Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:15, 22 August 2007

Archives

Archive 1: Beginning of Time to 14 March 2007.

Archive 2: 14 March 2007 to 14 May 2007.

Archive 3: 14 May 2007 to 15 June 2007.

Some thoughts

Hi, Ferrylodge. I'd just like to make a couple of points. I'm sorry that you've been having quite a rough time here. For me, as a strongly pro-life Catholic, one of the most positive aspects to my general experience at Misplaced Pages has been gaining the respect and friendship, and I might even add affection of people who have POVs that are extremely different from mine. Some Catholic beliefs are complicated, and cannot be explained in two sentences. Therefore, it's easy to twist my belief that an embryo is a unique but very vulnerable human being with an immortal soul into an indifference towards the distress of a rape victim or towards the plight of someone with a life-threatening illness for whom a cure might be found if the research were not blocked by intolerant, heartless hypocrites like me! It's unfair, of course, but being judged unfairly is part of holding a minority viewpoint, so you just learn to cope. I actually cope extremely well with it, but I won't say that it doesn't ever cause pain. It does.

Since joining Misplaced Pages, I've seen various pro-life or Christian editors getting abused and blocked — repeatedly. I don't mean editors who happened to be pro-life or Christian; I mean people who were very likely on Misplaced Pages solely because they wanted to promote a particular POV. I tend to look quite kindly on people whose contributions show that they're here for a reason — even if it's a pro-choice reason. Misplaced Pages frowns on it, but I don't think it necessarily shows a lack of good faith. Someone feel strongly about an issue. He discovers Misplaced Pages. He believes his POV to be the correct one, and therefore sees various articles as being very biased. He tries to fix them. He doesn't vandalize. He doesn't engage in name-calling. Yet he meets with resistence. Why?

This is something I've given a lot of thought to, because my own experience on Misplaced Pages has been so different. Nobody except the kind of trolls who end up indefinitely blocked anyway has ever been really abusive to me. And in all such cases (except for someone who is now in police custody), the people who were abusive towards me were far more abusive towards others and were banned because of their behaviour towards others. But people who just had "the other POV" and who were ordinary, decent people treated me extremely well. I joined Misplaced Pages, edited Terri Schiavo (guess what my POV was!), was almost immediately accused of vandalism, acted as if I hadn't seen the accusation, and received a very gracious apology a few days later, which I accepted. The person who had made the accusation and apology later wrote about me in quite flattering terms. When I took the part of an editor who I felt was being bullied, an administrator posted a comment that I had been there only two days and had shown no interest in anything but Terri Schiavo. I felt slightly unwelcomed, but ignored the comment. Months later, that administrator described himself as one of my fans. I doubt if he even remembered his original comment, and and I certainly wasn't going to hold a grudge.

I do not think that the disputes you have been in have been 100% your fault. I have seen some posts either addressed to you or addressed to someone else about you on a page which you were sure to read which can only be described as taunting. It was for that reason that I did not take part in the RfC that you brought. It would only have added to the general pile on of opposition that you were getting. To be frank, I wish that Bishonen had not blocked you. But I absolutely do not accept that she was wrong to block you, or that she was abusive in any way. A wish that she hadn't blocked you is based on the fact that it caused so much bad feeling as to do more harm than good. I would have preferred a gentler approach, but it's something on which administrators can validly disagree, and it's quite possible that she was right and that I'm wrong. Even if I'm right, I don't feel at all that it was an abusive block, just one that, in retrospect, caused more harm than benefit. Even though I think highly of KillerChihuahua (very highly of her, in fact), I would have been willing to subject her to a small amount of extra annoyance rather than subject you to a lot of humilation and frustration. Umm, if you're reading this, Puppy, please accept my apologies ;-). Part of being an administrator is being able to cope with such annoyances, and it's my belief that KC has shown herself able in the past. Perhaps I'd have blocked you after your fifth clearly unwelcome post rather than after your third. Would you have stopped after three?

