Misplaced Pages

User talk:Cyclopia: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:15, 12 December 2010 editCyclopia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers12,117 edits →We do censor information and we show self-restraint every day: also← Previous edit Revision as of 12:21, 12 December 2010 edit undoViriditas (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers170,051 edits →We do censor information and we show self-restraint every day: +Next edit →
Line 524: Line 524:
:I thought you might miss the connection. WELLKNOWN is only one of many examples of the policies in action that contradicts your opinion. It says that we rely on a ''multitude of reliable published sources'', IOW, not primary sources. Those sources must also report on a topic that is notable, relevant, and well-documented, i.e. not a primary source. These are not exceptions for BLP's, in fact, this is how we use primary sources, very carefully, if at all, and usually only when it is not controversial or sensitive. I am telling you this here, because when we communicate with a user, we use their talk page. In any case, please answer the question posed above: Why don't we link to and discuss the stolen, leaked e-mails and documents on the Climatic Research Unit email controversy page? The answer is simple. We don't write articles based on primary sources. You are, in fact, encouraging people to misuse primary sources, which is a Bad Thing. ] (]) 12:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC) :I thought you might miss the connection. WELLKNOWN is only one of many examples of the policies in action that contradicts your opinion. It says that we rely on a ''multitude of reliable published sources'', IOW, not primary sources. Those sources must also report on a topic that is notable, relevant, and well-documented, i.e. not a primary source. These are not exceptions for BLP's, in fact, this is how we use primary sources, very carefully, if at all, and usually only when it is not controversial or sensitive. I am telling you this here, because when we communicate with a user, we use their talk page. In any case, please answer the question posed above: Why don't we link to and discuss the stolen, leaked e-mails and documents on the Climatic Research Unit email controversy page? The answer is simple. We don't write articles based on primary sources. You are, in fact, encouraging people to misuse primary sources, which is a Bad Thing. ] (]) 12:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
::{{ec}}I asked for this to be on AN/I because it related to the whole thread. Anyway, again: this is specific, narrow, exceptional BLP policy. It is an exception, otherwise it wouldn't be called "BLP policy" but "subject-wide policy". For example, about sensitive primary sources: we actually publish the original images -a primary source themselves- of the ]. This despite there have been concerns, even by public health officers, that such publication is dangerous because it makes one of the most important psychological tests potentially useless. Guess what? Several multiple RfCs on the subject firmly rejected censorship of such images. Now, if you want a restrictive policy to apply to leaked documents, start a RfC and seek consensus, it would be much more productive than chatting with me. You're not going to convince me on that, and citing me BLP policy is nonsensical when dealing with non-BLPs. You're encouraging censorship, and this is a '''worse thing'''. (About the emails, I don't know because I wouldn't touch climate change articles with a kilometer-long stick, given the editing hell within them: but I suspect in ''that'' case there are BLP concerns -them being private documents of living people, for example- that here do not arise). --]] 12:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC) ::{{ec}}I asked for this to be on AN/I because it related to the whole thread. Anyway, again: this is specific, narrow, exceptional BLP policy. It is an exception, otherwise it wouldn't be called "BLP policy" but "subject-wide policy". For example, about sensitive primary sources: we actually publish the original images -a primary source themselves- of the ]. This despite there have been concerns, even by public health officers, that such publication is dangerous because it makes one of the most important psychological tests potentially useless. Guess what? Several multiple RfCs on the subject firmly rejected censorship of such images. Now, if you want a restrictive policy to apply to leaked documents, start a RfC and seek consensus, it would be much more productive than chatting with me. You're not going to convince me on that, and citing me BLP policy is nonsensical when dealing with non-BLPs. You're encouraging censorship, and this is a '''worse thing'''. (About the emails, I don't know because I wouldn't touch climate change articles with a kilometer-long stick, given the editing hell within them: but I suspect in ''that'' case there are BLP concerns -them being private documents of living people, for example- that here do not arise). --]] 12:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
:::Sorry, but you are mistaken. I have 90,000 edits and I've never once encouraged censorship on any topic. You are free to find ''one''. What I am encouraging is the use of secondary sources, good ones, for all of our articles, and that encouragement stems from our best practices ''inherent'' in all aspects of the policies, from BLP to NOR, and more. You seem to think that the limitation on using primary sources is an exception, but it is not. As for your claims about private documents of living people, how is that not the case in the cablegate documents? ] (]) 12:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:21, 12 December 2010

