Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:54, 15 October 2008

Welcome!

Hello, Drmies! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions to this 💕. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Eric Wester 03:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Getting started Misplaced Pages tutorial • The five pillars of Misplaced Pages • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Judgmental comments

Drmies, welcome to Misplaced Pages. Your edits have been extremely helpful at cleaning up a number of articles. Messy, poorly-edited pieces are a huge problem here, not the the least because of piecemeal changes without an eye for narrative, and simple sloppiness on the part of contributors. Nonetheless, I think you should refrain from making judgments and dismissive comments about articles. Referring to things as "terrible," "messy," "horrible," or any similar terms is really unnecessary, adding a sense of know-it-all-ism and disdain for others that benefits no one. Moreover, it may very well scare away contributors who would benefit from not necessarily a polite correction, but rather a succinct and objective one. Furthermore, it's in no way specific, so really tells other editors only your opinion.

Thank you, Stakhanov 20:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add that some of your edits:

1. don't work because of properties of the Wiki which you may not be familiar with, or
2. violate Wikipdedia style guidelines, although they undoubtably read better.

See my changes to your edits in Golden ratio for what I see as the problems. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Arundhati Roy

Thanks for updating her page now it is expressing her all information including critical one also.I regret my act but I was fed up with user ::Zencv who was just not allowing us to include her latest alleged controversial act.Thanks a lot.

Kashmir separatism support by Roy

Hi, thanks for your comment on my talk page and also the remarkable work in cleaning up the vandals in Arundhati Roy. But IMO, the statement "but Roy is not alone in her support for Kashmiri independence: mainstream editors such as Vir Sanghvi, executive editor of the mass-circulation Hindustan Times, have argued similarly" seems irrelevant. Any opinion? Zencv 22:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

New?

You seem too experienced to be a new user; did you use to edit from another account?

Cheers mate!

Λuα 11:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Aua. I'll take that as a compliment! Thanks! No, I am actually fairly new, though I dabbled on Misplaced Pages for a few months before getting an account. I actually kind of believe in the Misplaced Pages project, you know. But I'm, well, an English professor, and, as we say in Dutch, a comma-f***er, so I do this stuff professionally. I need to learn the Wiki codes and all that, that's for sure, though a bit of HTML knowledge has helped. Keep the faith! Drmies (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

roy

1 ) That doesnt matter whether some non-notable policeman bought forest land. Roy has postured herself as a defender of tribals and aboriginal rights, and her critics take that move as hypocrisy (which it may or may not be). We can note three others, but its irrelevant who the non-notables are because of how this appears to some to contradict Roy's crusades for aboriginal rights. This interview in the left wing rag the Guardian should explain what I mean .

2) The burden of proof does not actually rest on me for that. See you are making the statement that newspapers havent covered it. Unless a news article actually notes that coverage has ceased, its unsourced (and as this column in the Daily Pioneer proves, untrue to boot).Pectore 22:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

re 1--It does matter. A police official doing something illegal? BTW, not a police official--the article states clearly, a doctor who works for the police and a forest official. A forest official, mind you, building on forest land. (There is a discrepancy between the article in the Telegraph the the one in the Times of India, but there's no police official.) What you could argue (but there are no facts to support this, only suspicions) is that Roy is working very well with the establishment--police and forest overseers--but that would be a strange claim to make for you, since you wish to paint her as an extremist. Extremists don't work with such notables (and notable they must be, if only in their own community).

re 2--Of course that burden lies with you. Finding a source to prove that no source says anything, that is illogical. Now, but you don't say this, and you should have, there is a sort of a follow-up, on 26 June 2006, which claims that action would have had to be taken by 7 July--of 2006. Now, sir, I ask of you: what happened on or after 7 July 2006? Nothing, it seems, which suggests that nothing was made of it. (Whether that is good or bad for the forest is another matter). If anything had happened, it would be all over the papers, and certainly all over that sify website. It's not. Moreover, you introduced a grammatical error (lack of subject-verb agreement) and two punctuation errors (a comma separating subject and predicate, and a sentence ending with two periods ). Moving that note to the middle of the sentence also makes little sense--it should be at the end of the sentence, or even further down.

As soon as you make the case that the newspapers have covered something on those bungalows since the charge and the deadline (which was quite some time ago--more than two years) you can claim that there's really something there. In the meantime, the claim that the newspapers haven't said anything more stands--it is a factually correct statement, with the serious implication that this simply wasn't such a big deal, no matter how much you want to suggest. And besides, if this is such a big deal, why don't you add the note to the article on Vikram Seth also? I'll do you a favor and correct the errors, move the two references around (so they are in the correct chronological order), and adjust a word or two. You'll have to live with it, until you find evidence that this is more than a neighborly dispute. And you'll see that I'm actually finding a middle route here between Roy detractors who will latch on to anything to blacken her character and those who take facts more seriously than innuendo. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

1) I dont paint Roy in any way. However, notice how the title's all point to Roy, and Seth's sister. Because this is somewhat contradictory to Roy's "work" among tribals, the Hindu nationalists and other critics term it "hypocrisy". If the other people were notable, they would name the forest official. The fact the newspapers disagree on who the other law breaker was merely further proves their irrelevancy. As for Seth, if it was remotely related to his notability (as in people criticized Vikram Seth for it) then yes, I would make a note. So far I haven't yet seen such an article.

