Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RichardWeiss (talk | contribs) at 16:07, 27 December 2007 (→Encyclopedic treatment if Misplaced Pages founder issue: reply to InkSplotch thanks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

If you want to find some historical talk please go here and use Ctrl F but be warned its a huge archive page and may mess with your web browser. A new search development in Mozilla Firefox is that we can search the editable html text with search. If you have not created an account then do not post here as all ip posts will be reverted unread. Please sign all your posts with ~~~~ and thus avoided the dreaded SineBot

This user is not an administrator on the English Misplaced Pages. (verify)

Hi

Hi Richard. I just thought I'd drop by to see what you were up to. Far more active than I am, I can see. Well, I hope things are going well in your life these days. All the best. Guettarda 14:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, still here, ie in the Caribbean city I have been living in the last few years, still working and still involved in wikipedia, SqueakBox 16:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

hello

Hi. I see you're still fighting, good on you. I've been away but I'll try to come back at least partially and help out. Herostratus 23:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Wishing you and yours the very best of the holiday season. May the coming year bring you peace, joy, health and happiness. God bless us, every one! Jeffpw (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Best wishes for you and yours this Christmas. Let's all have a wonderful New Year. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Founder

How does changing mentions of "co-founder" to "founder" fall under WP:NPOV? --Escape Orbit 19:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Larry Sanger. I do not appreciate the SPA Bramlet stalking me. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

No one is "stalking" you. They are protecting Sanger-related and WP-related articles from your non-consensus based edits. Mr Which??? 20:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, gee, they got blocked for stalking. Sure looked like stalking to me, too. Jeffpw (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I happened onto the Sanger article in a random article search awhile back. I have no interest in the man or his article, other than to make certain it is in compliance with applicable WP policies. SB has attempted to remove "co-founder of Misplaced Pages" from the Sanger article lead, against all consensus, and in direct contravention of WP:V (many reliable sources call him that). Now he's taken the crusade project-wide, removing "co-" across multiple articles in the project, without consensus, and in contradiction to WP:V. Reverting such edits isn't "stalking" at all, in my view. Sometimes admins make mistakes, and I think this is one of those times. For me, it's not personal, I'm just trying to make certain that policy is followed with regards to the articles relating to Sanger, Wales, and Misplaced Pages. Mr Which??? 20:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I have absolutely no axe to grind on this topic, but I have to say, it looks very like having failed to get consensus on one page, you've embarked on a whole bunch of other related edits in order to make a point. And quoting a policy that doesn't appear to have anything to do with it. That was what I asked about and what drew my attention in the first place, and I'm not sure your explanation has made it any clearer. --Escape Orbit 00:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The policy I am quoting is entirely the correct one. I have no axe to grind on this issue either but I take NPOV very seriously and making claims of this sort, especially in articles that are not directly about either wikipedia, or Sanger, or Wales, is clearly an NPOV violation, poor edits should not stand, and lets face it thjis issue has been talked about in various places over a long time and NPOV has always been the relevant policy, so your claim that this is not so is strange. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

No, actually. You're quoting a policy that is extremely important, but irrelevant to your argument. Mr Which??? 02:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