Hello Cyclopia and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Hope you like it here, and stick around.


Noloop's POV vis-a-vis Christ myth theory

Here he adds the Christ myth theory into the top (second paragraph, 4th full sentence) of the lead of Historical Jesus. I think this is pretty clear. My point is that pushing this POV as aggressively as he's been doing is disruptive to the encyclopedia. It is a recognized fringe POV.Griswaldo (talk) 11:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I know it is a fringe POV, and yes, pushing it in the lead is not a good idea at all. I wouldn't call the guy "aggressive", he is doing it wrong but aggressive POV pushers are another breed. I would probably move all the "Criticism as myth" section in Historicity of Jesus#Jesus as myth. By the way, isn't it possible to merge the two articles? You probably know better than me why they are separated. --Cyclopia 12:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Meetup Cambridge 8

Misplaced Pages:Meetup/Cambridge 8 will be on Saturday 24 July. As you may have seen. Hope to see you there. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Infinite-loop motif

Hi, I happened to notice that you took on my problem child, Infinite-loop motif. Good of you to do that, and I completely understand your motivation. In fact, I have been contemplating writing an academic paper on the subject which would provide at least one reference for it, which would be, paper and WP article, an excellent example of the concept itself. In any case, I am somewhat troubled by its deletion by moving to your user space. The problem is this: that article was intertwined into at least a dozen other articles in such a way that the references cannot easily be redone, and more, it has references all over the WWW. The proper deletion of the article is actually a monumental task, and I do not know how to estimate the effect of its precipitous deletion. Not sure what to do about this.--Jarhed (talk) 09:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand what the problem is about. --Cyclopia 14:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it is not a problem and I am worrying too much. It's just that now there are a bunch of red links on a bunch of arts pages that no longer make sense, if they made any sense in the first place.Jarhed (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 26 July 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Cyclopia, thank you very much for your comments and input, at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant. You make a very good point that the "region" includes millions of persons, and the subject matter has been significantly covered in WP:RS sources. It is indeed confusing and seems poking at double-standards that some other users seem to be splitting hairs here in an attempt to get this article removed from Misplaced Pages. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome! Please join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Restaurant_notability just in case. --Cyclopia 10:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Nod, a bit weary due to the multiple various forum-shopping-type locations where individuals have chosen to start discussions (at the same exact time in four or so places about this article) in order to have a forum to attack me. Perhaps later. Cheers. -- Cirt (talk) 10:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved from policy talk page

If you have the feeling I misrepresent your opinion, please accept my apologies. This is definitely not what I want. It is probably a case of simple misunderstanding. --Cyclopia 18:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Well I'm not offended I'm just past the point that I think a productive conversation can happen between us. There is no need to apologize but just know that I intend not to engage you as in interlocutor if possible because its causing me way too much frustration. Have a good one.Griswaldo (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, fine. I'm sorry to frustrate you. --Cyclopia 19:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Historical Jesus: Arbitration

Discuss. Noloop (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I will comment as soon as I have time. --Cyclopia 19:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Another list of sources

Because of a recent unblock request posted on AN/I I noticed this User talk:Eugeneacurry. He has addressed the source concern directly. Hope that helps. I do think it was Bill who provided the other more extensive list.Griswaldo (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the heads up, I commented on it on Talk:Historicity of Jesus. Looks good. --Cyclopia 13:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Since you're in quote-collecting business: Noloop (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Jesus Mediation

