Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:45, 1 January 2008

report user

Hi Andrew. Could you help me? if i whant to report an user or IP Adress as an user if it is doing vandalism to the encyclopedia within some articles there, how can i report it? thanks Lacreta (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Malaysian Universities Edit

Thank you for your comments and I shall take note. I indeed have verifiable references to almost all of the info that I have provided. For example, you stated "...On top of that, I saw one edit of yours that claims a university was a breading ground for terrorists, yet there was no accompanying citation..." I have the Time Magazine (no less!) article which, I believe, defines it better than I could "...Azahari's old stalking ground, UTM in the sleepy town of Skudai, served in the late 1990s as a fertile breeding ground for terror...", found here Now if only I could figure out how to properly enter citations and references .... Thanks and will act on your advice. Gangeticus (talk) 16:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

DRV notice

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Japanese citrus. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Jreferee t/c 19:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record

I can't stand to work with Photouploaded or IronAngelAlice and her many IPs any longer. You can say they have driven me off. Best of luck to you.LCP (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Add Phyesalis to the list. Her recent edits to Abortion and Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis clearly serve to advance a personal perspective, and, moreover, she has recently shown a high level of incivility toward RoyBoy (a very long-standing, hard-working editor). I've tried reporting IronAngelAlice for socking/edit-warring at AN/I twice, but my report was dismissed by an admin, the same one who recently left this message for Photouploaded. Irony, that. -Severa (!!!) 04:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Andrew how do I talk ?

Should I go to zionism article and on top where it says "discussion", should I talk there, or should I talk to each person individually who has a disagreement with me on the "Muslim anti-zionism" section ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apple pie 20 20 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Classification of admins

Hi Andrew c. Please consider adding your admin username to the growing list at Classification of admins. Best! -- Jreferee t/c 22:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

very weird

This diff of yours introduced some very strange formatting to Religion and abortion. I hope nothing's wrong with your computer! Anyway, I believe I've restored the article the way you wanted it. Regards, Sheffield Steel_stalk 19:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It was a Misplaced Pages software error discussed at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#Templates going crazy. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK

DYK update is overdue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC) I agree! Other DYK admin are asleep or haven't edit recently. I filled up the next update. Archtransit 19:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have updated the DYK. I would appreciate help in adding notifications and thank yous to the nominators and the articles if possible. -Andrew c  21:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK update

Did you do the DYK update without sending the thank you templates?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 01:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I missed my thanks. I was thanked and did not notice. I apologize.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 01:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Conscious sedation

Hi Andrew - I saw your comment at Talk:Post-abortion syndrome regarding awake vs. asleep with regard to conscious sedation. I wanted to comment, but I figured it was a bit off-topic for the article talk page so I brought it here (hope you don't mind). "Conscious sedation" covers a reasonably wide range of levels of consciousness. Often, the person is pretty deeply sedated (eyes closed, oblivious, no memory of events). The "conscious" part, and the major difference from general anesthesia, is that the person is breathing on their own and is not intubated, pharmaceutically paralyzed, and mechanically ventilated, as they are under general. Still, in lay terms, a person under conscious sedation might well appear to be "asleep". On the other hand, depending on the procedure, some conscious sedation is much lighter and the person may look "awake", eyes open, etc. I agree it's best to be very careful with terms like "awake" and "asleep", as it's a pretty complex situation to sum up in those terms. Hope that makes sense. Anyhow, I'm glad to see your always calm and reasonable voice on the post-abortion syndrome article. Many similar issues have arisen at David Reardon, so if you want to stop in feel free. Take care. MastCell 04:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