2) That burden does not lie with me. Unless you have read every newspaper in India (and keep in mind Hindi and other languages have more circulation than English language ones), which I of course doubt is humanly possible, then there is no way to prove it has not been covered. You do need a source, since you are making the assertion. I am removing the unsourced assertion that "newspapers have not covered it in the last two years". That is of course a legitimate edit, as opposed to an unprovable and sneaky phrase to minimize a very notable incident. The point is that criticism came of the incident, and if you are correct about it not being covered now, thats because it was an incident. Also, I'm not even sure what Sify has to do with this, or what it really is, but I'm guessing some partisan drivel that Raulmisir wants to cite?

3) Misplaced Pages isn't a class on English mechanics, and I really could care less about my punctuation and grammar as long as it looks right. The page is never going to be an FA if you insist on apologizing for every one of Roy's missteps. It will be an FA if the page notes correctly the controversies that came of Roy's actions. I'm noting how it was perceived in the media, and the criticism she received in a dispassionate manner, with no coloring of the issue, and no apologizing for her actions. Pectore 16:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Pectore, it's pretty useless trying to argue logic with you. I'll try to keep it simple: if you want to prove that something has been in the news, you have to show a news item that shows that something. That's pretty elementary. If you want to claim, explicitly or implicitly, that this somehow still matters, you have to prove it. Basic logic. Once again, if something is notable, it will be noted. This wasn't notable and isn't noted anymore.

You're right--Misplaced Pages isn't a class (?) on English mechanics (you mean spelling and grammar?): contributors to Misplaced Pages should take that class before they just start typing. The ungrammaticality of your contributions and their lack of structural and logical cohesion say enough about the actual content of your remarks. BTW, the claim that you are giving some uncolored perspective is a bit conceited. Your bias is obvious. But I'm done with you. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The Bachelors

Thanks for the confirmation that I was not wrong to revert this article in the past. I stopped because of the 3 revert rule and because I can be accused of being biased (although I do have issues with Dec Cluskey that doesn't mean I wish to rewrite history or Misplaced Pages inaccurately). Perhaps you'd like to see my comments at Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard. Again many thanks for edits. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oliver Bridge

I see that you've made a comment on the talk page of the article on Oliver J Bridge. An AfD discussion is currently ongoing: you're welcome to contribute at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Oliver J Bridge. — Lincolnite (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

re:

thanks to you too, its encouraging that there are others out there to counter the chauvinism at wikipedia. --Soman (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent AfD on Christianity and Judaism

Hi! I see that you were one of the participants in the recent AfD on the article Christianity and Judaism. That AfD recommended (in a snowball result) that the article be merged into Judeo-Christian. However, since the AfD concerns have been raised, most notably

• Per WP:ADJECTIVE and WP:MOSNAME, we use nouns and noun-phrases for article titles, not adjectives. So a general survey on the relationships between Christianity and Judaism (a topic this encyclopedia should certainly cover) should be called Christianity and Judaism, as per the articles Christianity and Islam, Islam and Judaism.
• The reason the article Judeo-Christian exists, as its own hatnote declares, is specifically to survey the history and use of that word-phrase -- which has its own controversy, and its own tale to tell. (See here where I've set things out in a bit more detail.) That story is a good fit for its own article, and will get completely lost if the contents of Christianity and Judaism get inappropriately dumped on top of it.

Having contacted the closing admin, his advice was to open a new discussion at Talk:Christianity and Judaism, advertise the discussion widely, and if a new consensus can be reached in that discussion , then per WP:CCC the new consensus should be followed, rather than the AfD decision, without the need for a DRV or a new AfD.

Concerns about the proposed merge have also been expressed by Slrubenstein (talk · contribs), LisaLiel (talk · contribs) and SkyWriter (talk · contribs).

This post is therefore to let you know that that discussion is underway, at Talk:Christianity and Judaism#Overly speedy deletion, with a view to perhaps setting aside the AfD decision.

Of course, some significant issues were raised in the AfD about the article in its present form, so the best way forward is a question that needs some thought. Please feel welcome to come and participate! Jheald (talk) 07:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Honey And Thyme

I believe your various delete votes were made in the best of good faith. The question though, is in the nom's good faith.. not your own. The nom's very first act within seconds of the account being created... before making a spelling correction... before adding a source to an article... before making a comment at a discussion... before asking a question of another editor... before themself partcipating in an AfD discussion... was to nominate an article for AfD. Not quite what is seen from a newcomer to Wiki. After a WP:SPA was alluded to by User:Cumulus Clouds, the nom made a few edits to other "S" articles and actually found a few that were truely deficient in notability. This in and of itself makes me question the entire following pattern of nominations. I have since asked input from Admins and Checkusers. Schmidt, 02:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. But whatever H&T's story is, these articles should be notable in their own right. I believe they are not--that's just my opinion, which is not based on any affiliation to H&T (though I am a great fan of honey and of thyme, especially when coupled with a rack of lamb). Thanks again for your note, Drmies (talk) 02:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)