Noloop (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Noloop, this is forum shopping. I have tried to help you, but your behaviour doesn't help nor you, nor your concerns. Please stop. --Cyclopia 18:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
No, it's attempt at dispute resolution. You flatly refuse to acknowledge that being fringe differs from being in the minority. We cannot agree. Ergo, mediation. I can't imagine where you get the idea that it is being "solved" in the Talk pages. Noloop (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
It is solved because all your requests have been answered, except one that is irrelevant to the treatment of the subject as fringe theory. You are asking the same thing again and again in N forums, and this is forum shopping. Stick at one venue. --Cyclopia 18:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
None of my requests have been answered. You excerpted a single sentence, out of context, from WP:FRINGE and ignored my points in response. Nobody has provided secular, peer-reviewed sources that say it's a fact Jesus existed. Nobody has provided a secular, peer-reviewed basis for saying that Christ myth theory belongs in the realm of Holocaust denial. There continues to be immediate reversion, ala edit-warring, of any attempt to attribute the Chrsitian nature of 90% of our sources. NOthing has been resolved at all. Noloop (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
No, I didn't ignore them. I have read your points in response and they were irrelevant. Now:
  • Nobody has provided secular, peer-reviewed sources that say it's a fact Jesus existed. : We don't need them. Or better: they would be much welcome, but they are not relevant to the point. The point is: is CMT in the academic mainstream? Both Christian scholars, non-Christian scholars and even CMT proponents agree that no, it isn't. So it is a fringe view as far as WP:FRINGE is concerned. So we can and should discuss it in the articles as such.
  • Nobody has provided a secular, peer-reviewed basis for saying that Christ myth theory belongs in the realm of Holocaust denial. - This is just pointy, and due to a bad comparison your opponents made. It belongs in the realm of non-mainstream, very minoritary positions in the academic consensus. This is all we need.
  • There continues to be immediate reversion, ala edit-warring, of any attempt to attribute the Chrsitian nature of 90% of our sources. - This can be a problem and I agree, in general -but once the CMT thing has been settled (and it is settled, Noloop: please acknowledge it), it is a problem that belongs to other specific content of the articles. --Cyclopia 18:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

We simply disagree on the definition of "fringe theory." You equate it with being in the minority. I believe the concept of being discredited is essential. We don't agree. That's why we need a mediator. Noloop (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't need it: policy is already clear on this. It's policy definition that has a bearing, not our personal view. We don't need to mediate to restate policy. --Cyclopia 19:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree, the policy is very clear. Being fringe is not merely a synonym for being in the minority. It entails rejection:
"Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the main article, with the mainstream view typically getting a bit more ink, but the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it. Singular views can be moved to a separate page and identified (disclaimed) as such, or in some cases omitted altogether.
"However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection, either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources.
"Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources. Noloop (talk) 03:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Read carefully. The policy is very clear in distinguishing what is a minority view from an utterly rejected view, and in clarifying the difference in the articles -that is, if a view is fringe but not completely rejected, one should not label it as "rejected" or "pseudoscience". But both are fringe, per the main definition of being clearly minoritary and far from the mainstream view. --Cyclopia 11:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
(The point is also that fringe theory can apply also to things that are not science, and therefore cannot have a formal peer reviewed "rejection". Funny example: If I want, I could publish a wacky treatise that interpretes the Divine Comedy as a metaphor of anal sex, by cleverly stretching the interpretation of the text. Is it possible to reject this view altogether, scientifically? No, it isn't: it's a matter of mere interpretation of a literary text. However no doubt it would be considered a completely fringe theory.) --Cyclopia 11:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkpage

You recently reverted one of my edits. Could you go to the talkpage and state your reason for disagreeing(or just state it hear). My point being that the interpretation of the scientific method by biblical scholars is irrelevant and that it should be removed until the interpretation by scientists can replace it.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