I see that you edit recently. Care to update DYK, which is in red alert? Thank you. Archtransit (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

frtillman

I apologize for any problem I have caused on Nativity of Jesus link I did not intend to offend or cause any problem, I am am new at this and I admit I did not read all other prerequisites for editing (adding links) I just thought it might be of interest, no harm or abuse was intended. I have been using[REDACTED] for over 2 years now and I have edited several things and have noticed they have been moved, Yet I have have been encouraged to be BOLD in editing. I will refrain from any edits until I realize what can and can't be done. The links I have added reference a wonderful journal I am associated with. I have noticed that other links have other advertisements and requests for subscriptions for example this is from the main[REDACTED] page today http://en.wikipedia.org/Southern_Ocean if you look at the external links at the bottom of this article it is from other www sites 1 in particular "about.com" what is it the difference in "about.com" being on a link than the link where the article I want people to consider is located? I am not soliciting anything NOR am I trying to be rude and unpolite--Frtillman (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Andrew

Hi Andrew, please try to work with me on the[REDACTED] page devoted to Christian Criticism. I understand you've claimed the Bible passages are against Misplaced Pages rules, but the scripture passages have been approved by others and on another[REDACTED] page for over 2 years and counting! I've recently been unable, to keep up with the page, but I have more time and hopefully all of us can work towards a consensus. Please wait for others to agree "its against the rules" before you keep erasing various material. Maybe you can offer more evidence and show which passages conflict with which[REDACTED] rules and compare them in the discussion section? I'm trying to help so we all know your objections are fair. Have a nice holiday break.

Biblical1 (talk) 07:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Biblical1

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Criticism of Christianity. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 02:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Andrew,

I do not know if my response is timely, but I can be contacted at my email, which is peterkirby on the gmail dot com site. I can respond from there. --Peter Kirby (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Andrew, (2)

I don't know if you can help me, but I am finding that the record for my additions to Misplaced Pages includes one for Feb. 2007 regarding Marina District San Francisco, and I am quite sure I never made such changes.

How can I remove any connection with those changes without deleting them - I don't know if they are correct or not, just don't want to be associated with something that is not mine?

69.181.184.38 (talk) 05:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have replied at your user page, User talk:69.181.184.38. Short answer is that you are editing anonymously from an apparently shared IP address, and you should just register a unique account username.-Andrew c  15:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Reversions

Thanks I appreciate your heads-up. Technically, one of the two reverts you made is irrelevant to the standard you quoted, as the capitalization was not in reference to a figure. Also, it's a bit tricky, but the other reversion deleted a space between two sentences in line 182. Again, I appreciate your efforts and note. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Second verse, same as the first Thanks again. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew, re. RU-486 Education vs. self-promotion

Thanks for your input and advise. Thanks! My motives were misjudged as self-promotion. That was not my intention. I'm a novice Wiki user, and I'm attempting to post education information in areas of my expertise with links as appropriate. There seem to be many commenters/editors who are eagar revisionist, and many who are not interested in making valid information on the history of RU-486 available. Since you're interested, I'm including this personal info about myself, FYI & for editorial advise, re. deletion of "B. Rusty Lang"- The paragraph I attempted to enter into the Wiki history of RU-486 has been repeatedly deleted:

I'm a new Misplaced Pages user/editor, and I appreciate your input, assistance and/or additional critique. Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

what is the difference

Andrew I do want to continue to be a "wikipedian" and edit articles on Misplaced Pages. I realize that linking is a no no, but respectfully I ask you what is the difference with the link on the blow line on the Thanksgiving article:

1. Thanksgiving: The Jewish Perspective on Chabad.org

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/448177/jewish/Thanksgiving-The-Jewish-Perspective.htm

If had have put my link on the Thanksgiving page in similar fasion as the above link would this have been acceptable?

Thanks, but No Thanks? something to consider on Vision.org http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/printerfriendly.aspx?id=3974

This is the same way as the "Chabad.org" link, if they can (and I am glad they did I like their link) why can't I?

Can I put it back on there like that?

In my last comments to you I stated that I am affiliated with vision.org, I meant no other thing than I have been a reader of vision.org's articles for over 9 years. I do not write or contribute in any way to vision.org. Nor am I compensated in any way by vision.org. It is just the fact that I have found this web site to be very well documented on it's sources and very precise in it's points it brings attention to.

I await your reply frtillman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frtillman (talk • contribs) 09:34, 15 December 2007

DYK overdue

I've filled the next update page. Would you transclude it to the main page? Archtransit (talk) 21:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC) Done by EncycloPetey. Thank you anyway Archtransit (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Oversight needed?

