Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:41, 19 February 2008

15 January 2025
From the editors: Looking back, looking forward Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2024 In the media: Will you be targeted? Technology report: New Calculator template brings interactivity at last Essay: Meet the Canadian who holds the longest editing streak on Misplaced Pages Opinion: Reflections one score hence News and notes: It's a new dawn, it's a new day, it's a new life for me... and I'm feeling free Serendipity: What we've left behind, and where we want to go next Op-ed: Elon Musk and the right on Misplaced Pages In focus: Twenty years of The Signpost: What did it take? Arbitration report: Analyzing commonalities of some contentious topics Humour: How to make friends on Misplaced Pages
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Archives

1, 2, 3

Obama fundraising

Better? --HailFire 23:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Obama discussion page

I would like to explain to you that this is not a forum for the selling of products or the electioneering of political candidates. Misplaced Pages is a neutral place, and the discussion section is not the place to call folk names, and not for quashing discussion, I am going to report you for vandalism. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Disam of Evangelist

How many of these did you do? I find it hard to believe anyone could confuse the Four Evangelists and Evangelism, but you have managed it. Please check your contribution & correct the mistakes. Johnbod (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup, periodically I mess up.:) But thanks for the rather non-descript problem report. Perhaps if you gave an example of an article where I messed up I might be able to actually do something about it, but alas, your problem report is crap.;) --Bobblehead 02:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

See any of my recent contributions before I gave up correcting yours - I was a bit harsh - I see you got better as you went along. Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Media coverage of anti-Obama whisper campaigns

That's certainly a better way to handle it. Thanks. --HailFire (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Mike Huckabee Merge Proposal

Please comment on merging Mike Huckabee controversies into Mike Huckabee here ] Jmegill (talk) 09:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Lou D'A

Thanks. Never seen that before (but can never say that again). Cheers --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible?

I know Misplaced Pages is uncensored, and I personally have thick skin, but do you think it's possible that you could make your point without saying Jesus fucking Christ? If it was about any other religion, say, "Mohammed fucking Islam", you could easily be blocked for racism, or at the very least insensitivity. Please consider toning it down. I've never edited Mitt Romney, I don't have a problem with you, or the article, or your contribs, I simply stumbled into your comment and was struck by your irreverance. Cool it, dude. This is a volunteer project after all, no need for the added drama. Lay off the "goddamns" , etc... Keeper | 76 22:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh. No prob. The usage wasn't religion related, just the ole profanity for profanity's sake.;) Mostly did it to get their attention. The article had just come off a full edit-protection and they went right back to fighting in edit summaries rather than actually discuss the edits. So figured I'd give 'em a good slap to get their attention. --Bobblehead 22:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

re: Comments on Talk:Hillary Clinton

Mactographer, I would also suggest that you apologize to the editors of the Hillary Rodham Clinton article for your rather uneducated comment about them being sockpuppets of the Clinton campaign. If you take a look at the edit history for the Giuliani and McCain articles you will find that many of the editors on the Clinton article and talk page were also the ones (particularly Wasted Time R) that were in large part responsible for the dismantling of the Criticism section and/or articles in those articles. What you see reflected on the Clinton article and on many other politician articles, is a general dislike of criticism sections that has been applied across party lines and without regard to a person's political beliefs and/or practices. --Bobblehead 23:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You are reading into my comment. I didn't suggest ANY particular Wiki editor was a sock puppet. But as we have proof that IP addresses from the Clinton campaign have been used as sock puppets, it's not a stretch to imagine the same thing might be happening here. Yet to state such was ill advised of me to post, so for that I apologize. And yes, some editors have started to dismantle GOP candidate criticisms subcategories ... now that it has become painfully obvious that, for the sake of ostensible fairness, they need to be addressed in the same fashion as the democratic listings which have been so zealously protected. --Mactographer (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. However, for what any and all editors are doing now to remove ALL criticism sub categories, they are to be commended. --Mactographer (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comments were obviously aimed at the editors of the article in general and were inappropriate regardless of the actions of the Clinton campaign off-wiki (who are not alone in using sockpuppets to spread propaganda on their candidate's behalf). As for the reasons behind getting rid of the criticism sections in the other articles, it had nothing to do with "fairness". We were just tired of other editors coming to the various talk pages to whine about X not having a criticism section when Y does have a criticism section and then not actually doing anything fix the other articles. It is not the responsibility of the editors of the Hillary Clinton article to fix the problems on the Mike Huckabee or GWB articles it is up to the editors of that page. If you are an editor on those pages, or feel that the articles need to be improved, it is your responsibility to fix the articles, not ours. However, if you need assistance with the removal of these sections, you are more than welcome to come to any of our talk pages (or Clinton's talk page) and notify us of your actions and we will be glad to assist you. --Bobblehead 01:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

