Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:08, 4 October 2012

WP:RETENTION: This editor is willing to lend a helping hand. Just ask.

Uhhh...

What's this all about? ¦ Reisio (talk) 00:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind I see you've reverted. Was afraid it was on purpose for something. ¦ Reisio (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure. I have returned the version to your fix. However after your fix (which I have no idea where all those lines came from, they were there when I arrived today) collapse boxes don't collapse.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

They came from this edit. Odd about the boxes... ¦ Reisio (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I tried a few show/hide links (nearer the top of the page) and they seem to be working for me. Maybe restart your browser or something? ¦ Reisio (talk) 00:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

That's probably it.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

nobody agrees with you that the minor version is what you call major

so stop changing my edits randomly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waveclaira (talk • contribs) 06:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waveclaira (talk • contribs) 08:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Rethink?

Would you care to rethink this series of edits. You have chosen to closed a query very rapidly and your tone is absolutely appalling. Do you have any experience of sourcing issues for Indic articles? Are you aware of my experience? Or is it just that you're having a bad day? - Sitush (talk) 08:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. No, I don't believe a re-think is needed. You asked a question at RS/N with the excuse "the man is some sort of Sikh hero and it does not go down well with Muslims" And so I ask agian..."Yeah...and? Why is it important to you that one religion is offended by a figure from another religion?" You may note that the question was indeed answered. I closed that to keep the discussion from becoming about one religion being offended by another religions "Hero". Whether that is true or not...that was not the place to raise that issue and ptting one religion against another on the open boards is "absolutely appalling". We have enough of that going on here. I'm having a very good day. How about you?--Amadscientist (talk) 08:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Lets try rephrasing that with other religions and see how that sounds.

"the man is some sort of Christian hero and it does not go down well with Jews"

"the man is some sort of Jewish hero and it does not go down well with Christians"

"the man is some sort of Muslim hero and it does not go down well with Christians, Jews or Sikhs"

Doesn't look any better.

I might also remind you of Misplaced Pages:Offensive material--Amadscientist (talk) 08:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, we'll have to disagree. I live both physically and metaphorically in the region of Malleus Fatuorum: sometimes, we have to take the bull by the horns rather than pussyfooting around. It is ok to call someone, for example, a "Hindutva POV warrior" without censure in the full glare of ANI but not ok to say that there is a serious Hindu/Muslim conflict on the article etc at RSN? If the statement is factually correct then it should remain. The desire for editor retention does not over-rule producing a neutral, reliably sourced etc encyclopedia. - Sitush (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't care where you live. I don't know what you are talking about. You made an innapropriate post. I went back to re-open it, just because you came here to ask about it, but an admin has done so. We shall take this to that location now.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

If it was inappropriate, and you clearly feel strongly that it was, then I suggest that you report me for that inappropriateness. Otherwise, you should apologise. - Sitush (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

It was. Now...what do you feel you deserve an apology for? If appropriate, I have absolutely no problem giving it. At the moment I don't see it.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I can see you are thinking this through and will not assume you just walked away after demanding an apology for my perception of an open attack against a religion and their "Hero" on the RS noticeboard.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not thinking anything through - stop trying to read my mind. Your attitude is sooooo wrong it is incredible. You took this to my talk page, where I said that I had to go out to do some work. That is true - do you want me to provide a letter from the client to that effect? I am off to a hospital appointment soon - do you want me to provide a copy of my appointment card. God, do you realise how ridiculous you sound? I have explained further on my talk page but I suggest that you take a long, hard look at yourself and your recent actions before you start casting asperions. - Sitush (talk) 12:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I hardly think I need to take advice of this nature from one who refuses to do the same. Your talk page and mine are exactly for this sort of thing. Look in the mirror yourself and ask if you did anything innapropriate to create an impression that you may now feel you don't deserve. What you do on your own time is of no interest to me (well actually if were a civil conversation I wouldn't mind knowing) and you need not do anything at any particular speed, but when you stopped replying when I gave you a civil request to explain what you think I should aplogise for, it just made me think you had no real interest in an apology.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay everyone, let's relax, shall we? Somehow, things got blown way out of proportion here. I'm not the best mind-reader either, but to me, the two of you really seem to be talking past one another--it looks like Sitush said something ambiguous, and then Amadscientist interpreted it as being offensive. But I doubt that Sitush meant to be offensive, though I can kind-of see how Amadscientist interpreted it that way. If I could guess, I'm supposing Sitush was saying that Nalwa is a hero to Sikhs, while Muslims don't like Nalwa (or don't like him being viewed as a hero, I'm not exactly sure). As a result, there's two clear POVs here...specifically, religious POVs, which means that we have to be extra cautious when we look at sources because both sides may 1) not understand WP's NPOV, V, and RS rules, and 2) may not care about said rules enough and be more concerned with pushing their side's own perspective. Having worked with Sitush in articles related to Indian castes for a while, I can vouch that it happens all of the time that interested parties will try to use sources that clearly don't meet WP:RS but continue to insist that it must be true, because it matches their deeply held beliefs. Note, I'm not saying that this is necessarily worse than other topic areas--I've certainly seen Christian POV warriors attempt to bury articles in sources that don't even approach RS-quality...I'm just saying that I know that this does certainly happen in Indian articles a lot. So I think that Sitush was merely giving background into why the source was concerning; a concern which, after reading his explanation, I share. But your questions (at least some of them) on RSN are valid, Amadscientist, because we'll need to narrow in on what the source is being used for in order to determine whether the facts being "verified" aren't being unduly influenced by the publisher and author's prima facie bias. In any event, I think some WP:TEA would do everyone some good here. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Beans