I checked my watchlist for the first time in several weeks this morning and was alarmed to happen upon this edit. I don't really know where to bring this up, but, obviously, the ArbCom decision is not being enforced and something should be done to address it. A lot of time was invested in reaching the ArbCom decision, and, at the end of it all, there will need to be some kind of oversight if that remedy is to actually be put into effect. Take care, -Severa (!!!) 17:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the updated information. I was under the impression that a topic ban had been agreed upon as an alternative to the much harsher community ban which was originally proposed. Now I am to understand that, although it was widely agreed that there had been long-term disruption on specific topics, there is not a topic ban in force in any form? I'm sorry to vent here of all places, but why did ArbCom going through the motion of defining and enacting a topic ban, if that ban was not going to be binding and enforceable? For what it's worth, the specific diff I linked to above was indeed disruptive, as it served to reintroduce in a slightly-altered form commentary on the exact same poll that has been the focus of this type of attention from Ferrylodge for almost a year. -Severa (!!!) 18:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Phyesalis, Photouploaded, and IronAngelAlice are almost a concerted force, as all are editing toward the same end across abortion-related articles. I regret to say that I have reached my wit's end for the second time in under a month. I have not been able to smooth over the situation at Abortion, so I cannot imagine what it would be like handle all the disputes from the top down, when they've been spread across so many articles. I've found efforts to counteract the impact of this type of editing on Misplaced Pages do not bear fruit, even when taken to the highest level (see above post). Good luck, and consider giving yourself a well-deserved break at this time of year, because I don't see anything changing soon. I apologize for leaving you yet another disgruntled post. -Severa (!!!) 03:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you take a look?

An image used in the article on the first Bangladeshi pornstar Jazmin, Image:WorshipThisBitch3.jpg, the cover of the DVD that made her the selling point, a first for a Bangladeshi, is up for deletion here. You may be interested to take a look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aditya Kabir (talk • contribs) 21:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced?

Andrew c, I really want to work with you productively, or at least not have clashes with you. I'll make every effort I can to turn that hope into reality.

You say that the following statement I made was unsourced: "the poll question quoted above asked about only 'part' of the decision." Regardless of whether you are correct about that or not, I hope you will see that I have not attempted to reinsert that statement into the article after you removed it. Additionally, I hope you will see that I had non-trivial reasons for believing that the statement was sourced: i.e. the quoted poll question itself said that it only addressed "part" of the decision.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This debate has taken quite a bit out of me, and I had already decided to withdraw from it when I posted to WP:AE. I'll ask you two kind requests: first, please accept that, whether merited or not, I have become frustrated through my interactions with you on that discussion, and I wish to not partake in that debate for at the very least, the next few days. So please don't try to engage me further on the content dispute at Roe v. Wade. Next, as a gesture of good faith on your part, could you pretty please remove the comment under "Editorializing" (and if you'd like, post it here, though I won't reply to it based on my attempt to disengage described above). Thanks for your words in your first paragraph above, and have a good holiday.-Andrew c  23:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Moved from Roe v. Wade talk page

"Editorializing"

Andrew c, you say that I have "editorialized". That is incorrect. I said, "These court rulings affected the laws in all but four of the fifty states." That is not editorializing. If you want to rephrase that sentence, Andrew c, then I have no objection, but to call it editorializing is incorrect. The cited source said, "In all, the Roe and Doe rulings impacted laws in 46 states." I would have said the exact same thing when I included that information in this article, except that I thought it would be best not to parrot the source, and would instead be best to put it in our own words. My only intention was to rephrase so that we didn't sound like we were parroting or copying the source, and I do not see anything editorialistic about the way it was rephrased. I would also encourage you, Andrew c, to please take up such matters at my talk page if you still think I have been "editorialistic" here, or have otherwise tried to slant the article. It certainly was not my intention, and I have no objection to the way you have edited what I wrote. I only object to your edit summary.