In the broadest sense of who my comments were aimed as, yes... but your original comment pointed out particular editors as if I was aiming it directly at them. And I already agreed that one portion of my comment as ill advised and I apologized as seen above. How many pounds of flesh do you want from me? As for whining about X vs. Y, I've seen the same in Y vs. X ... you even make the point for me by whining about "others" uses of sock puppets. --Mactographer (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't notice your redaction on Hillary's talk page until after I had posted my message. ;) You're more than welcome to tell anyone that complains on an article's talk page about the content of another article to take it up with the editors of the other article and/or fix the other article themselves. --Bobblehead 01:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

TfD Romney Giuliani

I agree with your TfDs of the redundant Romney and Giuliani templates, but I don't think you got the formatting right on the TfD nom. I'v done it before and there is some automated code somewhere (like AfDs) that formatts it so the names are clearly separated. I'd try and do it, but 1. I'd probably screw it up, 2. I don't know if you meant to do it the way you did. If you'd want me to restart it, preserving yours and Justmeherenow's comments, I'd give it a shot. Mbisanz (talk) 06:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

OK

Justmeherenow (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

John Edwards

I was not stating the article as fact - I was simply stating that the Enquirer reported it. It is up to the user to decide if the article is true or not, I was simply stating the fact that it was reported. 5minutes (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, according to Misplaced Pages Guidelines, "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links". As I made no claim as to the article being true or false, the simple report of the report cannot be considered derogatory. Besides, I don't see "The National Enquirer" on any list of "not allowed" sources. Could you point me to a list of sources not considered "OK" so I know in the future? 5minutes (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, no list of "don't use these sources". How about The Daily Mail? (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=503463&in_page_id=1811) How about FindIt News (http://news.finditt.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=30959&cat=5)? I can understand you guys being so cautious about sockpuppets, but come on. It wasn't a statement of fact. It was a statement that a tabloid had reported it. No conclusions. 5minutes (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Your accusations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Bobblehead, at my talk page, you made a lengthy accusation against me, including this: “Your first three edits on the article were clear BLP violations for using an unreliable source that heavily edited a reliable source to advance a position.”

I would like to kindly ask you to reconsider and withdraw your accusation, please. The so-called “unreliable source” that you accuse me of using is an Associated Press article here (including an attribution to the San Jose Mercury News at the bottom). This so-called unreliable source is verbatim identical to the same article published in USA Today. Do you really want to accuse me of deliberately using an unreliable corrupted version of an article?

While you've been somewhat uncivil to me in the past, I hope we can have a fresh start.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

