are true or not. It is instead our purpose to fairly represent both NLP's claims and the claims of its critics. The purpose of consensus within Misplaced Pages is not to determine truth, but to determine the wording of articles. Nobody needs to modify their personal views in order to achieve consensus on the wording of the article. However, anyone who is not committed to Misplaced Pages's core principles is likely to be more concerned with hammering their viewpoint than they are with agreeing upon wording which fairly represents all side." user:Jdavidb

Temp links related to RfA

• 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities (11 Nov 2004)
• Animal marriage (07 Jun 2006)
• Cultural and historical background of Jesus (02 Jun 2006)
• Empathy (30 Dec 2005)
• Hypoadrenia (22 Oct 2005)
• Judaism and Christianity (11 Oct 2005)
• Labrador Retriever (03 Jun 2006)
• Movement to impeach George W. Bush (14 Apr 2006)
• Mysticism (04 Feb 2005)
• Neuro-linguistic programming (29 Oct 2005)
• Neuro-linguistic programming (04 Nov 2005)
• Neuro-linguistic programming (05 Nov 2005)
• Neuro-linguistic programming (07 Nov 2005)
• Neuro-linguistic programming (12 Nov 2005)
• Neuro-linguistic programming (13 Nov 2005)
• Neuro-linguistic programming (27 Nov 2005)
• -phil- (16 Mar 2006)
• Polyamory (04 Feb 2005)
• September 11, 2001 attacks (11 Dec 2005)
• Stimulation (14 Nov 2005)
• Stimulus (24 Oct 2005)
• Talk:Uses of torture in recent times (18 Dec 2004)
• Talk:Uses of torture in recent times (18 Dec 2004)
• Talk:Zoophilia (09 Dec 2004)
• User talk:Mushroom (12 May 2006)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for investigation (28 Apr 2005)
• Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy (11 Nov 2004)
• Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy (13 Nov 2004)
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject NLP concepts and methods (06 Jun 2006)
• World Tribunal on Iraq (28 Apr 2005)
• Zoophilia (20 Oct 2005)
• Zoophilia (14 Dec 2005)
• Zoophilia (01 Jan 2006)
• Zoophilia (16 May 2006)

Temp save of working edits behind hidden comment section, view source to see

RfA withdrawn

I really respect your decision to withdraw. Make sure you clean up the page into this format, and remove the RfA from the main WP:RFA page.

Though I hadn't met you before today, it would be my honor to renominate you when you feel your edit summary usage has improved enough. Λυδαcιτγ 15:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I would support that. Good work, and your decision to withdraw will only make my support even stronger when you are next up. --Guinnog 17:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Camonica2.png

Could you please find a different source for Image:Camonica2.png. I don't believe the current source is entirely reliable. It looks more like a sloppy MS Paint job right now. An actuall museum would be a better source. --Phoenix Hacker 10:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

3RR block

Regarding reversions made on January 5 2007 to Labrador Retriever

(above discussed by email with editor concerned. FT2 01:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC))

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): I concur that you were reverting vandalism. You might want to consider semi-protection for the article. Block lifted. Request handled by: Mackensen (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Seriously... thank you for protecting the Labrador retriever section and for your additions. I've been fighting vandalism on that page for months. -Erikeltic

Global Warming Article

The oddest thing happened when I was reviewing the article. I scanned through the first few paragraphs and was immediately struck by an incredibly inappropriate and biased statement that had almost zero relation to the article. I can't remember the exact sentence but these words are burned into my mind: "hypotetical bullshit" and "don't believe John Kerry". I was stunned to see such a ridiculous, poorly executed and poorly spelled attempt to discredit the theory of global warming. I immediately created an account with Misplaced Pages so that I could register my objection to this bizarre transgression against the spirit of unbiased information. After logging on and reading the rules for discussing articles I went back to the global warming article to cite the inane statement. As you might have guessed it was no longer there. I am fairly certain that the statement in question came after the last line in the fourth paragraph: Although warming is expected to affect the number and magnitude of these events, it is difficult to connect specific events to global warming.

I know that I saw those words. I know that they no longer appear for me whether I log in or not. I am reporting this in the hope that whatever is going on can be stopped.

Thanks, Chris —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ccgleason (talk • contribs) 08:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

Global Warming Thanks

I love Misplaced Pages! Thanks for the thorough response. I am an English teacher at an inner city high school (Dorsey) in L.A. and I take immense comfort in recommending Misplaced Pages as a resource for my students to conduct research. I was alarmed at the nonsense Arnold 19 posted, but the processes you described are as much as one could hope for in this information age. I have ridden the Wiki-Wiki bus many times in Honolulu and have just now discovered the connection to Misplaced Pages; one more reason to feel good about this online encyclopedia. Again, thanks so much for the rapid and excellent discourse over my concerns. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ccgleason (talk • contribs) 00:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

(relates to this reply to this question. FT2 14:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You're awesome

