Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:14, 13 February 2007

  The five pillars of Misplaced Pages

  How to edit a page

  Help pages

  Tutorial

  How to write a great article

File:Crystal Clear app kate.png   Manual of Style

  Fun stuff...

Tom's discussion

You are the vandal here, Wikidudeman.

I deemed that paragraph on steroids to be highly flawed and biased, and even provided the reasoning behind that on the talk page. That is not vandalism, that is simply fixing a flawed, subjective article.

Removing someone's post on a talk page, THAT is vandalism. Tomsintown 15:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I refuted your reasoning on the talk page. See the talk page for more information. YOU removed MY post. You don't even know how to edit talk pages.Wikidudeman 15:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It is true that I was unaware of how to properly place a post on a Misplaced Pages talk page. I still find that paragraph to be highly subjective and think it should be revised or removed, you can rant for all you wish. Tomsintown 15:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph will REMAIN as it is until you prove your point in the talk page properly. If you continue to edit the article without conversing in the talk page and us settling on something. I will notify an ADMIN and have you taken care of for vandalism. What you're doing is against[REDACTED] policy.Wikidudeman 15:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Hawking11.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Hawking11.gif. Misplaced Pages gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Misplaced Pages, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 05:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Anabolic steroid

Yes, I was a bit annoyed about that. We were fixing a few minor details and somebody else came along and failed the GA nomination without giving any detailed feedback. You would be best to get in touch with that reviewer and ask what they think you need to do to improve the article. TimVickers 20:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Who did it?Wikidudeman 20:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It was Adam Cuerden, if you have a look at the edit log. TimVickers 23:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

I have noted that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Misplaced Pages. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! Yankees76 18:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to do that from now on.Wikidudeman 18:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been having a hard time following all the changes to the anabolic steroid article, as it's a pretty controversial article, I just wanted to ensure your edits are clear for admins who monitor recent edits. Cheers! Yankees76 18:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it as a controversial article. Maybe a controversial topic in society but the article itself doesn't generate a lot of argument in it's talk section. I seem the be just about the only one making frequent edits to the article aside from your regular vandal who posts profanity and what not in it.Wikidudeman 18:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

John Edward

Nice contribution to making John Edward NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Belbo Casaubon (talk • contribs) 11:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC).

Clearwater, Florida scientologist police

HI, Wikidudeman. I've lived here longer than Scientology has been here. The claim seems proposterous. Is pro/con Scientology propaganda? What is the source for this? Is it creditable? Never read such a thing in the St Pete Times, and the Times has had a number of things to say about Scientology over the years. My one encounter with Scientology was when my car broke down, and they refused to let me use a phone to call for help. Thanks. Cheers, :) MikeReichold 02:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I provided a source which is a link to a video done by xenu.net and they profile numeorus police officers who are also scientologists.Wikidudeman 05:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/African American Vernacular English. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Will-Re add later.Wikidudeman 13:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Testing..

Testing..Wikidudeman 21:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: RFM

The RFM will be deleted soon, it has been moved to the archives, and should be deleted in the near future. However, I personally cannot delete pages as I am not an admin here on enwiki. ^demon 03:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

AAVE

I'm saying this here because the talk page is getting pretty clouded. I think that the AfD you put up is inappropriate (because the issue of merging the article was under discussion) although I agree that Ebonics should not be a separate article from AAVE. I understand that you want the article named to Ebonics rather than AAVE but if it isn't, what do you lose? It seems to me that you're raising a big storm for what amounts to almost nothing. Ƶ§œš¹ 06:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There is and never was an official request for merger for the "Ebonics article". I requested AAVE be moved to the "Ebonics" page but that was before there was an 'Ebonics article. I requested deletion after someone decided to make an article on that page with redundant information mostly already contained in the AAVE article or information that can easily be moved to the AAVE article. Technically the discussion going on at ] is a request for deletion not a request for merger though some advocate a merger.Wikidudeman 06:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No, there wasn't an official anything but it was under discussion. Mergers are usually casual like that. Anyway, can't argue that you haven't tried things. Ƶ§œš¹ 08:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we can wait a few more days before harassing them about agreeing to mediation on the dispute. In the meantime, take it slow. I think that Pinkville brings up a good point. We ought to address one issue at a time. Ƶ§œš¹ 04:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

We only have 6 more days for them to all sign up.Wikidudeman 08:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer it if you did not send messages addressed to me in other editors' talk pages, especially confrontational ones. I would also prefer that the next time you think I have violated any[REDACTED] policy or tenet to either report me in the appropriate fashion or not mention it at all.