One piece of advice that you might take on board for the future is this: Don't ever continue to post on the talk page of somebody who has started removing your posts. That is regarded by many Wikipedians, myself included, as harassment. As Bishonen and KillerChihuahua both know, I have reason to be aware of what the word harassment means in real life. I do not at all think that what you were doing was to be compared with creepy, sinister, spiteful tracking down of people in real life, posting their real names on Misplaced Pages and other sites, phoning their superiors at work, sending them sexually explicit e-mails, etc. Bishonen certainly wasn't implying that you'd be guilty of that. But, just as the word "cold" can cover many points on a thermometer and can have some overlap with "freezing", the word "harassment" can cover various degrees of nuisance and perstering while also covering threats and stalking. Perhaps if I had blocked you, I might have put something like "continued pestering after warning" in the block log, but I doubt if you would have liked that either.

Anyway, I'm sorry that this happened. I'm sorry also that instead of swallowing your pride and letting go, you chose to make more of a fuss, which, predictably, led to more frustration and humiliation for you. Although I've been very busy lately, I did see the RfC you brought. Under no circumstances could I have endorsed your statement, as I saw no wrongdoing on the part of Bishonen, even though I'd have turned a blind eye to your last post, rather than blocking. However, I did not enjoy seeing it turn into an RfC about you, and therefore refrained from endorsing any of the views.

What can you do now? I suggest go back to editing, and try and put this behind you. Try not to edit war. (I'm not saying you do; this is just general advice.) If you think your opponents are edit warring, ignore it. Use the article talk pages as much as possible. Use preview in your talk page posts, and modify them again and again before submitting, until you're satisfied that each post deals with the arguments you want to make about what should or shouldn't be in the article, and not with your opinions about your fellow editors. If other people are not following the same strict guidelines, ignore it, since there's nothing you can do about it anyway. Don't even bother pointing it out. I also think it would be a good idea for you to do some editing in areas that are completely unrelated to your POV. Revert some vandalism. Find some articles about a book you've read, a place you've been in, and correct errors, improve the wording, or add content. It will put you in a stronger position when editing articles that you feel strongly about if you have built up a record which shows that you're here to improve the encyclopaedia, and not just because you have an agenda.

Of the people you've been in dispute with, there is, as far as I can see, only one who is unlikely to treat you with generosity if you swallow your pride and try to move on. And even he will be less in a position to taunt you if you don't make it easy for him. In particular, I can give you my personal assurance that KillerChihuahua, Bishonen, and Severa are kind, sensitive people who would never take pleasure in trampling on someone who was feeling frustrated, especially if he gave some signs of wanting to collaborate and move on. And, although I have seen less of Andrew c than of the other people I mention, I'm fairly sure I could add him to the list as well.

I'm trying not to edit too much in the next two or three months, as I have papers to finish writing over the summer. (I've said that before and have continued editing in spite of myself!) If you feel the need for any help, click on my contributions, and if I'm active, feel free to ask me. If I'm not active, you could try Phaedriel (but please check her user page first, as her baby is ill at the moment, and I'd hate to be responsible for someone coming to her for help at a time that she has real life problems), ElinorD, or GTBacchus. They may not all be pro-life (in fact, I know that one of them isn't), but I'm not talking about help in the sense of getting an article to say what you want it to say, but simply help if you feel that there's a general "anti-Ferrylodge" atmosphere at a talk page. I should tell you, though, that I have not asked these people for permission to give their names, and they may not be in a position to help you. I mention them because all three are administrators who feel strongly about treating people as human beings (to use a phrase from GTBacchus), and who, as far as I know, have not ever been in dispute with you (unless you count Phaedriel's "Outside view" in the RfC as a dispute, but believe me, she's one of the kindest administrators we have).

Best wishes, and I hope this will work out. Musical Linguist 18:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to leave such a long message, Musical Linguist. Bishonen asked me if I would like the RfC archived or not, and I said that I would indeed like it archived. Certainly I would not have made that choice if I saw things as you do: that I "chose to make more of a fuss, which, predictably, led to more frustration and humiliation for you." I do not think I was humiliated at all. On the contrary, I think that the RfC should be humiliating to many of those who participated by name-calling, insults, posting irrelevant photos of food, and generally being extremely unreasonable and refusing to address facts.

I hope that one day, Misplaced Pages will consider using a better system for RfCs, perhaps instead selecting editors at random and making their participation required (e.g. like a jury in our everyday court system). The present system where the subject of an RfC advertises and encourages his or her friends to join the discussion is unfair and unrepresentative.