That it:).Nina Odell 14:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm the exact same way - I can't stand ideological or copy messes. If you're also a professional masseuse with a decent car and a job, I might ask you to marry me:).Nina Odell 14:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You joined the neutrality project - I've been a member for a while. Check this out ]. That's not even the half of it. I specialize in editing atrocities for neutrality, among other things. Nina Odell 15:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You're married already, aren't you. DANG IT. :) Nina Odell 15:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

New Misplaced Pages article Covert Marriage. Nina Odell 15:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I like to force people to read my user page, but I guess you're probably right...Are you sure someone didn't slip you a mickey and marry you? I would...but marriage is a construct anyhow. I think a ceremony is lovely, but a real marriage is built on an daily (even hourly) basis, and subject to constant change and revision. That's my two cents, anyhow. Nina Odell 15:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to give you a chance to tweak your essay before I read it tonight. I'm off to work.:)NinaOdell | Talk 17:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Good job

Good job on Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. I would like to draw your attention to Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons#"Biographies of living persons for deletion" (BLPfD) policy proposal and (See also: ). WAS 4.250 20:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Check it out

You're on my user page - which makes you famous!:).NinaOdell | Talk 01:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

A wholesale wiki-wide promotion of Misplaced Pages Wikiprojects. Can you whip that up? Tonight please:). NinaOdell | Talk 02:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk 02:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a background in marketing, but it doesn't seem to help much...*sigh*...NinaOdell | Talk 02:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Please and thank you - both please!NinaOdell | Talk 02:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not working right on your talk page - see my sand box...sigh...NinaOdell | Talk 02:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Not if you can't sit at the computer!NinaOdell | Talk 02:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

A server would crash with the number of members on THAT page;0.NinaOdell | Talk 03:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dudley.jpg

I reverted the image to the last version which had Dudley Manlove, removed the image from the Labrador Retriever article since that was intended to be the dog version, and explained the situation to the person who uploaded the copyrighted image and added it to the Lab article. BigNate37_(T) 15:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I am impressed ...

... by your work @ Misplaced Pages. I know we do not do enough of this in these wild frontiers, but here you have my appreciation for a good job well done consistently over time. Would you be interested to be nominated for the mop and the bucket? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Farmers Insurance article

I added a "Plaudits" section to counterbalance the "Criticism" selections. I did my darndest to keep NPOV, but would be grateful if you could give it a quick review to ensure that I kept my crayon inside the lines. I'm kinda new at this...Buzzards39 06:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Farmers Insurance pt. 2

Thanks for looking. I agree with the way you have changed the section from good vs. evil to varying opinions from third parties. As I did disclose previously on Syrthiss's talk page when he was making some edits, I am an insurance agent who does sell Farmers products, though I am not an employee of Farmers or its affilliates, etc... When I first looked at the page a week or so ago, there was a rather strident anti-Farmers screed posted by "Router", who I believe, though I cannot prove, is the owner of a Farmers Gripe site. I deleted the paragraph where he called Farmers the "Worst Insurance company in the USA", while leaving his examples, though I did consider them to be misleading. After a short revert war, another editor added the positive stuff that you deleted a day or two ago. Long story short, I was just trying to put some balance in there, realizing that an Insurance company will not always be in the right. If others are content with the article as written, so am I. You can see my comments on the article discussion page, as well as the talk pages of Router and Syrthiss. Again, thanks for your help. Buzzards39 14:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Nomination

I have a question about your RfA

Why did you put those boxes around your answers to the questions? And how?--CJ King 04:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Readability, to make it easy for others. And it's just a table with a solid border. Check out Help:Table for how to use tables in Misplaced Pages, it took me some time but they're very useful to know how. The option to set a style (including border style) is easy to do. The command looks like this:

style="border:1px solid black" or if you want a background it might be: style="border:4 px dotted #603322; background-color:blue"

The thickness of the border in pixels (px), the style of the border (dotted, solid) and the color of the border (standard HTML colors such as black, blue, darkgrey, or RGB based such as #603322) are all things you define. The code for a simple section of text with a box round it might be:

{| style="border:1px black solid"
| usual text in a table
* list
* list
more text
|}

and that will look like this:

usual text in a table list list more text

You can indent by adding a colon before the initial {| if you like - but no space between ::: and {| or else the markup won't work.

Hope that helps! Good luck! FT2 07:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Catching up

• Oh, I'm not bad. In college now. It's so weird to think that I edited WP back in high school, and that I'm still (sort of) at it. How 'bout you? I seriously would have thought you'd have been an admin by now. (Although it's kind of cool that I get to vote in your RFA ^_^) ♠PMC♠ 16:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

penchant for cleanup

Hi, I saw your userpage comment that you enjoy writing intros to contentious articles, and I thought maybe you'd like to have a stab at Philosophy, which is in the middle of a bit of a kurfuffle. (I'm just observing from the sidelines, not involved). Just a thought, if you have any spare time (ha!) and interest. :) —Quiddity 01:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I made a list of external examples and past diff examples in this thread, Talk:Philosophy#Interlude.

