Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:55, 17 June 2005

Hey there, welcome to the Misplaced Pages. :) Feel free to drop me a line in case you have any questions. --Sn0wflake 15:58, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• If you're ready for the complete list of Misplaced Pages documentation, there's also Misplaced Pages:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Mgm| 22:16, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Kool. I used to contribute fairly heavily to a couple of online gaming blogs. This community is an interesting experiment. I had gone thru the tutorial once, but with experience comes Wisdom... --ghost 22:26, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Human chess

My pleasure. I hope my edits helped you learn something more about the wiki code. Happy editing! Mgm| 22:16, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Culture of Life

I just got your message after I re-added the quote to the article. In my opinion, if one side can call the other side "Nazis," then turnabout is fair play. Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy does not preclude strong quotes from being included. Dave 05:16, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry for the confusion. Dave 14:46, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

JImbo versus Jimbo

Warning: Do not mistake the user called JImbo Wales, with a capital "I", for the user called Jimbo Wales, with lower-case "i". The former is a new user who deliberately chose a name resembling the latter's name--bordering on attempted identity theft. He's been vandalizing Misplaced Pages articles (look at his edit history; click on "diff"). The latter is Misplaced Pages's founder, and definitely not a communist (actually quite capitalistic: he made lots of money in financial markets, and donated a half-million dollars to the Wikimedia Foundation). Michael Hardy 03:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case

Aloha. I'm not following the use of "Ms." in relation to Schiavo, as that means she was unmarried or divorced, which is not the case. I think we should remove all references to Mrs. or Ms. --Viriditas | Talk 00:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't go replying on my talk page to issues that don't concern me.

I don't want to come around and see this nonsense:

Viriditas wrote, "Aloha. I'm not following the use of "Ms." in relation to Schiavo, as that means she was unmarried or divorced, which is not the case. I think we should remove all references to Mrs. or Ms. --Viriditas | Talk 00:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)" Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:A_ghost"

Couldn't disagree with you more strongly on this one. Mrs. indicates a married woman. During the Equal Right Movement, Ms. was established to simply mean a woman, with no designation of marritial status, past or present. Miss continued to be used to designate a (usually young) that had never married. These terms can be fluid, based on the preference of the woman.

However, in Western English-speaking cultures, refering to anyone by nothing more than their surname is normally a mark if disrespect. The only exception is within military organizations (which are by nature de-humanizing) or certain Eastern cultures (where clan names is a mark of honor). Using surname only is considered to be de-humanizing. It devalues the individual. This is why the American Psychiatric Association trains therapists to require abusers to refer to victims by their name. I'm sure that you have no desire to devalue Ms. Schiavo. Since your straw polls favor using either Mrs. or Ms. by a wide margin, change your "policy". Now.--ghost 05:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Because you can't tell the difference between two seperate users. I changed the reference of Ms. to Mrs. because, as you yourself said, Mrs. indicates a married woman, which Terri Schiavo was. I was for Ms., personally. Apparently style guides say last name only, though I find this dubious. That's not the point, the point is that my talk page is not a place for your garbage. And don't give me orders. Professor Ninja 06:06, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

That's fine, apology accepted. I changed Ms. to Mrs. because that was the overall consensus. I wanted Ms. for uniformity in abbreviation (Mr., after all, having two letters) but apparently I was outvoted, and Michael & co. refer to her as Mrs. Thus, Mrs. We can't have Mrs. in one article, Ms. in another. Which is why Viriditas asked me to change it. His assumption, I believe, is based on style guides, not on any want to dehumanize (though he is correct in his assertion that in formal writing it is last name only, first name and last for disambiguation, first name for familiar references; I have never seen a formal paper, be it an essay, encyclopaedia entry, or what-have-you, where, for example, Mr. Friedman would be used over Milton Friedman or just plain Friedman.) Professor Ninja 06:39, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Really? Can you provide a link to this formal style? Maybe it's just a national thing, but I've always seen it the other way round here in Canada. That is, journalists use Mr./Mrs./Ms., whereas formal writing uses only the surname without the title. To recycle my previous example, a news reporter would say Mr. Friedman, whereas a critical paper (whether that criticism be bad or good, note, I'm using it without connotation here) would make use of only Friedman, as in "In Friedman's editorial in the New York Times..." Professor Ninja 07:45, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Terri Schiavo edits

Thanks for the compliment, but if I had shown the proper restraint, I wouldn't have posted the comments in the first place. So it's not really cause for praise. I've just been under some stress lately, due to overinvolvement in political and world issues... it gets depressing. Guess you really can know too much. Anyway, thanks for the support. Coolgamer 19:00, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

I rewrote the introduction to give the critics of ID a better voice. FuelWagon 21:58, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

ghost, if you get a chance, maybe you could check in on the talk page for Intelligent Design and put your two cents in. I'm getting bulldozed. FuelWagon 02:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

"have I helped at all? You seemed to be feeling overwhelmed the other day" Yeah, you helped. Yeah, I'm feeling overwhelmed. Thanks for checking in. I'm just frustrated by the moving target requirements to keep the analogy in. It feels very "whack-a-mole"ish in nature. The analogy must do this to be in the article. Oh, it does that? Alright, but it must also satisfy this. Really? Uhm, well no one's given me a good reason to have it. etc. etc. What's really burning my butt right now is that the pyramid analogy is no different than the "watch under a stone" analogy told by pro-ID authors in various books, but for whatever reason the pro-science analogy has to meet all sorts of requirements that don't get applied to the pro-ID analogies. FuelWagon 13:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, spirituality and science are not mutually exclusive. They just have different playpens. I tried to explain it to someone on the talk page here. FuelWagon 15:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I answered you and some of your colleagues...