How is this comment as referenced immediately above an example of Bobblehead being uncivil to anyone, let alone you, Ferrylodge? He was explaining a comment he had made elsewhere and in fact specifically stated when you asked if it was directed at you that his comment was not directed at any one editor, but at the group. So why are you bringing this up here now as an example of incivility to you? Tvoz |talk 07:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, you have seriously got to stop mislinking to unrelated comments and saying it supports a statement you make. I've seen you do it several times in the last 48 hours and I know you have done it repeatedly throughout your editing career here on Misplaced Pages. It is extremely frustrating to have to explain oneself in order to counter one of your incorrect linking and ultimately sends people down pointless bunny trails. It is best if you stop doing it altogether, because it ultimately hurts your position. But on a constructive criticism front, you are an exceedingly difficult editor to work with because of your consistently inaccurate characterization of events and "convenient" forgetting of explanations when you drag up your inaccurate characterizations and you need to work on not drawing conclusions from unrelated events and including it to further a point your trying to make. But since you have mislinked again and "forgotten" my explanation, I will explain it to you again. Keeper76 was more concerned with my choice of words and had nothing to do with any incivility towards you or any other editor, so using Keeper76s comments has nothing to do with me being uncivil towards you. As I explained to you on Mitt Romney's talk page, the choice of wording was not aimed at you or any other editor specifically and as I explained to Keeper76, the wording was done to get the attention of those participating in the edit war preceding the comment and was not about getting hot. --Bobblehead 08:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Bobblehead, you said that your "Jesus Fucking Christ" comment was directed to "all involved," which includes me, and you were rightly chastised for it. I'm sorry you don't seem to realize that.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for supporting my point of you inaccurately characterizing something by linking to something that does not have anything to do with what your saying. Keeper76 chastised me for the wording, not for being uncivil towards any editor. Now bugger off, this discussion is over. You are more than welcome to post on my talk page on any other topic, but you are not welcome to continue this discussion on my talk page. --Bobblehead 08:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

BLP != wrecking ball

Re: "First and only warning" to Ferrylodge: do not use BLP as a wrecking ball in an edit dispute: . Adding that someone filibustered a bill is not a BLP issue; and neither is senate.gov an unreliable site. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't an editing dispute, or at least, I didn't think it was, it was more Ferrylodge being Ferrylodge and trying to force his wording onto an article prior to actually discussing the content. As far as the BLP violation, there is no disagreeing that Obama voted against cloture, that was not the BLP violation. The BLP violation occurred when Ferrylodge used the reliable source of the Senate and the reprint of a reliable source from an unreliable source that I incorrectly thought had been heavily edited (found the article in another source and it was longer with more detail) to make it appear that Obama was being contrary to his stance on filibusters by voting against the cloture. It was this synthesis of two different sources to further a point that was a violation of BLP. I included in an edit summary I considered Ferrylodge's construction to be a synthesis, which is not allowable under BLP and his response was to add a period between two halves of the sentence and called it good. There was a bit of a timing issue at this point as Ferrylodge was leaving a message on the talk page asking what the C portion of A+B=C was, I was reverting his addition as a synthesis again. Then, as per usual with Ferrylodge, rather than wait for a response on the talk page, he re-added his content while I was responding to his question about what position he was furthering. Unfortunately, my talk page comment never actually made it on the talk page because I got an edit conflict from his follow on talk page message saying he'd resolved the synthesis, so I spent some time investigating his claim and then looking for reliable sources that could be used to include Ferrylodge's content in a manner that wasn't a synthesis rather than saving a talk page message that according to Ferrylodge wasn't necessary any longer. --Bobblehead 21:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

2008 Democratic candidates

Thanks Bobblehead. After having checked those numbers, Clinton definitely is the 'current' front-runner. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Obama's tempate

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll look through these a bit to sample how others have handled it. If I can't improve on the previous design, I'll self-revert. --HailFire (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Done now. Thanks again for the gentle guidance, always welcome. --HailFire (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge

Is edit warring on the Mitt Romney page again. As part of the consensus agreement I was wondering if you would weigh in? Turtlescrubber (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

So, I am leaving wikipedia. Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Reindexing (Mc to Mac)

I understood, based on notes such as:

"Please index as Mac----, i.e. with an 'a', to assist category sorting"

on other articles that this was necessary for "category sorting"; I'll hold off until an admin OKs this, but the reindexing on surnames starting with O' (O'M or O'H, for instance, to Om or Oh) has already been completed by other editors, so I was sticking to the "Mc" surnames. Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I first became aware of the Mc/Mac situation on Martin McGuinness' article. I did the research back and found the entry (see ) from 22:45, 15 April 2006, where the note first appeared about the category sorting (Mac, not Mc). Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ann's Picture

Ok. But please fix it so that it does not mess up the text. The easiest way is to put it at the bottom but I agree with your point. Can you fix the text so that it moves back up where it should be? Anappealtoheaven (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you mean by messing up the text? I'm sure it has to do with the resolution of your monitor, because I'm not seeing anything wrong with the text, but if you tell me what is wrong with the text, I can try and fix the issue for you. --Bobblehead 19:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Response

I have decided to outright indefinitely block the user for long-term abuse. I'll alter the comment in just a second. But thank you for your comment.--Jersey Devil (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: re-reverted

I'm confused. The table says that its sources include the New York Times and CNN. CNN does have the South Carolina delegate counts, and the table does not specify which source is for which column yet you think that the particular column in question should only use the New York Times as a source. Why?--Margareta (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. I wonder if there is a way of clarifying this?--Margareta (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note.