No, you are wrong there, NPOV is my argument as it has been the argument of others before me ever since this controversy began more than a year back, merely claiming that NPOV policy is not relevant is simply not an argument. Why is it POV? Because it takes sides. This is also why there are BLP concerns, as we need to take a neutral stance between Sanger and Wales, whereas calling either of them co-founder does not a neutral view, it supports Sanger's view ina dispute. That is a clear violation of our neutrality policy, I am baffled as to why you would claim that NPOV has nothing to do with this dispute. It has everything to do with this dispute, and what I want is that we treat Sanger and Wales equally, and that is all I want. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Be "baffled" all you want. That you can't see that refusing to acknowledge what is verifiable through dozens of reliable sources violates WP:NPOV to a FAR greater extent than not doing so speaks LOUDLY to your own problems with POV. That Sanger is the co-founder is not "in dispute" anywhere but in Wales' own mind. Find reliable sources that say Sanger wasn't the co-founder (as there are PLENTY that call him that), and then we can talk. Until then, you're simply trying to enforce your own POV across the spectrum of Wales and Sanger-related articles. Mr Which??? 02:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I am certainly not baffled by your approach. Its called trolling. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Nope. Disagreeing with your POV does not equal "trolling", no matter how "baffled" you are or are not. Mr Which??? 17:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not have a POV on this subject and am solely interested in neutrality. If you cannot see the trolling don't expect me to clarify it for you. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, you do. And you tried to enforce it over the entire project on all Wales- and Sanger-related articles. And you should know that accusing someone of "trolling", when they're not doing so is a personal attack. Stop. Mr Which??? 17:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, enforcing neutrality is my speciality. And in this case it looked as if 90% of what I was removing was not merely POV but also troling (ie on all the articles not specifically bios of Wales or Sanger or pages relating specifically to wikipedia, and especially the refs), and of course this issue is not finished. There is no impunity merely because this issue is about our founder. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Stalker

I'm sorry you had to put up with that, Squeakbox. If anything like that happens again, please feel free to message me for support. I started to revert that guy's edits, but see that it has been taken care of (what I checked, anyway). I'll poke through the rest of the diffs and clean up anything I see. Merry Christmas. We haven't always agreed on every issue, but you are a solid editor whom I respect a lot. Jeffpw (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Can we please have Talkpage consensus on this before *any* more changes are made? Thanks, BLACKKITE 20:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Where? And removing a falsehood from[REDACTED] should be a top priority, then we can discuss it. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think it about time[REDACTED] did indeed follow this advice re people who keep doing this and don't make positive contributions either and hope that others who read this will do so. Havomg to put up with this is not on. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Just stop, SB. You're not "removing a falsehood", you're pushing your POV against consensus and WP:V. I would be shocked that you've not yet been blocked for it, but... well, never mind. Mr Which??? 01:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

So why do we mention this dispute everywhere we mention Wales, if not to push a point? I understand why this subject should be mentioned in[REDACTED] and the Wales and Sanger articles but in almost every article in which Wales is mentioned, and merely because he is mentioned? in articles in which Wales is only mentioned in passing? Clearly this is a WP:NPOV neutrality violation violation, why should I be blocked for trying to NPOV the encyclopedia in a good faith way, and invoking the policy while I do so?. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: You reverted your warning

Let's put it this way: I expect experienced users to contact WP:RFPP and request a lock due edit warring. As far as I know, the co-founder/founder thing is a content issue and not a vandalism issue (after all the Jimmy Wales article states he is the co-founder of Misplaced Pages), and therefore you cannot keep reverting without warning the users and requesting a page protection. And as far as I remember, we rule ourselves by the Verifiability policy, where we need third party references to corroborate things, and not just personal comments (regardless of the respect I have for Jimbo). If we begin making exceptions for Jimbo, we may as well throw WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR to the bin. Cheers! -- ReyBrujo (talk) 11:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It is definitely not a vandalism issue which is why I invoked policy (and if I forgot in any particular case that was wrong of me) but I have certainly read and hear what you are saying, besides I have no intention of pursuing this or anything much that isn't fun here until the Christmas break finishes. I did, in my defence, post the issue at AN/I after Bramlet started reverting me in a large number of articles. I certainly think we should not make excepotions for Jimbo, this means treating him neutrally not worse than we do for other living biographies, or indeed better. He is, though, becoming too much of a soft target for my liking and I may create a page on thios whole issue once the short break is over. Feliz Navidad. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: revert of 179974490 by 66.99.0.82 (Cannabis smoking)

• I am perplexed by your brief statement "unsourced evidence indicates all smoking is harful cough cough".

