Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:48, 20 June 2013

Imagine a world in which every single person is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. - Jimmy Wales

Personal attacks

That reversion was not censorship and accusing me or anyone else of censorship in a normal content disagreement is a personal attack. Please read WP:NOTCENSORED to understand how we use the word. Fantasies about what historians think about the Maori don't deserve a blockquote, see WP:UNDUE. And they are fantasies, it's a fringe idea to think that the Maori brought anything from the Americas, and I can't imagine historians claiming the Maori brought horses when they know the first horses, in 1814, were a shock to the Maori. Dougweller (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Quite a mixed bag here, so let's separate things out. Firstly, for any other visitors to my humble abode, this is what he's upset about:

• 16:41, 16 January 2012‎ Dougweller (22,898 bytes) (→1421: The Year China Discovered the World: a blockquote is inappropriate for these fabrications, the Maori never saw horses before 1814 & are not credited with bringing anything from South America, etc)
• 16:19, 16 January 2012‎ Dougweller (24,005 bytes) (→1421: The Year China Discovered the World: censorship is trying to prevent things like photos of vaginas, this should not have been replaced without discussion but it certainly needs qualifications)
• 15:16, 16 January 2012‎ Silent Key (23,997 bytes) (No - we don't do censorship here. You're free to add any qualifications you feel necessary.)
• 12:05, 16 January 2012‎ Dougweller (22,236 bytes) (not sure this is appropriate, unless we can word it to make it clear these are his unfounded claims (eg the Maori never saw horses before Marsden brought them from Australia in 1814))
• 11:37, 16 January 2012‎ Silent Key (23,997 bytes) (→1421: The Year China Discovered the World)

Now his arguments:

Quote: "That reversion was not censorship"

• According to the rules given in WP:NOTCENSORED, yes it was.

Quote: "and accusing me or anyone else of censorship in a normal content disagreement is a personal attack."

• Then accusing me of being a fantasist is a personal attack. Your character is of no interest to me. Your action was censorship, so it was not "a normal content disagreement".

Quote: "Please read WP:NOTCENSORED to understand how we use the word."

• I understand perfectly well how Misplaced Pages uses the word, but your edit summary statement "censorship is trying to prevent things like photos of vaginas" is not an accurate definition at all. So it's best to read WP:NOTCENSORED yourself.

Quote: "Fantasies about what historians think about the Maori don't deserve a blockquote, see WP:UNDUE."

• It was precisely because of the WP:UNDUE policy that the Menzies block quote was necessary. It would be undue in an article on the Maoris, but the article is about Menzies and his opinions. At the time that you removed Menzies' block quote, the article already contained block quotes from Tan Ta Sen, president of the International Zheng He Society, historian Robert Finlay, a group of scholars and navigators including: Su Ming Yang of the United States, Jin Guo-Ping of Portugal, Philip Rivers of Malaysia, Malhão Pereira and Geoff Wade of Singapore. The views of numerous others were also represented. All of these were hostile to, or critics of, Menzies' theory, leaving readers in no doubt at all what the mainstream position is. The only person who didn't get to present his testimony (as opposed to one rhetorical question) was Menzies himself - the subject of the article. This made it impossible for readers of the article to assess first-hand what was actually being debunked. It's true that Wikipedians generally dislike crackpots, but they absolutely despise self-appointed thought-police restricting what they can read. Indeed, at the time of your revert, Misplaced Pages users were preparing for a 24-hour blackout to protest such suppression, so you'd be unlikely to get much support in arbitration.

Quote: "And they are fantasies, it's a fringe idea to think that the Maori brought anything from the Americas, and I can't imagine historians claiming the Maori brought horses when they know the first horses, in 1814, were a shock to the Maori."

• This statement merely proves my point: that your revert was motivated by hostility to an idea, not by a desire to improve an article or correct another editor's errors. And what you can or can't imagine is irrelevant - personal incredulity is not evidence. I am perfectly aware that this is fringe. The Menzies article already had tags and refutations, otherwise I would have added them. In my article on Hugh Harleston Jr., for example, I tagged it as pseudo from the very beginning. The horse thing was there purely because that's the 1421 extract Menzies himself showcases on his website. It could have said absolutely anything for all I care. Why he's chosen horses as opposed to, say, the peer-reviewed stuff on anomalous finds of Easter Island chicken bones, I simply can't say. But all this is between you and Menzies, so take it to his website forum. I didn't write Menzies' book. God alone knows why you're posting your views on Maori history on my page. Silent Key (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of ViXra

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on ViXra requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of ViXra for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ViXra is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/ViXra until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Nightmare Vacation

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Nightmare Vacation, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. I am One of Many (talk) 05:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello. The page I created was an innocent redirect - Nightmare Vacation is just the UK title of Sleepaway Camp. The later vandalism was nothing to do with me and I knew nothing about it. Silent Key (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

Please do not violate WP:TALKNO as you did by posting insulting images of clowns at Talk:Cold fusion. The article talk page is only for discussion about article improvement. If you are getting that frustrated with the process then feel free to take your concerns to WP:DRN or another higher forum. Binksternet (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

No clowns allowed? You could've fooled the shit out of me. Silent Key (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I've proposed to split the cold fusion article and welcome your opinion. It seems to me we've made it much to complicated. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 06:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

This is canvassing. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Your behavior is that of a troll running people off the article RWolfie. I'm just asking the editor to come back. You should go clown elsewhere. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 10:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Energy Catalyzer

Your recent editing history at Energy Catalyzer shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)