Regarding your closure of the DRN regarding self-determination, I don't believe you actually grasped what the issues were. Were this simply to relate the facts of a historical event then, it is important to realise there were two populations resident at the time.

A) The settled population, in the settlement established by Luis Vernet. B) The garrison that had been there less than 3 months.

There is no disagreement amongst historic sources that the garrison was expelled by the British and if you check the article Self-determination#Falkland Islands, this is in fact what the article already says. In this case is there any need to mention duress, surely expelled is enough?

However, as part of its case for sovereignty, Argentina claims the settled population was expelled to be replaced by British settlers. This claim is untrue, the population were not expelled and again there is no disagreement among the historical sources. There are plenty of texts to repeat the Argentine claim and in the case Gaba and Langus were deliberately confusing garrison and settlement.

The edit they tried to force into the article attempted to mislead and took it in a direction away from NPOV. They tried to edit so that the historic record became simply a British claim, presenting it as two conflicting viewpoints, when in fact there is no discrepancy in the historical record among all nationalities. Point of fact, the British case does not depend on this at all. They've simply grasped onto duress as a new stick to force their opinions into articles. Now the population left under duress. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you feel anyone graps this but you. You are endlessly blocking a resolution. You are just arguing to get people to see it your way and not try to compromise. I stand by the closing as the wrong venue when there is a working group you all belong to and can argue to your hearts content there. Happy editing. I researched this out the other day by the way and agree with one point you made. There is no reference I can find that claims the settler left under duress...the garrison on the other hand....is said to have left in such a manner. Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe you're incorrect in that respect, since that is precisely the Argentine Government position on the Argentine Government's official website. You appear to be missing the basic fact that the article as I edited it and sourced it, said the garrison was expelled but not the population. But that isn't what they wish to edit and I am not blocking any resolution. Sadly you fall too readily into the trap of many mediators in not understanding the issue at hand and tackling a different issue. No one disputes the garrison was expelled, the historians dispute Argentina's claim that the settlement was and you yourself have noted that the historical record backs this up. This is precisely the position I've argued all along. This was my last edit , I hope you'll note I explicitly sourced the expulsion of the garrison. Note also at DRN i was proposing to use a better neutral source for the historical record. Sadly rather than helping to resolve matters you've given them an excuse for further disruption. Hence, my beans comment. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Uh huh, yes, the point they are making is, that while the sources don't use the word "Duress" for the settlement, the facts do support it. The filing dispute was offered a compromise. You chose to post a wall of text further arguing. I looked into it and was supportive of another compromise that took into account the souce claim of duress for the garrison but not for the settlers, but in your actual wall of text (which by the way was one reason I kicked this back to the work group. You can't seem to speak directly to the edit, you have to discuss the editor and that is not what DR/N is about or for) you began a whole new route of arguing that you even disputed defining the group as a "Settlement". I mean come on WCM. How long do you want this to go on? Find a middle ground and collaborate. The beans you imagine are not "Magic beans".--Amadscientist (talk) 23:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but you're simply mistaken, that isn't the point they're making at all. The edit they wish to propose was to re-inforce the claim the entire population was expelled. But no matter you're suggesting I wasn't prepared to discuss this, I think you're also mistaken there. I was they weren't. Simple example, I point out the claim Lopez attributed to Goebel is not accurate, they simply repeat their mantra its WP:OR and WP:SYN. Seriously how can you discuss anything with two editors who won't discuss a source? I simply want to edit articles, so no I have no interest in extending this. But really that isn't going to change unless the underlying issues are addressed. I mean please look at the sad mess that is the talk page, you'll find the issue as I describe above. I fear you have not grasped the issues at all. Wee Curry Monster talk 06:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Uh no. John Carter made the suggestion and you commented on it. I don't know what you think the entire dispute was about only what the compormise from the reset was supposed to be. look. You seem to be very capable of sorting out a dispute. Why can't you in this case?--Amadscientist (talk) 06:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