Thank you for a few suggestions and observations. I was unsure how much of my comments or edits would be archived.

In any case, I gave detailed response, in particular to you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Terri_Schiavo#RickK_deleted_quotations_to_the_law_-an_inappropriate_cencure

but also I respeonded to your colleagues as well.

Some of your claims that the unjust judge followed the law I think are incorrect, but I maybe should not have stated my view as fact, because it was hotly disputed. I think I will mull on that concept where the encyclopedia doesn't take sides...

Gordon Wayne Watts, Lakeland, FL, USA 03:22, May 9, 2005 (EST)

Thank you GHOST for welcoming me in to the community and offering some helpful links. I, by now, think I've got the hang of it, even if I don't have the time to devote to it that I'd like. Gordon Wayne Watts, Lakeland, FL, USA 19:54, May 9, 2005 (EST)

GHOST, I saw your comments on Fuel Wagon's page: "I'm glad to see you supporting mediation. I was trying to avoid misrepresenting your stance, and may've done so anyway. If I did, I apologize.--ghost 18:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)," and responded, but here is a copy here, quoting myself: --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 17:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

"That's OK, ghost. It happens; I'm hard to understand sometimes. Also, the reason for my hiatis (time off) is not due to anger at my neighbors -however angry or frustrated I got -but, instead, because it was becoming a "bad investment." I am glad with my input so far, but my time is better spent on my own web pages (or cleaning my room) --both places where "reverts" are less likely. Besides, the worst thing on these pages is not near as bad as many bad things in life, so I won't sweat the small stuff. (From the edit summary is this snip: "No problem. Your apology is accepted, ghost; No harm was done, I imagine.") --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 17:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)" --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 17:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Survey on Prefixed-Style

I wanted to check with you and see if your current preferences are ranked the way you mean to. Currently you say under Alternative 4, "I can't think of a better option", but you have ranked this as your Fifth, or last choice. If this is your actual intention, I do not intend to disturb it, but I thought your comment was ambiguous enough that it was worth checking. Whig 04:00, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II

Please note that I have disputed the neutrality of this article. Jguk reverted my NPOV template, claiming that the NPOV dispute is just a personal campaign of one person. Whig 09:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Palm Sunday Compromise.

I thought you fleshed that paragraph out nicely, but I massaged it a little more. I hope you don't mind. Thanks for your help and your support. Duckecho 00:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Ghost, I got your message on my page; thx again for the continued support of V's and my edits. While there is one less "Pro-Terri’s Law" links, I am good with it, since the remaining links speak well of their point of view. Also, leaving one more Anti-Terri's-Law link should quieten the critics, who seem to slightly outnumber me. I will tentatively replace the links, but separate them into "pro-" and "anti" groupings, like the http://en.wikipedia.org/Intelligent_design#External_links links section has it. (I overheard some other Schiavo editor(s) discussing that page, and went on over for a look-see.) I will also tentatively add in the "anti-Terri’s-Law" links that I found. Let me know what you think.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• ghost, I put a link on the two "Terri's Law" Pages, pointing reader to the other page, so they won't be deprived, and all they need to do is find one page, and they can get to both of them. Also, I made sure that the edits I did pushed the pages towards NPOV, but you may still want to review the Vanity page policy to make sure my edits are OK. I don't give you what you wanted in the talk section (reversion or deletion of certain links), but I did give you what you need, namely the information to solve the problem --and the permission & blessings for you and others to proceed unhindered. I am trusting you to be fair.

• Oh, I just noticed: At this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_is_not_paper#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox I find two useful quotes. Since they are not on Wiki's "vanity" page, and might be otherwise hard for you to locate, I will reprint them here; they are on the same subject (namely "Wiki's not a soapbox").

• Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. See Misplaced Pages:No original research. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in normal peer-reviewed journals, or elsewhere on the web. Misplaced Pages will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted human knowledge. Of course, you don't have to get all of your information on entries from peer-reviewed journals; but strive to make that information no less reliable and verifiable.

• Self-promotion. While you are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in, remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. A very few somewhat famous Wikipedians have significantly contributed to encyclopedia articles about themselves and their accomplishments, and this has mostly been accepted after some debate. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is not acceptable. See Misplaced Pages:Autobiography.

• If you want to show overt support, you could delete the links in question, and replace them back on, so the "edit history" shows it was not me, the links' owner. One thing that may be helpful: I want to mention that you can see who made recent comments by clicking on the "history" tab at the top of the page, and then clicking on the "last" link by the recent entry. That way, you don't have to sift through the mountains of pages, and you can see just the recent "talk." OK, I've done the best I can to offer the readers all the information they need. I discuss the two points of disagreement in talk on these pages -and "make my case" for the readers.