The present problem seems to be Ludvikus trying to take over, and he's on course for an RfC for editwarring and personal attacks if he keeps it up. It might be more complex than that? Sorry it's not much to go on.

Based on the history page: Lucidish, Banno, Dbuckner, and Rick Norwood are longtime contributors there. Lucidish started the article itself. —Quiddity 01:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good :) —Quiddity 02:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Quiddity's summary. I've worked with Lucidish (Ben Nelson), Banno, and Norwood over many years to defend this article. Don't forget also Mel Etitis who is a distinguished Oxford philosopher. There were disagreements before but nothing like this. The problem is not one but two difficult editors who arrived at the same time. Ludvikus is, as the man says, heading for an RfC. Lucaas is not so aggressive, but has a poor grasp of English, combined with a belief that he knows everything about everything. If you could help, much appreciated. Mel gave a very good summary of the problem, (why Philosophers don't edit the Philosophy page) - I have a link to it on my user page. Best Dbuckner 14:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

One further point - there is less disagreement between professional philosophers over the basic definition than you would think. There is a page Definition of philosophy which summarises what different philosophers have said on various key points, all of which should be somewhere in the introduction, in my view. Dbuckner 14:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

More on Philosophy

Good work! Best of luck to you. It's good to have you on board.

From what I've read you wrote so far, things can only get better.

Sincerely, --Ludvikus 22:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Dudley (dog)

Just a message to let you know that I redirected the article Dudley (dog) that you nominated for deletion, but which resulted in a no consensus, to Labrador Retriever. For the reasons, see the AfD discussion and Talk:Dudley (dog). Hopefully your concerns are addressed this way. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Hello. You are handling this very well. You made two points in the philosophy page that I would like to answer here, as the talk page is cluttered enough as it is.

1. You say "As I understand it, there will be two kinds of sources that are helpful: notable philosophers who gave their own opinions, and notable comentators, academics and researchers (writers on philosophy etc) who summarized what the main threads in various debates were, and also often added their own views and interpretations as specialists/experts of various standings. Both are potentially useful sources. Has anyone suggested a good reason to completely exclude either?"

I have one reservation about the former approach, which is that when notable philosophers attempt to say something about philosophy in their philosophical work proper (as opposed to introductions for beginners, which many notable philosophers never wrote), they say things which are profound, difficult, cryptic, controversial, slanted to their own view &c. Thus Socrates says philosophy is like being a midwife. Kant says it is like milking a he-goat with a sieve. Wittgenstein says it is like getting a fly out of a fly-bottle. I can quote you many other things like that. The difficulty here is that such remarks require interpretation, and I read WP:OR as specifically warning against any source that requires interpretation. Thus I prefer the rather dull and prosaic definitions you find in sources by authoritative writers, like Quinton or Ayer or others, aimed at a beginner audience. Which is what WP should be.

2. You also asked for a brief flavour of what the dispute is about. Easy. The whole controversy is about whether the method of philosophy should be characterised is rational, logical, critical &c. It's odd, because all professionally trained philosophers agree at least on that (thought on not much else). Yet the debate is raging around that. It's mostly due to the fact that it is very much between professionally trained philosophers, and people who are not.

Hope that helps. Dbuckner 09:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Congratulations! --Guinnog 16:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. You're now an admin, so have fun using the new tools to help the project keep improving. Use them conservatively, especially at first, and re-read the policies as necessary. Don't hesistate to ask for help, and dig in to help out with the backlogs! - Again, congrats. - Taxman 16:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well done! If you need any help with your shiny new admin tools then please don't hesitate to ask. Regards and happy mopping, (aeropagitica) 16:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Even though I opposed your nomination, I hope that the issues raised in the process help you in your decision process, and that you prove me wrong and justify the community's trust in you. -- Avi 17:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

My first edits post-RfA will be as follows:

1. This post (if I don't mention this one, somebody else will).
2. Clarify in the article Misplaced Pages:Editorial control and oversight that admins do not have a privileged voice in discussion, beyond certain limited powers used to ensure discussions run smoothly.
3. Sign up for Misplaced Pages:Administrators willing to make difficult blocks (if anyone actually asks for help on this, I'll have to get advice in some cases for starters , but like I said, its a point of principle that people aren't in fear of doing the Right Thing, so count me in).
4. Watchlist the 'suspected socks' page, again as I commited to do to the RfA participants.
5. Thank individually each of those who gave 'oppose' and 'neutral' votes, for their honesty, and see if any follow-up is of use.
6. Thank individually each of those who were supportive and showed trust, and undertake to try and continue to live up to their standards.
7. Reread all the things I didn't need to know the minutae of, until now.
8. Carry on with Philosophy, and a few other articles I'm working on, and hope they go smoothly.

A brief generic "thank you" first for the trust... and now I'm off to grab a coffee. May we all in our own ways, find ourselves Doing the Right Thing and support each other. FT2 17:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)