• I will look for sourced evidence that 500-mg. paper-roll torches burn herb hotter than 25 mg. in a narrow-diameter one-hitter or minitoke. (See ] for speculations why researchers may be afraid to publish on this subject. See ] for several ways to make an anti-overdose utensil, a list of healthy, legal herbs to use instead of tobacco, and other information that is pertinent to cannabis).

• Meanwhile, I added material under "bowl" (further up) attempting to warn users to burn at low temperature even if they mistakenly use a wide-bowl pipe. (The very word "bowl" is biased toward overdose because it implies bigness-- compare the Russian word Болшой.)

1. Youngsters consulting the "Cannabis smoking" article in pursuit of information how to consume cannabis should NOT be told all smoking is harmful (I never said that) but offered alternatives to the smoking methods that are harmful (hot-burning overdose). (Though I didn't correct it, you said "harful"-- maybe instead of "cough cough" you meant "har har"?

2. "Joints" have the utterly harmful effect that they initiate youngsters into the culture of overdose cigaret smoking which is the no. 1 genocide in the history of the planet. (It's not a cannabis overdose which is the issue here, but smoking overdoses of carbon monoxide and other toxins which can be largely avoided without abstaining from cannabis.)

3. This article should also strongly warn throughout against the practice, glamorized by rap singers who have allegedly received payments under the table by tobacco companies, of smoking "blunts" (tbe cigar wrap contains addictive nicotine), or "joints" which contain both cannabis and tohacco (unfortunately described in "cannabis" articles in various languages throughout the wikipedia, a betrayal of first order). The synergy of cannabis and tobacco results in tobacco addiction and further health consequences which lawmakers paid by tobacco interests can use as pretext to ban cannabis.

4. This article misleads children from the outset by showing a picture of a "joint" and some proprietary rolling papers (made, of course, by a subsidiary of one of the BIG TOBACKGO corporations), and of course a big-bowl pipe into which a gram can be stuffed.

• Because I have noticed from some of your edits that you are pro-cannabis, I hope you will take these observations to heart and try to edit this article in such a way that it does not play into the hands of BIG TOBACKGO (5.3 million deaths a year, WHO2003). I understand that unlike myself, a natural-born coward typing from big-city library computers, you have entered your name and the assholes might be able to find you. Anyway please take another look at the situation and also at some of my reverted contributions to discussion pages (I will dig them out and list them here).

It was a typo, I meant harmful. I take our neutrality policy very seriousl;y and do not edit the articles in a pro-cannabis way, indeed while I am pro legalising cannabis I wouldnt call myself pro-cannabis beyond that and certainly do not buy that it is not harmful, etc, but as an ex-tobacco smoker (clean since 94) I wouldn't call myself pro-tobacco either. I'll certainly take your points to heart, happy Christmas. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:"Cannabis (drug):talk" reverts

Please reconsider your two reverts of this section as I was trying to edit my own earlier contribution (notice the 66.99 numbers-- a different computer in the same anonymous library) in view to improve its information value and actually take out some of the combative rhetoric I repented of including the "Apology of a natural-born coward". (If you found that last too charming to remove, I'll probably resurrect it elsewhere anyway.) I think I'll also revive the signature I've sometimes used, tokerdesigner.

Another guy also reverted part of the edits, again probably thinking I was tampering with somebody else's stuff, which I assure you wasn't the case.Tokerdesigner (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Canada

P.S. What I'm asking you to do (above message) is edit in detail rather than just push the one button. Check out my edits of the earlier 66.99 stuff and maybe you'll agree it's an improvement.

Concerning your subsequent discussion with the Canadian research, here's another instance, I think, of the problem I'm trying to address. If you had the time (or the money, because it seems one has to subscribe to the magazine to read the research), I wonder if you wouldn't find that the Canadian research is based on how many hot-burning overdose "joints". 400 mg. and up, etc. What I'm trying to inject into these wiki articles is that if a non-overdose smoking method was used-- limit 25 mg. per toke-- close to zero health issues would result from either cannabis or tobacco.