And you're right. I shouldn't have replied to him. I got a bit pissed off when he threatened to drag the article into mediation if he doesn't get his way, and felt obliged to respond. But I do realize it didn't accomplish anything, and I won't be responding to him again, unless or until he chooses to disrupt the main article, or drag the thing to mediation. -- Bellwether _C 21:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

for your help fixing my references Corey Salzano (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Seattle MLS categories

I think we should keep

• Category:Major League Soccer teams
• Category:Sports in Seattle

both are relevant categories, even if they are higher level. Oh Snap (talk) 06:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I added Category:Seattle Major League Soccer team to Template:Seattle Major League Soccer team and then added Category:Major League Soccer teams and Category:Sports in Seattle to the Seattle MLS category. This means that adding MLS teams and Sports in Seattle to the article is redundant because Seattle MLS is a sub-category of those categories. If you'd like we could move the Seattle MLS category off the template and put it on the page to make the category visible on the page, but adding the other categories to the page seems redundant to me. --Bobblehead 07:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Edwards

Here is a source saying he ended his campaign. HoosierState 22:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I just read further down the article and then it talks about him suspending his campaign. That article contradicts itself, I'm confused now.... HoosierState 22:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

mmm good point

but quoting sources properly is important to the whole 'sourced' thing --<*poof*> 22:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.235.64.30 (talk • contribs)

democratic delegate counts

put off any decision on removing NYT from sources till tommarrow.

Due to different allocations of superdelegates, and other numbers, this template has always had multiple sources. NYT takes more time than other sources to adjust their counts, due to the complex rules of each states delegate calculation. The only reason to move to CNN at this hour would be that they currently give BO higher numbers than HC. All sources will reflect new numbers in the morning.--68.243.140.63 (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Michelle Obama GA

Thanks for contributing to the effort at Michelle Obama. You may want to put this on your user page:

This user helped promote Michelle Obama to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton

Please take the difference of opinion on Hillary Clinton with User:Zzalzzal to the talk page. I've asked Zzalzzal to stop edit warring and go to the talk page, too, warning that he's close to being blocked. --TS 19:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Your behavior towards me and others on the Hillary Clinton page violates[REDACTED] rules and policies

This is a warning regarding your violations of[REDACTED] policies and rules on the Hillary Clinton page.
WastedTime and Bobblehead have refused to engage in discussion and have simply asserted their will multiple times (by reverting changes (on Jan 18, 19, Feb. 1, 7, 18 - Bobblehead reverted the changes only on Feb. 18) I made – they refused to respond to my discussion attempts (made on Jan 6 and Jan 19) regarding reporting Iowa Democratic Caucus results to two decimal points). This and other actions of theirs have violated the law and spirit of[REDACTED] policies and rules, including “gaming the system”, “"Abuse of process “, “Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own novel view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community.” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system), and “clearly fail to respect "consensus" on this issue, given that no disagreements were expressed in the discussions on this issue I had initiated on Jan 6 and Jan 19 (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Consensus. Additionally, both Bobblehead and WastedTime on Feb. 18 appear to have acted in concert so that neither one would be in violation of the “three revert” rule – which would also be a violation of the spirit of this rule. Yes, I broke the 3 reverts rule, unknowingly. In contrast, WastedTime and Bobblehead were aware of the rule and violated the spirit of it, as well as engaging in violation of the law and spirit of other rules and policies. It was very disingenuous of Bobblehead to have me blocked for violating the “three-revert” rule (and this prevented me from participating in the discussion they initiated on Feb. 18), when both Bobblehead and WastedTime themselves are guilty of violating it and other rules. Greater documentation related to this issue is on my Talk page. Zzalzzal (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)