Likewise, I do not think I "jabbed" you, as you asserted above. All I said was that you "reverted ... without talk page discussion," which merely indicated whether or not there had been a consensus-building process prior to your edit. There does not always have to be such a process, but it's always significant to note whether or not there was such a process or not. I did not intend to "jab" you, but merely to state a fact. Again, I would encourage you, Andrew c, to please take up such matters at my talk page if you still think I have "jabbed" you.

I also look forward to learning what you think about my most recent response to you, Andrew c. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Moved from WP:AE

Original diff

My concern isn't that FL edited the article inappropriately. I support the statement FL made above that "there was no edit-warring whatsoever." However, I still came here. My concern is over how FL conducts himself on the talk page during a content dispute. It deals with civility. I did not post diffs, nor did I say specifically why I felt FL was being uncivil at Talk:Roe v. Wade, because I felt that if my concerns were merited, the disruption would be self evident by an outside observer. The very first post under the topic "Context for poll results" had the sentence Today, Andrew c reverted that abbreviated version (again without talk page discussion). The first sentence implies that a) my edit was related to a previous edit (made 2 months prior, by another editor) and b) both edits were disruptive for lacking a talk page discussing. However, my edit was unrelated to the one from 2 months ago, and simply removed a newly placed sentence that lacked sources. Per[REDACTED] policy, content that is not sourced can be removed at any time. There is no requirement that unsourced, possible original research that is there to throw doubt on the conclusions of a notable polling organization, must be discussed before being removed. In fact, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. So I was offended from the get go that I was mentioned, and then associated with not discussing content, when it's clear that controversial content must be sourced, and must have talk page approval first. So, perhaps I was a bit to sensitive, but I clearly thought that the mention of me by FL was not assuming good faith in me, and I gave him a warning: Do not make side jabs at me. Discuss content not people.

FL replied to this by implying I was conspiring with Severa on my talk page, and to repeat the notion that deleting unsourced, original research requires prior talk page discussion. I completely ignored this comment for the purposes of not trying to escalate the situation. I then tried to address the specific content dispute. However, if I mentioned that content was unsourced, or original research, FL took these to be personal attacks against him. It's a fact that the sentence I removed did not have a reference, and therefore was unsourced. I was also patient and ignored remarks that didn't have to deal with the content dispute, while trying to explain how the sentence was original research. I do not feel we were making progress. In every reply, I felt like I had to ignore half of what he said because it was off topic, or dealt with unrelated interpersonal issues. My patience wearing thin shows through when I "cut to the chase", and asked flat out for a citations while not responding to every detail of FL's previous posts.

Along the way, I made a minor edit to the article which changed the phrasing of a sentence FL had recently added. My edit summary was rm editorializing. This caused FL to post an entirely personal message to me Talk:Roe_v._Wade#.22Editorializing.22 (which I unsuccessfully asked to be moved to my talk page), where he admits he does not dispute the content of the edit, just the edit summary. (In my defense, I believe he is being a bit too sensitive here. The word editorializing is neutral, and I did not mean it to imply wrong doing. Just that we have to be aware of the connotations of words we insert that depart from our source.) In addition, in this message, he brings up a comment I made to him 2 days previous in a very defensive manner. I declined to reply to this message because I clearly felt it was inappropriate to discuss interpersonal issues on an article, and I felt that it would only act to escalate matters.

The final straw came when FL made a proposal that I thought was clearly original research. I said as much, and tried to briefly explain my issues with the content (and perhaps I myself made things a little personal, although I still believe I was discussing content). FL took my reply personally, and commented at length, honing in on a few choice words I had used. He says he is "disappointed" in me, and I felt his post was condescending and leading. At this point, I decided I personally could not reply to that post, and that I personally could not work with FL on this topic any longer. Which leads to my initial post here.