Request for mediation rejected

The Request for mediation concerning Many Jesus-related articles, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 22:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Your comment on god

Yes, Cyclopia, I studied Politics and Philosophy at undergraduate level (focusing on philosophy of religion, philosophy of science, and predicate calculus) receiving a BA at one of the top British universities, was a social worker for a while, then studied Economics and and Business Studies as a post-grad, worked in business for a few years, then lived in a Religious Order as a novice for two years (where I studies theology & scripture), left and studied for an MSc in Information Technology, and worked as an IT professional for over a decade. I have been working on a research PhD in social science (LGBT studies, queer theory, social anthropology and gender studies) for the past seven years (currently working on post-viva revisions). I no longer adhere to any organised religion, as I have lost faith in the church and am not prepared to surrender reason to dogma; if there is a deity, I would expect him/her to be more rational than human beings, not less; much of what passes as religion relies on a suspension of reason. - MishMich - Talk - 22:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi MishMich. Sounds like an interesting life! My actual life pathway is much simpler: while living in a deeply Catholic country (Italy), I became an atheist at 12 years old after having realized that there was no empirical evidence nor logical proofs for the existence of God (Being exposed to Nietzsche and Dawkins also helped). Never looked back. . I got a degree in Biotechnology, a Ph.D. in molecular biophysics and now I'm working on protein simulations as a post-doc researcher. Your life path gives me hope on coming back to study after working (I would love to get a degree in Physics, but I am pretty wary of doing that -going back to study?). I'd say that all what passes as religion relies on a suspension of reason -what is not a suspension of reason is usually common sense plugged into religion, not religion itself. Thank you for sharing your experiences with me. If you by chance happen to visit Cambridge, UK, let me know. --Cyclopia 22:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Cheers

Dear Cyclopia, I would like to apologize for my attitude during some of our discussions. We clearly don't agree about several things, which isn't going to change, but in retrospect I wish I had comported myself in a calmer more measured way at times. I am going to make a concerted effort to take a different attitude into my discussions about these and other topics from now on. I just wanted to let you know. I also appreciate your recent comments on the Historicity of Jesus page, even though again I know we don't agree on the details. I appreciate the comments because they show to me that you are actively engaging new materials instead of simply entrenching yourself in a position. That is admirable. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to do the same with you. Your statement is extremly appreciated. I would say that this is the best of Misplaced Pages, when people with vastly diverging opinions, backgrounds etc. can find a common ground and work for the common good despite all their differences, and learning both something in the process. There is no need for apologies on your part: this kind of process requires a bit of growing pains. What's important is that in the end we can work together, and appreciate it. Thank you very much! --Cyclopia 17:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 2 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Have replied on my page

Rushing to switch off, storms overhead and no time to copy and paste the draft. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Your antagonisitc edit warring

You really need to cure yourself of the habit of reverting edits with the comment "don't edit war." Figure it out. Noloop (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Are Wikipedians "Khmer rouge in nappies", asks Jimbo

Jimbo doesn't like it when I contradict him on his talk page, so I'll just point out to you here when he said to you "Are Wikipedians "Khmer rouge in nappies", I'd claim he took out of context what's clearly intended as sardonic characterization of certain common Wikipedian attitudes. The full context of the basic point seems correct: "For most web surfers, the Misplaced Pages is simply an occasionally useful online resource that needs to be taken with a huge sackful of salt. For others, it's a poor excuse for a real encylopedia. But for its proponents, it's nothing short of revolutionary! It's Emergent, you see.". He (and others) might not like that hyperbolic derision - but it's funny because it's (at heart) true. Oh, the "Do we have black helicopters circling in Utah" charge is similarly distorting a very long article about what was not Misplaced Pages's finest moment. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to communicate to me. The first link seems a random WR-like poor rant on WP. The second link is absolutely tl;dr. If it has to do with your old insistence in removing in your bio, well, please be known that I am very unhappy about that article deletion. If it has to do with something else, please summarize it to me if you want me to read it, and why should it concern me. But well, thanks anyway for the intervention. --Cyclopia 23:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I thought you'd be interested in the full context of the evidence he offered to you in his reply. My thinking was that seeing the actual articles, versus how he characterized them, puts a different face on his claims - i.e. he took phrases which were clearly meant humorously, and then employed this mischaracterization in support of his argument that "The Register is absolutely worthless as a source, full stop, in all circumstances.". You may not like those particular articles, but they hardly make the literal claims that one might think they do, from reading only his description. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 11:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, much clearer now (Sorry, yesterday night I was tired and I'm badly stressed in this period). Good to know. Cheers. --Cyclopia 13:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 9 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Metadynamics

