Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:46, 3 November 2012

This is Aoidh's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your comment by inserting four tildes (~~~~) at the end of the comment. Please indent your posts with a colon : if replying to an existing topic (or two colons :: if replying to a reply, and so on). For oversight requests please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Talk page archives (Auto-archiving period: 14 days ) 2011 • 2012 • 2013 • 2014 • 2015 • 2016 • 2017 • 2018 • 2019 • 2020 • 2021 • 2022 • 2023 • 2024

Archives

2011Template:•w2012

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

List of unusual deaths

I am amazed that anyone could see, react, revert and then construct a Talk Page warning, all within the space of two minutes. You must be a real SudoSprite. Or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're referring to this? I did a quick google search for the name + spontaneous combustion, and nothing came up, so it was likely a middle schooler or someone who knew the individual placing the name there for laughs, which would make it a potential WP:BLP issue since it's possibly a living person. Regardless of the intent, it is very unlikely to be accurate. Reading the entry, it sounded extremely dubious that someone laughed at something while spontaneous combustion occured on the toilet to then be eaten by pigs. The talk page takes about ten seconds to do when using Twinkle. - SudoGhost

Yes, all totally fictitious, I'd guess. Twinkle certainly speeds things up. But now I am ever more impressed that you managed to get a Google search in, as well, in that two minutes! Middle schooler sounds about right. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Having two monitors is pretty useful, and thanks to a previous job I got pretty efficient with using Google on a second monitor while doing something else on the primary, since the more calls I was able to get in the better, and Google just happened to be the best way to quickly find the information. Plus having two monitors is useful when you're checking out a source on one while working on an article on the other, I'd definitely recommend it. - SudoGhost 22:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I can just about cope with (and see) one QUITE LARGE monitor, thanks! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Windows 8". Thank you!--Amadscientist (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 24

Are we related by any chance? Drmies (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Unless you have a relative that lives in a city whose article needs a quality assessment *cough*, probably not. - SudoGhost 02:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm no. But congratulations on the fancy linguistic footwork--you outdanced me there. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Enlightenment (spiritual)

Hi SudoGhost. There's a discussion going on at Talk:Enlightenment (spiritual)#"Scientific consideration" and Talk:Enlightenment (spiritual)#Definitions about the inclusion of an obscure article with an "explanation" of the Buddha's enlightenment. The same article has been mentioned at Enlightenment (Buddhism); both additions have been removed because of the unreliability of the source.
All of a sudden, three new users, user:Lotus sutra81, User:Enterodoc9 and User:Raul7213, none of them having created a user-page, are contributing to the discussion, suporting the same pro-inclusion opinion. It makes me think of WP:SIMNAME, WP:XS and WP:OBSART. I've shared my impression with User talk:Lova Falk#Enlightenment; she's got the same impression. Could you have a look at it and say what's your impression of it? Greetings, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I took a look at the two newer accounts that were actually discussing it on the talk page. There are certainly syntactic similarities in the writing styles of the two accounts. Not to mention, the very first edit of the second account is to reply to Dominus Vobisdu that they "couldn't resist". Given the conversation the Ent account was replying to, it's odd that they would reply in place of the Lotus account. It's also odd that so many new accounts would know to come to the talk page and comment when there's nothing going on with the article that would alert them to this (no maintenance templates, no back and forth edit war). There's nothing so telling that I'm 100% positive that they are the same person, but I think it's likely. If not, given the timeliness I think it's likely that at the very least there's some sort of "meatpuppetry" going on. That's just my 2¢. I'd recommend opening an WP:SPI though; unless they are confirmed sockpuppets don't treat them like they are, because it's always possible they aren't and it's a coincidence. - SudoGhost 22:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks again for your time :) Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

So I did start a SPI: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Raul7213 Blllh, this is getting on my nerves... Joshua Jonathan (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks like all 5 named accounts were confirmed. Hopefully that will solve that issue. - SudoGhost 14:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

So, that was a good guess. But there may be more: User talk:Dominus Vobisdu#Enlightenment. But maybe I'm seeing patterns which are not there... Joshua Jonathan (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Runemarks and Runelight

Hello, just a note to let you know I removed your prods from the above articles as I believe they meet the notability guidelines.