And by the way...I am wholly not impressed with your claim that I don't understand the issues or your claim that you have no interest in extending this. Please. You never stop. You don't know when to quite and you dont' seem to care what others think. Please...step away from the dead horse.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to stop, it appears we are talking at cross purposes and getting nowhere and you're taking matters personally. However, I do hope your remarks at WP:ANI weren't directed at me, as I never once mentioned you, your post or DRN closing. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

No, that was not directed at you. Not taking this personally at all.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

OK no worries, I'm always careful with text as it doesn't convey nuance at all well and can lead to unfortunate misunderstandings. Like I say, think we're talking cross purposes. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know all the ends and outs of your contributions and your reasoning on this dispute, but I don't think we really are at cross purposes. You want to edit this Misplaced Pages in a hassle free environment. So do I. And trust me when I tell you...it has not been hassle free for me either.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm a content editor primarily, perhaps I was overly keen to be heard as my attempts at discussion ran into a brick wall, my apologies if i was over zealous. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I think "over zealous" may have a picture of me in the dictionary. =)--Amadscientist (talk) 10:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind remarks at WP:ANI, in the circumstances they were very much appreciated. Please think about giving Muggins the benefit of the doubt, her heart is in the right place and as far as I can see she is genuinely trying to help. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:RSN

Hi, Could you check the RSN again. Under third-party reliable source entry that I had opened. Thank You--24.94.18.234 (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Well...at least I'm not bored now...

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#A_proposal --Amadscientist (talk) 10:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

ANI - Self-determination

I have now crossed out the text with a clarification paragraph at bottom of ANI. I had to go to the post office and just forgot. Sorry. Mugginsx (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah Mugginsx...that was really great to see first thing. Thank you. I really do appreciate that. Seriously. If you need help with anything just let me know.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Your welcome. Sorry for the delay. Something important had to go out to the PO and when I came back, I forgot for awhile. Mugginsx (talk) 11:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Well so long and thanks for all the fish, frankly I've had it. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

42 _{The number 42 is the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything, calculated by an enormous supercomputer over a period of 7.5 million years........unfortunately no one remembers what the question was.}--Amadscientist (talk) 13:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For all the good points that you have made at RSN regarding Hari Singh Nalwa's source --sarvajna (talk) 06:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Than you so much!--Amadscientist (talk) 06:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution RFC

Hello.As a member of Wikiproject Dispute Resolution I am just letting you know that there is an RFC discussing changes to dispute resolution on Misplaced Pages. You can find the RFC on this page. If you have already commented there, please disregard this message. Regards, Steven Zhang 08:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Television Stations

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Television Stations. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

DRN status

Hello, thank you for the comment. There was a previous discussion on the ambiguity between closed and failed cases. The ambiguity may still persist, and if so, a new discussion would be appropriate. Ironically, I was the one that wrote the description for the new failed status and phrased both the closed status and failed status the way it is now. I apologise for the unintentional ambiguity of the wording, and if there was any confusion over the difference between the two, it was likely my fault.--SGCM (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

24game

Could you please reopen the case for 24 game which you closed 10 hours ago? I was busy with something in the past 2 days and didn't have time to put any work on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24guard (talk • contribs) 12:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I can do that if it is still there.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I put up my opening statement on the page. I think now the 24_game page is even more "Kosher" as some other editors removed more blog spams. 24guard (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Assistant

I wonder if you would be willing to "take me on" as an assistant for your next dispute resolution. I will work for free and you will not have to provide any meals. If there is any work that needs to be handled, just give me a jingle.....```Buster Seven Talk 19:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. I will ping you on the next un-opened case!--Amadscientist (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

For this , not that I have any hopes it will work   little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  00:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)