| Revision as of 15:58, 17 August 2005 editNathan Ladd (talk | contribs)856 edits rv to last version before Donald deleted evidence referred to by Arbitration (there are no personal attacks on Donald on this page)← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 08:02, 22 September 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Removed stale messages from inactive IP talkpage. (Task 13)Tag: AWB | ||
| (47 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Blanked IP talk}} | |||
| ==Hello== | |||
| Hello, and welcome to ]! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as ], but we regretfully cannot accept ] text borrowed from web sites. For more information, take a look at our ]. Happy editing! --] ] 20:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :What are you on about, specifically? To what ] text are you referring? -- ] 12:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Misplaced Pages policy== | |||
| Remember, instead of rushing to have straight majority rule, whoever can get out the most votes wins, here in Misplaced Pages content disputes the policy is ] (general agreement meeting everyone's needs): <blockquote>It has been said that true consensus involves "meeting everyone’s needs." Consensus decision-making is intended to deemphasize the role of factions or parties and promote the expression of individual voices. --]</blockquote> | |||
| :Could there possibly be a better example of an individual voice than yours truly, --]? Best regards, --] 19:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Majority Concept == | |||
| Truth is absolute. I agree. However, in human society, there has to be some way of making decisions. The usual ways to make decisions are either by majority rule, or by some sort of corrupted form of majority rule, or by having a king. If you do not agree that Misplaced Pages can use majority rule for some issues (not all), then please explain who appointed you as king. | |||
| Misplaced Pages does have a king. He is a constitutional monarch, and he is usually in favor of majority or super-majority rule, rather than of arbitrary claims to ]. | |||
| Are you the king? If not, then you need to accept the king's parliament. ] 01:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===Reply to McClingon, point by point=== | |||
| :Truth is absolute. I agree. | |||
| Did I ever say, "Truth is absolute," or are you just making up quotes like this as you go along now, putting words in my mouth to suit your own agenda? | |||
| :Are you the king? | |||
| This kind of nasty ad hominem/poisoning the well type wisecrack implying that I might think I run things here does not even deserve a reply. I suggest that you read ], then follow policy: limit comment to content, not wisecracks about the contributors. | |||
| {{dispute-resolution}} | |||
| Let me just say the following about the Misplaced Pages policy on what is the FIRST STEP in resolving CONTENT disputes here in Misplaced Pages: | |||
| It appears that those on your side might have the wrong idea about the Misplaced Pages policy on what is the FIRST STEP in resolving content disputes here in Misplaced Pages. It is not "Whichever side can muster the most people gets to control the content of an article, and gets to bully the minority until they give up in disgust and leave" (]), it is consensus decision-making through principled ] in which "BOTH POINTS OF VIEW NEED TO BE INCLUDED to achieve ] (emphasis added): | |||
| <blockquote>Principled negotiation is a cooperative process whereby participants try to find a solution which meets the legitimate interests of both parties, which in the context of Misplaced Pages usually involves appropriate mention of all points of view in an article thus improving the quality of the article. Compromising or "splitting the difference" is generally inappropriate if it means departure from generally recognized points of view, both of which need to be included to achieve ]. <!--Pages 3 to 14, Chapter 1, ''Getting to Yes'', ISBN 0140157352; pages viii, ix, ''The Art of Negotiating'', ISBN 156619816X--></blockquote> | |||
| In ] we find, "True consensus involves meeting everyone’s needs (which in the case of Misplaced Pages means appropriate mention of all points of view in an article thus improving the quality of the article). Consensus decision-making is intended to deemphasize the role of factions or parties and promote the expression of individual voices." | |||
| See the diference between that and the point of view of those on your side, that tyranny of the majority is okay, that those of the majority point of view should control the content of an article through force of numbers? (See the recent history of ] and ] for example.) --] 20:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Removing attacks == | |||
| Ad hominem comments by those on the ] side deleted. Admins should know that the ] is comment on content, not the contributors. | |||
| I recommend that you all try to learn how to stick to discussion of the issues. Argument ad hominem is just another form of the logical fallacy of trying to create a diversion away from the issues genuinely under discussion. See ]. | |||
| == ad hominem == | |||
| :''"Vandal" is just argument _ad hominem_ ....'' | |||
| The point you are trying to make might be slightly more convincing if you had not called me a moron in your edit summary. | |||
| So you DO recognize an ad hpminem personal attack when you see one? Just testing. | |||
| :''This is just another content dispute, like many others....'' | |||
| And like many others, the dispute is between a very marginalized, extreme viewpoint lashing out at an accepted, mainstream viewpoint. Please read our ] policy, and I mean ''really'' read it from top to bottom. In particular, this part: | |||
| :''Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. That may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties....'' | |||
| ]( ], ], ], ) 01:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| "Vandal" is just argument _ad hominem_ on these ]' part, moron. I assure you I am not a vandal. This is just another content dispute, like many others, and this organized group of obscurantists are set on controlling the content of several related pages, ] and ] and] and ] included, by force of numbers. When challenged, they mounted their argument _ad hominem_ personal attack instead of honestly dealing with the issues. You seem like you might have the potential to become a useful ] young man. Don't make the mistake of falling for the sophistry of the ]. | |||
| --] 20:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| You only get 3 reverts per 24 hour period. Please stop reverting ]. ] 23:58, August 16, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| # 23:22, August 16, 2005 BaronLarf blocked "User:67.182.157.6" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR on Epistemology; continuing bad behavior. See ]) | |||
| To be fair, one side must get just as many reverts as the other side, otherwise we are stuck with ], which does not comport with Misplaced Pages ], consensus dispute-resolution, in which the needs of all parties are insured. Revert battles would become a thing of the past, because a tyrannous majority would no longer be able to gang up on the minority and control content by force of numbers. (You do the math.) | |||
Latest revision as of 08:02, 22 September 2022
Unregistered editors using this IP address received messages on this talk page years ago. Since users of the IP address have likely changed, these messages have been removed. They can be viewed in the page history.