• I may be very busy checking up on a friend that has been in jail a lot recently; had a funny dream about him and am worried. Plus, other personal affairs might pull me away from the board; am trusting my neighbors to not take advantage of me (and start deleting all my links willy nilly!) while I am gone. Take care, --GordonWattsDotCom 17:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Terri Schiavo Mediation

Hi. I just returned from vacation and thought I'd take a quick look at the TS page and TS Talk page and was...speechless. I'll try and take the time to read up on all the carryings-on. In the meantime, has there been any action on the mediation front?--Mia-Cle 20:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'll keep plowing through the incredible amount of verbiage on the TS talk page and then head over to the request for mediation. (I may take a moment to respond to something Mr. Watts said about a traffic court case he has.) I took a quick look at the government involvement and will get back to it. (I noticed a little something that was missing -- after JEB acted, Schiavo immediately filed suit against Bush for violating Florida's constitutional separation of powers, Schiavo v. Bush. Then the court decisions. There's no transition between Bush's action and the court decision. Always nice to know who is suing whom for what.)--Mia-Cle 00:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ghost, I'll leave the re-revert alone for now. I didn't know when I saw Ed's edit that he was mediating, and as a matter of fact, it was fully an hour after his edit that he put anything on the talk page. Granted, it was still before my revert, but I hadn't seen his note before I reverted. His version isn't up to the standard we've held for quite a while on this article, but I'm willing to hold off fixing it while we settle other business. Duckecho 14:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't take your reverting of it personally, particularly once I realized the purpose of Ed's presence. I saw his edit and reverted it immediately as a drive-by before I saw his Talk post. I once reverted one of your edits with regret, too, but felt (and argued) strongly at the time that it (your edit) didn't belong, and it wasn't personal, either. You must have agreed as you never complained. Even GW thinks I'm fair, so I guess I'm doing something right. Yeah, as seen by the most recent "Talk" post, the campfire approach isn't effective. By the way, thanks for your comments earlier regarding the accolades we received elsewhere. Duckecho 15:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Still a little green

Hi ghost. I responded to you on my user page. But since I'm still pretty new to the User talk aspect of wiki, I wasn't sure if it alerted you or not. David Bergan 22:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Responded to your latest on my user page. David Bergan 21:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

More TS foolishness

As you saw, friend NCdave is back and has put the NPOV tag on twice. Be on the lookout for more of the same. I'm concerned about taking it out a third time. Thanks for your kind words on my page. Duckecho 01:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Which word?

You said (in part): My position is, was, and will be that what the courts ruled must be considered to be Fact by Misplaced Pages. Everything else is heresy and speculation.

Although heresy would arguably be correct, did you mean hearsay? I'm not busting your chops, I just want to make sure which way to interpret the sentence. Also, I think you used one for the other once before.

Why cannot those people grasp the rule of law? Duckecho 03:44, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: For a good laugh.

What he lacks in people skills, he makes for as an editor.

I like his people skills. He tells people where the bear shit in the buckwheat. Although I don't shy away from a confrontation (as SWMBO is all too familiar with), I'm not good at actually calling someone a dipwad, unless I've really lost all hope of his rehabilitation. Note my effort with PatSw, although I'm running out of patience there. I had some harsh words once for NCdave, but that definitely is like wrestling with a pig (you both get dirty, but the pig likes it). The one other character there I've basically just written off as even existing. I don't respond to him, I don't answer him, I don't acknowledge him. Duckecho 04:50, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Signature

Yeah, I manually changed it for that one post. David Bergan 19:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Dear ghost, your kind remarks and efforts are much appreciated. I look forward to working with you too. --Ian Pitchford 19:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Inviting folks to become users

Tony, you took exception with my handling of an anonymus user on the Talk:Terri Schiavo page. I'm rather confused by this. You asked that I not "pressure" people into becoming users. I didn't think I was, rather that I was offering an invitation and a link to do so. In fact, my invitation was significantly less strident that those made by others on the same Talk page. You're obviously an editor of note. How would you suggest I handle this in the future?--ghost 12:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well you implied that only logged-in users were members. Fact is we're open to anyone. I didn't mean to offend you but felt that this was a form of pressure. We do have a lot of valued editors who don't, and won't, create a user account. They're as much members as you or I. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(courtesy copy to you, Ghost. I don't intend to carry on a dialogue with someone else on your page.) Harrumph! Where were you when Neutrality and others virtually ran off one of our better editors (LRod), never to return, a couple of months ago by reverting his edits to Terri Schiavo on sight solely because he wasn't registered. In fact, Ghost probably remembers it. Duckecho 13:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do, and that's why I questioned it. Although in fairness, Tony's been on vac.--ghost 13:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

More TS characters

Man, that Irish woman is becoming as big a PITA as NCdave or GW. The big difference is she occasionally correctly holds our feet to the fire on sourcing of statements, but her POV bias is really starting to show through.

And her PITA running mate with a severe POV has such a poor comprehension of English that he can't be taken seriously at all. Duckecho 15:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)