I would also like to tell you that I'm pretty upset at you right now because my message to Hoary was not addressed to you and was designed to motivate him to participate in the mediation. I find your behavior towards Hoary to be inflammatory and if you believe that he is also acting in an inflammatory way to you then the proper thing to do is not respond in kind but try to be even more civil.

You don't need to respond to this and, for now, I'd prefer that you did not. Ƶ§œš¹ 04:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I only send messages that have relevance and usefulness. When I see people violate WP policy, I don't instantly report them for small infractions. I assume good faith and notify them of it. I don't know what message you're "upset with me" about but I can assure you that nothing malicious was meant from it. I will respond to this message since you posted it. Don't expect me not to respond to messages when you accuse me of being 'inflammatory'.Wikidudeman 04:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about comment on Hoary's page. Please try to be easier to work with. Ƶ§œš¹ 05:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You proclaim that you might want to try to take 'administrative action against me' due to disagreements and you're asking ME to be easier to work with?Wikidudeman 05:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you think I mean when I say "take administrative against" you? If you've done nothing wrong then nothing will happen. If you're acting like a dick then the most you'll get is a biting comment by an administrator, and if you're acting blatantly uncivil then threats like mine should be meant with behavioral modification rather than being more confrontational. Ƶ§œš¹ 06:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand how[REDACTED] works. A "biting comment from an administrator? In case you didn't know Hoary is an Admin. He has had nothing but 'biting' comments towards me.Wikidudeman 06:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Then what are you afraid of? Ƶ§œš¹ 06:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Who said I was afraid of anything?Wikidudeman 07:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well you said I was threatening you. What, do you imagine, this threat would entail? Ƶ§œš¹ 07:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Threats don't have to be realistic to be threats. I could threaten to "vaporize you with my magical wand". It is impossible but it's still a threat.Wikidudeman 07:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You're grasping at straws here. If you feel threatened by the statement that I may request that an administrator do something if you step out of line then so be it. It's a threat. I'll do it and there's nothing you can do to stop it. Lock your doors and bar up your windows. Ƶ§œš¹ 17:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Fundamental misunderstanding

I'm beginning to suspect the problem is that you really don't understand what AAVE is. It is not hip hop slang à la Snoop Dogg. If you want to hear good AAVE, walk into any black church on a Sunday and listen to the preacher's sermon.--Pharos 04:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I try to avoid Church at all costs, But the speech Snoop Dogg and other rappers use is indeed AAVE.Wikidudeman 04:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It's related to regular AAVE, yes, but hip hop slang is very deliberately "playful", comparable with some of the strange fad slang that other subcultures use. Noone uses "-izzle" in church. If you want to look at typical AAVE use, don't look to Snoop Dogg; look to stuff like Go Down Moses.--Pharos 04:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I really haven't heard anyone use "izzle" in a serious sense other than Snoop Dogg. Snoop Dogg's form of speech is clearly AAVE excluding the words he himself made up. As it is with most 'hip hop' people.Wikidudeman 04:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"Izzle" is only one example; a lot of hip hop terminology is slang and not regular AAVE. If you don't want go to a church, I suggest you tune one in on Sunday (where I live there are several churches on public access television), or find something online. For something really authentic, you can listen to some former slave recordings. Hopefully, it will become clear to you that most AAVE does not sound like hip hop slang.--Pharos 05:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I know what AAVE sounds like. I live in a predominantly African part of the south. However a lot of the "hip hop" terminology is being incorporated into AAVE. Most of the speakers of AAVE also use "hip hop" terminology such as "dawg" or "hommie g" etc.Wikidudeman 05:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/African American Vernacular English. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

I had responded to your query on my talk page. Regards, Shyam 06:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Randi discussion

