Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:09, 13 October 2005

I welcome private e-mails.

Click here for archives.

query ... your comment on jdavidb's page

You are SO the man. Thanks for the company. You have brought a smile to my face on an otherwise crappy day. The truth is, I would love to have a civil conversation with users like Hipo, Kizz and Derex, but that just seems impossible with the way they have approached me. Derex, I make you this offer: Choose a neutral page in need of some help , and I will edit it with you and discuss issues in a civil manner. Maybe that would heal wounds between us. I have no problem with that. Thanks for the support J.Gator1 14:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Just bumped across the above. Have not been reading your talk page, though. Are you still interested? I'm willing. I'll happily be respectful and courteous, if I receive the same in return. I think if you'll give it a chance, as you indicate, that you'll be pleased with the results. If so, leave me a note. I will be very busy for several days, but can do it afterwards. One article I think could use some attention from a conservative eye, that I largely wrote, is Yellowcake forgery. Actually, the article should really be called Intelligence about Iraq and Niger uranium, with a forged documents subsection. I intend to restructure it in that fashion shortly. But after that, it would be a great place to have a go at it. I don't think it has had a good look-over from a war supporter yet, and I'm guessing you're one. So, I'd be surprised if it doesn't reflect some of my anti-war biases. Let me know, and give me a week or two before we start. Or, if that doesn't grab your fancy, I could suggest another one. Derex @ 23:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I was serious, but am hesitating at that particular article. I'm tired of the political stuff right now. Let's do something neutral but something that needs work, or something that doesn't exist. Maybe something historical? If that goes well, then maybe we can go from there. However, if I may offer a suggested edit to that page (without committing to it), the name should certainly be changed, just my OP.Gator1 01:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, let me get back to you when I've got a bit more time, couple weeks maybe. I'm a history buff, so that genre sounds good to me.

Yes, I agree about the title, I think the one I mentioned is both more neutral and more appropriate to the scope of the issue. The forgeries actually played a somewhat minor role, appearing late in the game. They just became easy symbols for flawed intelligence. Or, if you have yet another title in mind, I'd be glad to hear it. Derex @ 03:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

No, your title seems appropriate. Let's try and do a apge that neither of us knows much or anything about. Or maybe even come up with a new article to craft together. I'll start thinking of some ideas.Gator1 13:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey Gator

I read about your desire not to edit, and I understand where you're coming from. I thought I'd give you a fun suggestion:

Click on the Random article link and take a good look at the article that appears. Then read it carefully, and look for just one small change that needs to be made. It could be simple capitalization, punctuation, or italicization; it may be a poorly worded phrase or a miscast sentence. Just make the change, note it in the edit summary, and go to another random article. If no real changes are needed, don't make any for the sake of just doing it, but keep moving on. But you will find that most articles could benefit from one or two small corrections.

This is a good way to find new subjects to work on that you might not have known were interesting to you. What happens with me is, as I edit article after article, one particular page seems to beg for more research. I do a few Google searches, and after a while I am adding real content. If I lose interest, I move on.

I deliberately do not put any of these pages on my watchlist. That way, I am not tempted to see if my edits are reverted or even care about them. I just find one small way to improve many articles, and keep moving on. You can make a lot of improvements this way, and can accumulate an interesting edit history.

paul klenk

That's good advice. I have been doing the random article thing, but have just been addignthemt o my watchlist. I like your idea. Thanks.Gator1 13:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Traditionalist Catholic

I think before the page gets unprotected, a mediator would help. I suspect a whole load of meatpuppets are going to start a revert war to the 2003 version as soon as the page gets unprotected. Dominick 19:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I already polled and a outside mediator would help. In addition to your ground rules, I think getting everyone to have an equal say works. The person was alone then in the past few days he got on a website and spurred a lot of people here to "fight the good fight", sudden a lot of single edit users came on and complained I was mean. Perhaps having one post per day on one question about the article. I would love to know what the objection is beyond that it wasn't the version that was written in 2003. I hope I did not make you unobjective. Dominick 19:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Have at it, good luck. I will look for your invitation. Dominick 21:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

No objection on my part to any form of mediation; but I think those who have riled Dominick and whom Dominick has riled (I think there is no doubt about the objectivity of this statement about mutual riling) have confidence in their numbers. Lima 18:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism?

You're kidding, right? It's not vandalism to remove an attempt by a user who's under personal attack parole to disrupt Misplaced Pages by overturning the NPA rule. It's common sense. Snowspinner 15:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

You are not allowed to blank content on an article's talk page unless it is vandalism. You might disagree with the content being there, but you need to respond to it and argue against it you are not allowed to blank it. That IS considered vandalism. Please stop.Gator1 15:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

That is the stupidest definiton of vandalism I've ever heard. Removing spurious and disruptive polls isn't vandalism, it's quenching a forestfire. Snowspinner 15:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Sir/madam: Please be careful as to what you call stupid on my talk page. It is unnecesarilly hostile. Thank you.Gator1 16:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

If you want people to not be hostile, coming out of nowhere and slapping newbie test templates on their userpage instead of engaging in actual discussion is probably not the best way to start the conversation. Snowspinner 16:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that by the terms of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Njyoder, Njyoder is specifically warned not to ruleslawyer his personal attacks parole - something that trying to invalidate NPA through a spurious poll clearly is. Snowspinner 15:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

So those under a personal attack parole aren't allowed to voice disagreement the NPA rule? That makes no sense and isn't supported by any policy. In fact, that is ad hominem, a big logical fallacy. The validity of my argument or survey has nothing to do with who I am. And apparently it's common sense that a single person can overthrow a Misplaced Pages rule by themselves? Ok. Nathan J. Yoder 15:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to voice disgareement. But there's no plausible way that a consensus to overturn the rule is going to be produced, so starting a poll is straight-up disruption. Snowspinner 15:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

So then why not let the poll take place? If you notice, I also added options regarding enforcement and regarding exceptions, not simply getting it flat out overturned. Larry Sanger himself had made exceptions, so your claims are completely without merit. You're engaging in another logical fallacy, a strawman argument, by completely ignoring 3 out of 5 options offered on the survey. Nathan J. Yoder 16:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)