You said, "Perhaps I'd have blocked you after your fifth clearly unwelcome post rather than after your third. Would you have stopped after three?" This comment of yours raises several interesting points, which I will only mention very briefly. First of all, those three comments were in response to an accusation of harassment and an initial block threat; a specific part of the RfC was about whether that initial accusation and block threat were justified. You have not addressed those questions, nor did most of the RfC commenters, and I do not believe that is fair. Second of all, there was not the slightest indication from KillerChihuahua that my presence at her talk page was unwelcome, except prior to my third and final comment, which merely said: "I am glad to be done posting on this page, but, for the record, I dispute any suggestion of harassment. Please do not delete this comment."

I wonder, Musical Linguist, did you look at what happened at the RCOG article that gave rise to the dispute?Ferrylodge 19:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Ferrylodge. Thanks for your reply, and I saw your message on GTBacchus's page as well. First of all, let me assure you that it was not my intention to insult you in using the word "humiliated". Although I don't agree with the RfC you brought against Bishonen, the word "humiliated" does not at all imply that you were wrong to do so — merely that it went very badly for you. Let's put it this way. If I were the most innocent person in the whole world, and a really nasty, abusive administrator blocked me completely unjustly, and I brought an RfC against her, and everyone who turned up supported her, and said how great she was, and gave her cupcakes, I would be humiliated. It wouldn't matter how right I was, or how right I thought I was. If you didn't find it humiliating, that's great. Perhaps my concern for you has been misplaced. I may have been wrong to wince every time someone else endorsed Bishonen's response, although I could find no fault with it, and although it was endorsed by some of the very very nicest Wikipedians, who would be incapable of wilfully adding to someone's distress.

Regarding Phaedriel, as I see it, you reverted SlimVirgin at that RfC page — something you didn't actually have the right to do. Phaedriel simply reverted your revert: that seems quite appropriate. She didn't accuse you of vindictiveness; she said that bringing the RfC seemed vindictive. That she didn't get back to you after a message you left for her is not something you should hold against her. First of all, she's a much-loved Wikipedian, who gets far more talk page messages and requests than most people, and can hardly be blamed if she overlooks one or two. Secondly, you can take it from me that she has, and has had, real life problems. If you can't accept that she's someone who would want to help you and who would treat you gently if you were in trouble, I'm sorry. That leaves two other people who might be able to help if you felt bullied or ganged up on. I don't know how likely that is to happen, but I certainly did notice some snide, unhelpful, taunting remarks made either to you or about you on pages you were likely to see (including my own), and I did not like them.

Once KillerChihuahua rolled back your post, it was very obvious that she didn't want you posting on her page. To have made another post, telling her "please do not delete this post", especially after another administrator had given you a block warning was obviously going against her wishes. She could easily have said, "It's all right, Bishonen, I don't mind his posts." I haven't looked at what gave rise to the dispute; I don't have time to look into it now. Regardless, whether you're right or wrong, the only thing that can help you now is to move on. I may even have been wrong to reopen this.

Have a nice summer, and I'm sorry I can't help you more. Musical Linguist 21:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You have a nice Summer too. I'm sorry that you think I was harassing KillerChihuahua (KC) on her talk page when I made three relatively innocuous comments (in response to her false accusations of bad faith), without ever having been asked by her to leave her talk page. I'm sorry you think that Slim Virgin has a right to make irrelevant comments about cupcakes in an already-closed-and-archived RfC, without being reverted by me. I’m sorry that you recognize people were “taunting” me but that you have no criticism for all of the administrators who stood by doing nothing about it. I’m sorry that you come to my talk page with flattery for KC, who has no hesitation about insulting me at the drop of a hat. I did not enjoy the RfC, but I did not feel humiliated by it either. I was outraged by it, because it was grossly unfair. As you said, the best thing to do at this point is to move on.Ferrylodge 22:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Common law

You might have gotten an edit conflict. I'm done with "Common law" for the afternoon. Boundlessly

John Dean quote

The quote should be left in there as comments by the WH counsel give a fuller picture of the discussion. Plus it is rather interesting that been accused Thompson of partisanship, and later Thompson played a role in Nixon's downfall and stopped being a Nixon-defender.

Why do you want to to remove it? C56C 19:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Brett Kavanaugh

I was digging through your old edits and wanted to ask about this one. What is it? That was during his nomination, right? I ask because months back I had to fight very hard to keep the conspiracy junk off. C56C 20:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That was quite a while ago. What did you want to know about it? I subsequently retitled that section from "external links" to "background."Ferrylodge 00:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to bring it up there....