Please don't call my edits and opinions "trifling", I found it offensive and disparaging of my opinions, and that could be construed as a personal attack.. or at least uncivil...:D

Per WP:NPA, "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." Dreadlocke ☥ 07:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Just because you find it 'offensive' does not make it a personal attack. Read WP:NPA. What I said does not violate any policy. Calling what you SAID "triflings" is different from personally attacking you as a person. Moreover my challenge still stands. Register a name on the Randi forum and post a thread there. Give me the name you registered here so I will know who you are.Wikidudeman 07:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you need to read WP:NPA more carefully. Your description of what a personal attack is, is not inclusive. Per WP:NPA, "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." Yet you insist in insulting and disparaging me by calling my opinions (as stated in my edits) "trifling".

Also, you are incorrect that I cannot edit your posts, further examination of WP:NPA#Removal of text clearly shows that I can do it under certain circumstances - circumstances which I believe cover my removal of the single word that find highly offensive.

Third, you continue to have the WP:NPA discussion on the article's talk page, when the Policy clearly states it should be done as per "If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you should leave a polite message on the other user's talk page. Do not respond on a talk page of an article; this tends to escalate matters."

I suggest you go back and remove the offensive statements, as well as the continued NPA discussion from the article's talk page. I'll be more than happy to escalate this through Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes or finding an admin to sort this out. Your offensive comment serves no purpose at this time.

As for your "challenge" and the Randi forum...yeah, been there, done that. And really, once you've insulted and demeaned my opinions without apology, it's very difficult to gain my cooperation. Dreadlocke ☥ 08:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly..It says "disparaging" as in disparaging the EDITOR not their comments. Calling your COMMENTS triflings was disparaging them. Not your personally. It clearly states "Comment on content, not on the contributor." When I said what you said was 'triflings' it meant your COMMENTS not you personally. Get it? Moreover. NO. Removing text is NOT a[REDACTED] policy. It's usually not accepted. In an ESSAY it says that it could be done but that's an ESSAY not policy. See WP:RPA. There has been no consensus on whether removing text is acceptable. Finally, You refuse to join the James Randi forum and debate that issue with me there in a more open and easy format? That says a lot about your opinion, you are unwilling to openly debate it with me on an open forum.Wikidudeman 08:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I definitely "get" what you're saying. Unfortunately, you are not getting what I am saying. I was quoting from the policy, not the essay - the policy refers to the essay. I never said removing text was policy - but it is not against policy, either - as I have described above. Please carefully read what I have written, as well as the policies, guidelines and yes - even essays that I have referenced.

I would suggest you calm down, have a cup of tea and try to remain civil. Now you're clearly commenting on the contributor and not the content, I would say. Dreadlocke ☥ 08:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's what it says..Emphasis mine..]

Me calling your comments 'triflings' does not meet the criteria of personal insults and it should not be removed. Moreover, No I have never insulted you personally. Moreover, The challenge still stands. The forum link is here.] Post your assertions that James Randi's challenge is a "Gimmick" and then I will refute your assertions there in an easier and more open format. Wikidudeman 08:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure what your quotations from Misplaced Pages:Criticism and WP:NPA are supposed to refute, they actually appear to back my assertions that I can remove statements that are considered personal attacks - and even if it doesn't rise to the level of a personal attack, I've seen administrators and editors remove even uncivil remarks per WP:CIV#Removing_uncivil_comments. Your opinion about what you've insulted is something I disagree with, especially considering your unapologetic tone. You'll note that while I refuted BillC's statements, I didn't label them with names (e.g. "trifling") and I was apologetic in tone. I respect the man too much to even think about doing that - even though we sometimes disagree. I have posted with the utmost civility to both you and everyone else - including Mr. Randi. I've clearly told you that I feel your use of the word "trifling" applied to my opinions, and was an uncivil thing to say about my edits and therefore my opinions - you cannot artificially separate the two, the content is my opinion - this is not the same as the content of an article. Let me refer you to this quote: "When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." My posting was my opinion and thought, it was not article content. I took the liberty of removing the offensive word for you, thinking that you would do what I considered to be the right thing and remove it yourself. Anyway, our conversation seems to just be going in circles and escalating matters. Bye! Dreadlocke ☥ 08:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