Thank you. Rotten regard Softnow 21:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

DADT

Please do not add homosexual. It is an offensive term, you wouldn't allow nigger or kike would you? CTF83! 10:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you stuck in the 1960s? Gay 99.99999% of the time referes to people of same sex attraction. CTF83! 10:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Weigh in CTF83! 10:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Given that Homosexuality is the title of Misplaced Pages's article on the subject, and reliable sources use the term, I disagree. "Gay" is an inprecise term with several meanings. There is not a single term used to describe the subject that nobody things is a pejorative, including "gay", so that's not a strong argument to use when the term you wish to introduce in the article is not only slang, but is more often considered a pejorative than homosexual. You're welcome to start a discussion on the talk page, but when several editors revert your edits, there's probably a good reason for it, and "it's offensive so I'm changing it no matter what" isn't one that holds any weight. - SudoGhost 10:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you American? Gay? Again the word homosexual is offensive as it has 1970s clinical connotations when it was considered a mental illness, in the same way nigger/negro is now offensive but wasn't in the 1800s CTF83! 10:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Everything is offensive; every term used to described the subject can be considered offensive in some way to someone, so that argument is very weak. Gay is just as offensive, if not more so, and is also inprecise. Discuss this on the article's talk page, not here. You're not going to convince me to replace a term with a precice meaning with another one that has many meanings just because you find one pejorative, whereas others find your term pejorative. - SudoGhost 10:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I've never heard of anyone saying gay is offensive, that's ignorant. I linked you to the discussion. You also never answered my 2 questions, but whatever. CTF83! 10:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

You've never heard something, so what I said is ignorant? You do realize that you not knowing something is the definition of ignorance, and what you called ignorant is nothing of the sort? It doesn't matter what nationality or sexual orientation I have, unless you intend to use that affiliation as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting my view. Does my sexual orientation play some part in how valued my opinion is? I can think of no other reason as to why you're so keen on asking but it doesn't matter; personal details play no part in how Misplaced Pages articles are handled. The discussion you linked is fine, but is only marginally relevant to the article in question. If you wish to change the information in that article after several editors have reverted you, discuss it on the article talk page and get a consensus for your edit. - SudoGhost 11:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I also know of no one who considers 2 several. Obviously if you're straight the word homosexual won't offend you just like the word nigger doesn't offend me but we shouldn't use it if it offends anyone. CTF83! 11:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Given that you've brought up editor's sexual orientation as a reason to include someone in a discussion or not, I do consider that several. I will tell you one personal thing if it will amuse you: I strongly dislike when people use the term "obviously", because that is never the case, it's a rather close-minded outlook to say that your truth is obvious. Don't confuse "it offends someone" with "Misplaced Pages should censor the term because it offends someone", especially when reliable sources use the term to describe the subject. Find me a modern reliable source that uses "nigger" as a descriptor outside of discussing its offensiveness and I'll give your comparison to homosexual some merit. - SudoGhost 11:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm on my phone so what are some of the supposed reliable sites that use the word homosexual that aren't right wing extremist religious sites CTF83! 11:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It's becoming increasingly apparent that you have a very strong, particular point of view, and want to only use sources which agree with your viewpoint. While there are "right-wing" individuals that identify as homosexual, media outlets considered "left-wing" also use homosexual as a descriptor. - SudoGhost 12:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't have time to thoroughly read those but I'm not advocating against the term homosexuality I'm against calling gay people homosexual CTF83! 12:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Instead of addressing the subject, you're asking others what their personal details are and suggesting only individuals of a certain orientation are invited to discuss the subject, and despite being informed that it isn't appropriate, proceed to attempt to discredit the views of others based on their personal affialations. You ask for sources and then ignore them when presented and are calling things you disagree with "ignorant". I don't think continuing this discussion on my talk page will serve any useful purpose. If you wish to change the article's wording, please discuss it on the talk page and obtain a consensus for your changes. - SudoGhost 12:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)