Updated DYK queryOn 12 August, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Metadynamics, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Courcelles 18:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Help on fixing Italian WP article

Hi, wondering if you would like to help fix a rather grave misrepresentation in it:Sex crimes and the Vatican. Fr Doyle is cited as having written "benché abbia lavorato come consulente per i produttori del documentario, temo proprio che alcune distinzioni che ho fatto a proposito del documento del 1962 siano andate perdute. Non credo né ho mai creduto che quel documento sia la prova di un complotto esplicito, nel senso convenzionale, orchestrato dai più alti responsabili del Vaticano per tenere nascosti casi di abusi sessuali perpetrati dal clero".

That is only half of the truth - the half that fits the cover up artists in the catholic church very well.

What he really wrote is here and in the sake of a more balanced representation I think it would be good to quote a bit more from his letter such as "The secrecy and cover-up was very much a part of the Catholic institutional culture and was, in fact, a policy. I have studied the files of hundreds of clergy sex abuse cases throughout the U.S., in Canada, Ireland and the British Isles....files produced by dioceses and religious orders.....and I can assure you that the common thread was an intentional cover-up enshrouded in secrecy. That is the way it was."

My Italian is not quite good enough that I would do it myself. Thanks Richiez (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I fixed it reporting the full quote. I hope it helps. --Cyclopia 13:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Great thanks, looks much better:) Richiez (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Can you tell me if i interpreted this correctly on the page Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors? Worromp Warg (talk) 10:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the heads up. Well, you almost were there. The law requires them, for prosecution, to be actually retouched photos of real minors, so fully hand-drawn cartoons, for example, are not included. --Cyclopia 13:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey, but "a third of the penal value attributed to real life child pornography" refers to child molestation. Virtual Child Porn is punished with 1/3 of the penal value given to Real Life Child Molestation. Worromp Warg (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand where you got this impression. Child molestation is one thing. Child pornography is another (it requires child molestation, but if someone merely distributes CP someone else did, that somene hasn't molested a child -let's leave alone the ethical implications). According to the source, the law about virtual CP refers to the penalties of CP, not child molestation. The actual text of the law is a bit terse (as usual, since it is basically a diff with the previous law), but it seems to confirm this. --Cyclopia 22:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010






Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, very much, for your kind words at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Church of Scientology editing on Misplaced Pages about my work on the article. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

on the new job. We've had our disagreements in the past, but now you're a spokesman I shall treat you with the proper deference!  pablo 21:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Ahahah, thank you (I don't even remember what we disagreed about) --Cyclopia 10:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Filter out ugliest ducklings

Proposals page, I'd appreciate your view based on the 10 articles I deem ducklings. Regards Mark 17:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

re:whatever did you wrote on my talk (i forgot =O)

well i was tryng to put it in archive 65 and guess what! i did it! =P --Sistemx (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The page is automatically archived, you shouldn't mess with it yourself. --Cyclopia 18:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
oh really? crappp -.- well then delete that archive --Sistemx (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Cyclopia. You have new messages at Jayen466's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


Spoiler Discussion

Dear User,

You previously participated at the discussion regarding the collapsing of spolier's at Talk:The_Mousetrap. I invite you to comment at a similar discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler#Proposal.