My advice to FL: do not discuss other editors on the talk page. If it helps, imagine you are having a discussion with a crowd of people, instead of a one on one dialog. If you are going to make a post where the edit summary is someone's username, consider if it is appropriate. The post under the header "Editorializing" was clearly inappropriate for an article talk page (we have user talk pages for a reason). I disagree with AGK that there was "progress" being made. I felt the situation had escalated to this point. But hopefully, regardless if FL is banned from that article or not, FL will take this as a learning experience. That it's never ok to be uncivil on talk pages. That carrying on with the same old behavior from before the ban is not ok, and that there needs to be marked improvements. Sorry this is so long, and I wish FL the best.-Andrew c  23:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive edits on articles "Holy Father" and "Pontiff"

Hello.

I have an issue with an anon IP address user you might be familiar with.

He/she appears to have made repeated disruptive edits to Pontiff and Holy Father. I have tried to reason with this user on his talk page, however, he/she appears to have ignored it.

The specific comments on the talk page are here, and follow through here.

I have requested the 2 articles to be semi-protected (indefinately would work).

However, I would like your advice on how this user should be dealt with.

Don't be too harsh on him/her -- I have been in an edit war and was even blocked myself earlier this year (although it was on another article).

Thank-you! ~ Troy (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Reproductive rights

Hi Andrew. I noticed that you popped in over on Reproductive rights. Thanks. I'm still having quite an issue. My problem is that I provided a series of R and V sources establishing the fact that reproductive rights are a subset of human rights. They've been ratified by multiple international orgs (including the UN - CEDAW). This is, in and of itself, a fairly uncontroversial statement. Yet, two editors working in concert repeatedly remove it from the lead sentence and diminish the fact's weight by stating "Amnesty International considers reproductive rights to be human rights" (Amnesty International was the least significant source, but had the simple language that was requested). I have provided sources and extended footnotes at every turn. I have asked for a single source that states that reproductive rights are not human rights for weeks now. I get wikilawyering and no source. I lost my cool, but only after considerable good faith. Your thoughts on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Phyesalis (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Squirrel (eavesdropping)

I have reason to believe this delete may have been politically motivated and not removed due to my cited articles' absent reference to the term squirrel or because squirrel is a word or term that recently been coined. I'm glad mention of this delete was cross-posted to Wiki's Human Rights Watch so I cannot say the moderator's deletion was purely arbitrary and capricious, obviously the Wiki authorities gave it due diligence and checked the sources I provided. Indeed, absence of proof is not proof itself. I used a link to van Eck monitoring as one of my references which I felt was sufficient. I was trying to open up discussion on what these devices are doing outside of a military context but mainly specifically at a social level why civilians are being targeted by individuals labeled both by me and others as squirrels who operate the van Eck boxes or use a hackneyed oscilloscope and spare electronics to do the same thing. I think there are military terms for this in the realm of electronic intelligence and signals intelligence which I know little or nothing about which aptly describe the personnel and logistics that engage in this kind of activity for legitimate reasons. The crusty people who I surmise have been "human war dialing" a.k.a. targeting others in my region are perverts and very likely have little or no legitimate basis for their pseudo-espionage outside of personal interest and/or blackmail. Some of these losers probably think they are computer hackers but they probably have no real skill beyond hooking up a VCR player and CCTV. Basically, I was trying to infer recurring patterns of behavior in my community which possibly are taking place elsewhere in the United States due to the fragile state of habeas corpus & the Bill of Rights and likely abroad since many countries have civil rights and privacy laws which dwarf United States law. The squirrels' pattern of behavior has been corroborated by me talking to civil servants, independents working on their own, reporters, a skeptical electrician and collaborators whose conversation I picked up on in person. I have no agenda. I am a seeker of truth and wisdom, one of many who wants a better world. I use linux for fun and I use it professionally to help people in my community and make money with it on the side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickwinlund (talk • contribs) 06:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I have noticed your constant and diligent work in maintaining high level NPOV medical articles for a long time. I think you have earned this barnstar for all your efforts. Keep up the good work! Remember (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Novum Testamentum Graece

Thanks for tidying up my edit to the article - it looked okay when I previewed it. Must have been an interaction with my UTF-8 environment... BPMullins | Talk 20:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a Report.

Look at my userpage, I dunno who did this...I'd like to find out. Fastnaturedude 00:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)