Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:02, 2 December 2004

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Misplaced Pages:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Good call on Howard Dean; your phrasing is much clearer. Best, Meelar 06:49, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Civil Society

Sorry to have been abrasive. I am particularly touchy about reverts, and I'm a rabid militia/gun rights advocate, so you got my hair up a bit. Cheers, Sam Spade 01:10, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Don't worry, I wasn't offended. Do check my response on the talk page though. As one of my professors is fond of repeating, calling something civil society or not isn't making a normative judgement, just drawing a categorical distinction. RadicalSubversiv E 01:25, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Jello Biafra

Good research, and a good call based on it, on Talk:Jello Biafra. Separating the exquisitely plausible from the verifiable is crucial, and you've graced us w/ great example of it. Thanks. --Jerzy(t) 15:26, 2004 May 16 (UTC)

reversion

hi, i reverted your last edit to hillary clinton. the edit summary was 'speculative & pov'. i don't mean that you are actively attempting to insert pov, and later wished i could edit the summary. but you can't. what i really objected to was the phrasing 'liability' not 'controversial'. as to speculative, i suppose what i really object to is the whole section. it seems bizarre to dedicate a section about a possible run by someone who has no stated intention of running. Wolfman 02:57, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. You have a point that the whole section is speculative, but that's hardly grounds to revert my edit in particular. And I stand by my phrasing: the point is not that she necessarily is a liability, but that she could -- indeed almost certainly would -- be seen as one in some circles. If the article is going to cover the presidential speculation (and offer language bordering on POV praise), it ought to make this important point about it. RadicalSubversiv E 06:02, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Putnam

Why did you remove the link? It is not specifically about Putnam, but it deals with the concept he help developed. The World Bank's usage of social capital is directly relevant to Putnam's work. The link does not go where it should because the page is dynamic. The url is different but it is the intended page. -- EDGE

The link was already in the social capital article, where it belongs. In fact, I've just corrected it there so it actually goes to the appropriate location. RadicalSubversiv E 20:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:United States Historians

I've added a note to the talk page of this category. Sorry I misunderstood your intention for the page.-gadfium 01:04, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nader and other candidates

Re your edit summary on Ralph Nader -- I understand the point you're making, and I thought about just deleting all the other candidates, but I had a reason for not doing so. The reason is that I haven't been closely involved in editing that article. It appeared that there was a consensus to leave in the Buchanan reference. I thought best was to mention none, but since others apparently disagreed, second-best was to mention all (at least all others on the ballot in most of the states).

The whole paragraph is still way too POV, in my opinion. Were those candidates marginal because they were excluded or were they excluded because they were marginal? There are elements of both; the latter greatly predominated but the text puts great emphasis on the former. It caters to what I consider the delusional Naderite POV that if only Nader were in the debates, millions of voters would abandon their longtime party allegiances and vote for him. Anyway, unless and until I work up the energy to try to change that, I think the current text (after your edit) is better than what was in place a day ago. JamesMLane 07:00, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you.

I owe you a debt of gratitude. ] 18:47, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Reithy

I have endorsed your summary on the RFC. Also, I've taken a look over United States Libertarian Party and added my hopefully unbiased view of the dispute (hopefully unbiased on the grounds that I'm not American, don't know much about the party, and don't much care about them either!). While Reithy's behaviour has been completely unacceptable, he has drawn attention to a couple of claims in there that I think need to be sourced and cited. Have a look at Talk:United States Libertarian Party and see what you think. —Stormie 01:16, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Radicalsubversiv, I would be happy to accept your revert if I understood what you objected to. I have decided to state boldly but very honestly exactly what Ron Paul stands for. Misplaced Pages should not be a place for PR gloss but the truth as best it can be expressed. Reithy 20:00, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will amend as you suggest. They were probably over the top, although I will try to find a source about him being universally loathed on the Hill, it is certainly true from what I understand. Reithy 20:08, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

I have made the amendments, although I notice you think I swept onto the page to vandalize it. That certainly wasn't my intention. I have written up quite a few changes, and some were probably off the mark but the most important ones such as tagging certain of his statements as racist were done deliberately and with some thought and considerable justification. I want the article to be NPOV, which is very difficult when writing about someone controversial and am happy to work with you to make it so. Reithy 20:39, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Radical, from your edit summary you suggest I have a POV problem with the Ron Paul article. I actually don't, I just don't think the article should read like Dr Paul's website promoting him and only pointing to anything positive. I suspect I may have overcompensated and have taken on board specific and constructive suggestions when they've been made (only by you so far!). The practice of libertarian members and supporters of Ron Paul is just to revert without actually addressing the issue of what they were deleting and why. I doubt this is correct practice and I am certain it won't create a better article. Reithy 22:33, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

I have noticed your outrageous and ex parte application for a temporary injunction. Produce evidence of your claims or withdraw them immediately. I have not posted anything that cannot be sourced and defended. I note your previous comment and would be happy to comply with that process if others do. Reithy 22:52, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

• In your discussion in the Temporary Injunction section on the Request for Arbitration on Reithy and Chuck F, you have listed libertarian capitalism twice. There have also been edit wars and/or vandalism on libertarian socialism, Libertarian League, Liberal Democratic Party of Australia, Liberal Party of Australia, Liberalism in the United Kingdom, McJob and Arthur Farnsworth.

Tim Eyman

Your revision concerning Initiative 18 was misleading. The initiative was not sponsored by Eyman, so it wasn't his initiative. He didn't start the initiative, plan the initiative, or provide the volunteers to put it on county voters' ballots. That was the jail guards' union. Eyman tried to use it as a way to promote himself, but readers need to know that it wasn't his initiative. The previous text made it sound that way. I did not eliminate the reference to I-18, but I have revised it and added a proper explanation.

Seanorthwest

FYI: Temp injunction in Reithy's ArbCom case

"Both Reithy and Chuck F and any sockpuppets are to edit only on their respective arbcom case. Edits to the mainspace may be reverted on sight."

--mav 20:38, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Naming organisations

Thanks. I joined the discussion at United States Democratic Party and didn't move that page yet. I sincerely think one should use the (English version) official name of organisations with when necesary the country name. Gangulf 21:34, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Willie Horton

You save that article from a fate worse than death, that of becoming blatantly POV. Comments about Dukakis' answer to the Kitty hypothetical from Shaw belong under Dukakis/ own article, and perhaps U.S. presidential election, 1988, not here, where the issue was Dukakis; furlough of Horton and others like him, not his failure to receive the death penalty, which was not even an option. Rlquall 23:16, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Politics of the United States

I just noticed you reverted my change to the Organization of American Political Parties section of the above-mentioned page. I was merely changing this to stop an International-English-speaking reader jarring at the sight of the British Labour party being referred to as Labor, as you have it. I don't think the comparison loses anything here, as the point you were making was entirely apolitical. If you prefer, perhaps it would be better to compare the Republicans and the Conservatives.

Incidentally, I would say that the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats in the US is very similar to that between Labour and the Conservatives in the UK - very little indeed. But never mind about that...