1.My quotations refute your assertion that what I said fits the criteria of "Personal attack". Me calling your comments 'triflings' does not meet the criteria of personal insults and it should not be removed. Just because you disagree with something or consider it "offense" does not mean you can remove it. That's not how[REDACTED] works. 2. You did not 'refute' bill's statements. If you kindly accept my challenge to debate in a more open environment and a relevant setting I will show you why. 3.WP:CIV clearly states that refactoring other peoples posts and words is considered controversial and should usually be avoided except in the most extreme cases. I.E. constant use of abusive profanity. 4.This discussion is highly pointless and irrelevant. Wikidudeman 09:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to provide the direct quote from WP:CIV that says "refactoring other peoples posts and words is considered controversial and should usually be avoided except in the most extreme cases." and "I.E. constant use of abusive profanity." I see that it says it's "controversial" but I'm missing the part about it being used only in the most "extreme" circumstances. Your comment definitely falls under WP:CIV, similiar to the "petty violation" "Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("fixed sloppy spelling", "snipped rambling crap")" It's just not civil, dude! Can't you see that? Ach. You're right, this discussion is pointless because we're not communicating well - but it is not irrelevant - civility never is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dreadlocke (talk • contribs).

Per the quote. I was paraphrasing. What WP:CIV says is what you said yourself, What I said "might" fall under petty incivility but simply does not warrant butchering my text to remove it. Wikidudeman 09:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, the actual place to have our "Randi/gimmick" dispute is on the Talk:James Randi page, not an external forum. My entire point was about the quality, relevance and detail of the issue in Misplaced Pages article contents, not an external forum. I find that the Misplaced Pages rules provide an excellent environment for such discussions and disputes! Dreadlocke ☥ 09:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. The only reason we would hold such a debate there would be in direct relation to that article. I.E. if you were trying to claim Randi's challenge is a "gimmick" on his[REDACTED] page. Then a discussion would be warranted. However currently it isn't. The challenge still stands. I will be waiting. Don't be afraid.Wikidudeman 09:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. That was my actual point, to move the entire discussion to Randi's Misplaced Pages talk page - where it belongs - thus I would indeed be claiming that Randi's challenge is a "gimmick" on his Misplaced Pages page! It's a smooth transition. As for JREF forum, don't hold your breath. I'm sorry if you find Misplaced Pages rules too restrictive for this discussion, I find them liberating. I fear not, instead I find that I have no desire to return to JREF Forums right now. I may change my mind one day, if I do, I'll be sure to let ya know - I'm sure it would be lively! Say hi to Darat for me! LOL! Too bad we got off on the wrong foot, you're fun to debate with! Dreadlocke ☥ 09:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Then go ahead and start a topic on the James Randi talk page asserting his challenge is a "Gimmick" and see how that works out. The only reason I wanted to move it to the JREF forum is because it's much easier for me to post and read there. This format is not meant to be used in such a way. The posts get jumbled together and are very difficult for me to read. That's the only reason. It seems you are afraid to support your assertions about James Randi in a format that is much easier to navigate.Wikidudeman 09:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL! No, sorry, that's not the reason I resist posting there - not at all. I don't feel comfortable sharing those reasons with you at this point. Feel free to view that in any way you like, I'm just not biting today. Hey, I like Misplaced Pages's format and rules. I gotta say that the continual comments you keep making about the contributor (and not content) is disturbing: (e.g. "It seems you are afraid to support your assertions"). That's a disparaging comment about me, dude.

Before anything at all can go forward in any dispute or discussion other than this civility matter, I'd need you to apologize and remove the wording I find offensive! Including all this "you're afraid" business. That's what I mean by "wrong foot". No further walking or jumping till that false step has been rectified! Unfortunately, our discussions will probably be limited to that particular topic until then. Dreadlocke ☥ 10:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to do any such thing. If you don't like my comments then that's your problem not mine. If you really feel offended then talk to an administrator about it. I'm not here to play games. If you can't take the heat then get out of the kitchen. Nothing I said was even borderline "offensive" in my opinion. Now unless you want to discuss something constructive then stop wasting space on my talk page. Thank you.Wikidudeman 10:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)