Many Thanks

Seddon | 22:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. --Cyclopia 22:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

AFD: List of years in politics

I have listed List of years in politics, the PROD tag of which you had recently removed, in articles for deletion. You may find the deletion debate page here. FYI. Geeteshgadkari (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:No Moral Code

Please permit me to explain my edits to WP:No Moral Code. First, it cannot be both a failed proposal and an information page, because the two are contradictory. The page does not have consensus, so it's not an information page. Second, pages are not added manually to the category for Misplaced Pages essays. Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

On the first I understand. On the second, what is the correct way to add it as an essay? Thanks! --Cyclopia 18:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation - your input is required

A request for mediation has been filed concerning a matter in which you have participated.

The operative page is at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Creampie (sexual act). Please go there and indicate your acceptance of mediation at the Parties' agreement to mediation section (or you can decline to accept mediation, if for some reason you want to.) If you have any questions about mediation, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation or message me. Thank you for your time and consideration. Herostratus (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you posted as disagreeing with the request for mediation, which is your right of course. I notified everyone who made even a single post on the issue, as is required (I think), and sorry if this has been a bother to you. If your objection is just that you don't consider yourself a party to the discussion and/or don't want to be bothered with the issue, would you consider removing yourself as a party (or I'll do it for you if you request) rather than remaining as a party but actively disagreeing. Herostratus (talk) 05:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but I actively disagree. --Cyclopia 07:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

moving my comments

Please do not move my comments around from where I have put them in the context of where they belong. Off2riorob (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Apologies. I thought that a discussion on the AfD was more appropriate in the talk page, but if you insist in them staying there, no problem.--Cyclopia 00:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, you really ought to request deletion of the AFD, no good will result from it, an AFD needs a nominator and a deletion reason, you are using it in an attempt to keep an article which is wrong and users can not comment and feel unable to comment because of the confused situation regarding the opening and what is actually going on, users need a simple clear AFD to give them a fair chance of responding. Off2riorob (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I am not using it in an attempt to keep -if anything, I put the article on the stakes because I like consensus to form properly, whatever it is. I simply want proper process to be followed. I assume editors are not so dumb not to understand what's going on, something which I repeatedly explained there. --Cyclopia 12:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI

FYI: Interesting (ongoing) AfD debate about the article "Archimedes, Inc." (article’s lead supporter was permanently blocked mid-debate with charges of paid editing.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.49.70.111 (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

See the discussion here: User_talk:Llywrch#Re:_AfD. User seems to be canvassing editors unrelated to the dispute. Also, having participated in the dispute, it's clear that the user wasn't blocked specifically for paid editing, but advertising, along with other reasons shown in the linked talk page discussion.--res Laozi speak 23:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I have no intention to take part in the dispute, on neither side. --Cyclopia 15:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Manifesto benedict xvi.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Manifesto benedict xvi.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:JeffHawke.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:JeffHawke.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:JeffHawke h2231 en.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:JeffHawke h2231 en.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:JeffHawke Omrid.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:JeffHawke Omrid.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:JeffHawke h6866-h7289.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:JeffHawke h6866-h7289.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:JeffHawke moonlanding prediction LARGE.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:JeffHawke moonlanding prediction LARGE.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

dob

There is nothing at all wrong in accepting the comment from a living person that is over a disputed single day, in fact we should support that living persons good faith comment instead of resisting it. Off2riorob (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

We don't let people write their autobiographies here, and we don't throw WP:V and WP:RS in the rubbish because a subject says something. That said it would be ok to accept also the comment, but it is not OK to remove other sources and discussions. --Cyclopia 20:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
We do listen to living people BLP is all about that. Jimmy has clearly stated he prefers the pointy issue is removed and I usually support living people in such issues. Its pointy to insist on adding the issue about a single day when the living person has made it clear it is the seventh. Off2riorob (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
BLP is all about making sure that living people are covered objectively and without libelous statements. I am firmly opposed to having people modulate their bios to their preference, and the same think our guidelines. Jimbo is no exception to this rule. Now, please move this discussion to the appropriate article talk page. Thanks. --Cyclopia 20:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom elections?