...in the middle of a discussion, but I thought you'd like to know that the first section of the article is the "lead". I don't believe I've seen that other spelling. Cheers. -GTBacchus 05:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I'm surprised I've never seen that, and I apologize for correcting you without checking first. It still looks totally alien to me, but it turns out that's not its fault. -GTBacchus 05:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

We're about the same age

I used to listen to Mae every week in college. She was the queen of CT, it was the Reagan administration, and I was eating it all up. Even The Nation ran a cover story about how Reagan personally orchestrated the KAL 007 incident. I still have the "Official Ronald Reagan Door Mat" that The Nation was giving away. (More of a small hand towel than a doormat`). Those were crazy days. - Crockspot 18:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

SNL did a great skit about how Reagan was a moron in public, but behind the scenes spoke seven languages and was diabolically clever. Hilarious! I never voted for him, but wish I had. Anyway, this Thompson thing has eaten up a good bit of my time lately, so I must try to salvage my career. Feel free to contact me.Ferrylodge 19:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thompson

I have an issue with the rented truck thing. - Crockspot 23:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope it's okay now.Ferrylodge 00:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That works. - Crockspot 01:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I took about a week off from editing Misplaced Pages, but just today logged on to see that the image I uploaded into the Fred Thompson article has been nominated for deletion. Thanks for first resizing it, then correcting the fair use rationale. Of course since then it's been nominated for deletion again and I saw you left reasoning on why it shouldn't be. I was going to leave a comment regarding why it shouldn't be deleted, but my reasons are practically the same as yours, so I feel saying that wouldn't help. If you think even saying that would help, I'd be glad to post that there. Thanks again. Stills64 02:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:DWS empty head.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DWS empty head.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Specifically, WP:NFCC states that television screenshots can be used specifically for articles about the television station or program; this screenshot is being used, instead, to illustrate a medical condition. MastCell 20:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not upload that image.Ferrylodge 20:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a mistake on my part. Feel free to remove this thread if you'd like. MastCell 21:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

Hello, I am writing because I noticed you have made several contributions to the article pregnancy. I have proposed a WikiProject for pregnancy and childbirth related articles, and am looking for individuals interested in participating. The proposal is here. Cheers! --Ginkgo100 21:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for signing up. The next step is to find other potential participants and see if they are interested. --Ginkgo100 16:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Image size

With regards to images flowing into the next section, I think that there is no way around this problem without using hard line breaks. For example, I have a widescreen laptop, and even after your edits, the images still flow down to the next section. I'm not sure that Misplaced Pages has a standard that says "make sure that the image doesn't flow into the next section at an 800x600 viewing standard". Specifically, I think the circulatory picture would be well served to be larger, since the actual fetal-adult differences are so hard to see otherwise. What do you think? Antelan 21:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton

I'm sorry if I did something bad, but I was only giving my insight to the page. I'm a little suprised that to "solve" the problem the editors removed the section; I hope they add it back but like I said, I'm involved in a very consuming FAC discussion so I'm not going to get that involved. I hope my comments convinced them to take a second look at removing the section. Best, Happyme22 06:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

They added it back. Thanks again for clarifying your thoughts for them.Ferrylodge 06:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Fred Thompson age difference again

Zsero has resumed his deletion of the age difference between Fred Thompson and Jeri Kehn Thompson. As a participant in previous Talk discussion on this matter, your presence at Talk:Fred Thompson would be appreciated. Italia 14:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

False statements concerning age difference between Fred Thompson and Jeri Kehn

It is a lie that I was the first editor to add the Thompsons' age difference to Fred Thompson. Please retract the false allegations of incivility you are directing at me in other editors' User_talk space for highlighting Zsero's untrue statements. Italia 20:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not intend to retract anything. I never accused you of lying. I said you were being uncivil. Today, you comlpetely deleted the talk page comments of others here and here and here. You have also been uncivil here (“You are a liar") and here (“telling the same lies”) and here (accusing others of “screaming”) and here (more accusations of “screaming” and “goading"). I do not intend to pursue this conversation with you, because I do not find you to be a reasonable person.Ferrylodge 20:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)