By the way congratulations on quitting in '94, I'm particularly happy the assholes aren't getting any of your money to invest in trick propaganda to snare children into nicotine slavery.Tokerdesigner (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. My doctor warned me in 97 that the problem with smoking cannabis is that it burns too hot, and he was probably right, but tobacco closes the lungs down so you can't cough, horrible. I did try eating grass some time ago (fried in an oil) and while it was very strong it made my piss smell odd and IO was left feeling it was probably a lot less healthy than smoking, and the ridiculous piece I quoted from the BBC about holding it in makes me think they were only testing poor adolescents from the first world (where the price is much higher). I always used to hold tobacco smoke in as my body was craving nicotine whereas the cannabis smoking experience is very different and one should hold the smoke in less (at my age one really has little choice lol). I'll try to not to get involved in edit disputes with yourself anyway. Happy holidays. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas, my friend. May this find you in good health, good spirits, good company, and good finances. If any of these be missing, may God see fit to restore you in good time. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  05:16 25 December, 2007 (UTC)

File:Julkrubba.jpg

AfD nomination of Legal intoxicants

An article that you have been involved in editing, Legal intoxicants, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Legal intoxicants. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the heads up, I have expressed my opinion. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedic treatment if Misplaced Pages founder issue

The issue of what to say in this[REDACTED] about who is the "founder" of[REDACTED] is an issue that is best finessed. Words have many meanings. Jimmy founded the WikiMedia Foundation. Bomis founded Nupedia. The Misplaced Pages community and encyclopedia were founded by Sanger in some ways, yet it is also true that he was an employee. But employees also create books and software and get credit for their creative work. Writing off Sanger now after he was given credit in the early years is like a company removing an author's name from a creative work after a falling out. Even where legal, it is unethical. Further there are other founders. The wiki software has a different creator. The idea of Misplaced Pages came from yet a different person. The idea of free culture has yet further fathers. Encyclopedias should be written thoughtfully, with attention to exactness. Please don't hurt our reputation by making this appear to be Jimbo's Blog. Thank you. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree there are subtle nuances to this one. I also think we should not turn this encyclopedia into Sanger's blog, which is far closer to the truth. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, BS. You've been shown multiple reliable sources that verify that Sanger is the co-founder. Stop being obstinate. Mr Which??? 15:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

BS? Multiple sources do not justify what you and others are trying to impose on wikipedia, which is POV. I can get multiple sources that Hitler was a dictator but this does not mean that we have to call him a dictator every time he is mentioned in any article. You are fundamentally misunderstanding both our WP:reliable sources guideline and our more important neutrality policy in order to try to impose a POV solution that suports the assertion of one party in a dispute (Sanger) as if it were the only point of view, and over a range of articles that have nothing to do with this dispute. For you to call me obstinate based on your desire to be partial on this one is a completely unnecessary personal attack and if you attack me again on this page I will ban you from it as civility is important to me, and besides calling me obstinate won't achieve whatever it is you are trying to achieve. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I like how people throw around sources while very rarely reading them. For example, the link on AN/I to a google news search of "larry sanger" co-founder is cute, but this search for "jimmy wales" founder does much the same thing, with about the same accuracy. A mixture of press releases, interviews, and the occasional satirical piece. A google search, no matter how pretty, isn't a reliable source. There's a wealth of conflicting information out there, and while some could go through it all trying to make a case one way or the other, it'd be impossible to frame it as other than Original Research. Misplaced Pages is too close to this one, we've even been used as sources in this issue. We cannot take a neutral stance on founder/co-founder, we ought to distance ourselves. Don't go with Sanger's or Wales' perferred versions, just note the disagreement where proper, and move on. (see also Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation/Archive_2#NPOV for similar discussion) --InkSplotch (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, InkSplotch. My take is we must be neutral and nothing else, I certainly do not support taking sides in this dispute between Sanger and Wales, and as I said myself at AN/I I want to build up some more data on this one (especially how we treat the issue throughout wikipedia, ie where we treat it). Thanks, SqueakBox 16:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)