I didn't realize that Arbcom elections had come up - I was curious if you have any ideas regarding who are the best candidates for inclusionism and transparency? Wnt (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I'd like to have the same advice as well! I voted there, but I don't have hard facts -here go my suggestions I would for sure exclude SirFozzie, Iridescent, Off2riorob and Balloonman: with different nuances, they are the usual kind of deletionist/BLP diehard people. GiacomoReturned is a controversial editor and I personally don't like him -but I had little interaction. I suspect the best in such regard is Jclemens, who is also an ARS member and wrote neat essays like Misplaced Pages:Crying "BLP!". I would strongly support him. I've always had pleasant interactions with Xeno, even when disagreeing. Others, I really don't know -I've interacted with Newyorkbrad, Casliber etc. but I don't remember enough to give an impression. If you have feedback from other people, let me know :) --Cyclopia 18:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Please remove your accusation of sock-puppetry

The only reason a few of my comments appear with an IP address is that I occasionally forget to login. I have always made it clear that what my IP and Username are. DMSBel (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I suspect there may be mis-reading/confusion between the similar account-names "DMSBel" and "Bdell555"? Repeatedly not logging in makes it pretty easy for me as a reader to question whether there may actually be other identities rather than a specific and unique attribution for comments. DMacks (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I think it is fairly clear Bdell555 and myself (DMSBel 62.254.133.139) are two separate users. If that was the confusion Cyclopia needs to say so here and then edit his comment on the discussion page of Ejaculation. However that he has refered there to IP socks, I suspect he is refering to my IP number which appeared when I had forgotten to log in. I have in the past linked my IP address with my username in comments so that there would be no grounds for accusation of sock-puppetry - who using a sock-puppet account would do that? Whether or not he agrees with me regarding deletion of the images, is one thing. Accusations of sock-puppetry are quite another (see WP:AGF). DMSBel (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I stopped assuming good faith long ago with you. However it's true that I have no proof currently that you have IP sockpuppets, therefore I gladly apologize for the insinuation. --Cyclopia 00:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Thats fine thanks for the apology. I am withdrawing from editing as having considered the current state[REDACTED] is in after reading some external links, I think I do not wish to invest any more time or effort in the experiment. I have had doubts about the[REDACTED] experiment that are fundamental and related to its nature as a user-edited encyclopedia and how it works. I have no illusions about what it limits and weaknesses are. A fundamental problem is people taking either exclusively inclusionist or deletionist positions, and allowing that to guide their judgements, and the failure to understand what is censorship and what is not. I also find editing it stressful and frustrating, I cannot endure this kind of online culture. I am strongly of the view that encyclopedic sexual content should not be photographic, but rather sketched, or drawn and clinical in tone. Too many editors within[REDACTED] are now out of touch and conditioned by[REDACTED] content. I suspect prolonged participation in wikipedia's "culture" is detrimental to intelligence, judgement and mental health. DMSBel (talk) 11:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I have requested arbitration on the photos on the ejaculation page

Sorry, but I think it is better to resolve this through arbitration.

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Ejaculation Photos and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,DMSBel (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

We do censor information and we show self-restraint every day

we do not censor sourced information (even primary sourced information) just because it's "sensitive"

On the contrary, we remove sensitive information all the time when it comes to BLP's, such as WP:WELLKNOWN, WP:DOB, WP:BLPNAME, and WP:NPF. As for using primary sources to write articles about non-BLP's, that generally falls under WP:NOR. The question then becomes, is WikiLeaks a reliable source for stolen primary source documents? Regardless of what you think the answer is, it does not fall under the standard model of a RS. Viriditas (talk) 06:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Since you mention the use of stolen documents, I will mention that this has been profusely discussed on the talk page of Climatic Research Unit email controversy also and surely on many other Misplaced Pages forums in connection with that controversy. __meco (talk) 10:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
You don't say? Tell me, my good friend and talk page stalker, why isn't there a single link to a leaked document in that article? Why doesn't that article rely on stolen, leaked, e-mails, charts, graphs, or documents? Viriditas (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
See User talk:Viriditas#Please abstain from personal attacks (). __meco (talk) 11:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
It's not a personal attack. You might want to familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages:Talk page stalker. Viriditas (talk) 11:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Viriditas, do you read what you link? WP:WELLKNOWN says exactly the opposite, that we do not censor negative information if it is well sourced. For the rest ,yes, these are among the few and only cases where we exercise restraint, and we had to write a narrow policy to make that clear, because it is a big exeception with respect to the standard. And such exceptions regard what is usually information of very minor importance, like personal names of minor characters, not whole documented facts or events. But in any case, sensitive sites are not BLPs , so what you link is nice but has no bearing on the discussion. You refer to the Anarchist cookbook: well, yes, we host description on how atomic weapons are made, we host the chemical synthesis of drugs and we even have a List of suicide methods. Because if documents say something, it is not only ridicolous to put fingers in our ears and sing "lalala" while meantime that "something" is planetary knowledge disseminated everywhere: it is also a profound disservice and dishonesty to our readers. And no, using a primary source is not OR per se, WP:PRIMARY makes it very clear, if you just report objectively what it's in the primary source itself. Novel plots are an example of that. Finally: why are you telling me that here? This should be discussed in the AN/I thread, not privately. --Cyclopia 12:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought you might miss the connection. WELLKNOWN is only one of many examples of the policies in action that contradicts your opinion. It says that we rely on a multitude of reliable published sources, IOW, not primary sources. Those sources must also report on a topic that is notable, relevant, and well-documented, i.e. not a primary source. These are not exceptions for BLP's, in fact, this is how we use primary sources, very carefully, if at all, and usually only when it is not controversial or sensitive. I am telling you this here, because when we communicate with a user, we use their talk page. In any case, please answer the question posed above: Why don't we link to and discuss the stolen, leaked e-mails and documents on the Climatic Research Unit email controversy page? The answer is simple. We don't write articles based on primary sources. You are, in fact, encouraging people to misuse primary sources, which is a Bad Thing. Viriditas (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I asked for this to be on AN/I because it related to the whole thread. Anyway, again: this is specific, narrow, exceptional BLP policy. It is an exception, otherwise it wouldn't be called "BLP policy" but "subject-wide policy". For example, about sensitive primary sources: we actually publish the original images -a primary source themselves- of the Rorschach test. This despite there have been concerns, even by public health officers, that such publication is dangerous because it makes one of the most important psychological tests potentially useless. Guess what? Several multiple RfCs on the subject firmly rejected censorship of such images. Now, if you want a restrictive policy to apply to leaked documents, start a RfC and seek consensus, it would be much more productive than chatting with me. You're not going to convince me on that, and citing me BLP policy is nonsensical when dealing with non-BLPs. You're encouraging censorship, and this is a worse thing. (About the emails, I don't know because I wouldn't touch climate change articles with a kilometer-long stick, given the editing hell within them: but I suspect in that case there are BLP concerns -them being private documents of living people, for example- that here do not arise). --Cyclopia 12:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but you are mistaken. I have 90,000 edits and I've never once encouraged censorship on any topic. You are free to find one. What I am encouraging is the use of secondary sources, good ones, for all of our articles, and that encouragement stems from our best practices inherent in all aspects of the policies, from BLP to NOR, and more. You seem to think that the limitation on using primary sources is an exception, but it is not. As for your claims about private documents of living people, how is that not the case in the cablegate documents? Viriditas (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
User talk:Cyclopia: Difference between revisions Add topic