Revision as of 01:17, 31 October 2007

Vandalism is futile Please understand that this userpage is frequently vandalized, and vandalism is reverted pretty quickly. You will not accomplish anything by vandalizing Misplaced Pages. If you wish to try test editing, you may do so in our sandbox located at Misplaced Pages:Sandbox or create a test subpage by putting "/test" after your username and clicking "create page." Thanks

Contacting me

If you wish to contact me, the quickest and easiest way is to CLICK HERE.

Archives

Archive 1 March 3, 2006 - May 4, 2006

Archive 2 May 5, 2006 - May 25, 2006

Archive 3 May 26, 2006 - August3, 2006

Archive 4 August 5, 2006 - August 25, 2006

Archive 5 August 25, 2006 - September 27, 2006

Archive 6 October 3 2006 - Oct 29 2006

Archive 7 October 30, 2006 - November 29, 2006

Archive 8 November 29, 2006 - July 7, 2007

Archive 9 July 8, 2007 - September 17, 2007

Archive 10 September 15 - October 13, 2007

Messages

Marvin Perry sources

You're welcome, do the news paper / magazine articles have to be online articles? As someone else is asking for magazine / news paper articles, Marvin has been in a few martial arts magazines but those articles are not published online which is what makes this a bit more difficult. WM208.59.93.238 20:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Printed sources would help: Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Marvin Perry Sources

Please keep in mind that these articles were never published online they were scanned from the actual magazine and placed on the kickboxing gym's web server

QIGONG WUSHU KUNG FU Magazine March 1999

Magazine Cover

http://boston-kickboxing.com/march_1999/cover.jpg

San Shou article on the left Marvin's picture on the right page 51

http://boston-kickboxing.com/march_1999/p51.jpg

Kung Fu QIGONG Magazine Nov/Dec 2001

Magazine Cover

http://boston-kickboxing.com/Nov_Dec_2001/cover.jpg

Marvin's picture is in the top left corner and the article is below page 89

http://boston-kickboxing.com/Nov_Dec_2001/p89.jpeg

wm208.59.93.238 03:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Question for an Administrator

DTM 142 keeps going around deleting things from articles relating to hunting because he has no idea about the subject and does not like what is said. What can be done about his biased editing of discussions? Thanks--203.192.91.4 14:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sara Bisel

Thank you for your note and request regarding Sara Bisel. I have access to Dr. Bisel's papers. I have also talked with and her daughter, Jane Bisel, about the claim of the Nat. Geo. photographer andthe placement of tyhe jewelry, as well as other changes I have made to the article. I have looked at the following:

Dr. Bisel's obit in the Rochester Post Bulletin, Rochester, MN,(Tuesday, February 6, 1996.)

Naitonal Geographic, Vol 162, No 6. "BuriedRoman Town Give Up Its Dead," (December, 1982)

National Geographic, Vol 165, No 5. "The Dead Do Tell Tales," (May, 1984)

Discover magazine, Vol 5, No 10. "The Bone Lady" (October, 1984)

Additionally, there two video productions about Sara and Herculaneum.

1) "In the Shadow of Vesuvius" National Geo Special, (February 11, 1987) 2) "30 yearsof National Geographic Special," (January 25, 1995)

She has co-written a book with her daughter.

"The Secrets of Vesuvius," Scholastic/Madison Press, 1991

Also, there is a chapter in "The Natural History of Pompeii," edited by Jashemski and Meyer, that was recently published (2002) by Cambridge University Press. The authors of the chapter, "Health and Nutrition at Herculaneum: An Examination of Human Skeletal Remains" are Sara and Jane Bisel.

Any help you could give would be much appreciated!

Thanks - Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by SGW999 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how we cite her papers-- those are primary sources. They're useful, but too much reliance on them would make the article "original research", which is not good. Please see WP:NOR. We would probably put Her Name. Personal papers. Name, title, etc. Date written. The others look good as secondary sources. (Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source, so it uses primarily secondary sources.) For citing, if the sources apply generally through the article, you can create a ==Works cited== section and organize them there. If each reference points to a particular line or section, you can put the information between <ref> </ref> tags and then put {{reflist}} in a reference section at the bottom. The mediawiki softwate will automatically list the references with numbered footnotes in the text. Or you can mix and match. Follow the manual of style link in the welcome for more general information. Hope that helps. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sara Bisel

Thanks again! I am very new to Wiki and your comments are much appreciated. I have added more sources for what I wrote about Sara, as well as seperated out her publications. Let me know if it is OK. I will go back and re-format (based on Wiki guidlines) when I get a chance.

Steve SGW999 18:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Adreka Submission

Thank you kindly for your email, this is my second submission to the wiki and I am still learning the ropes. Looking forward in conversing.

Cheers. J —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adreka001 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sara Bisel

I have made some changes to the Sara Bisel article, but, am having a hard time linking outside http sources. Her obits are not available on-line, nor are most of the articles I have cited. Not sure what to do. On the plus side, I did managed to get one linked.

Does the article look any better?

Also, I noticed that someone has said there maybe a conflict of interest regarding the article. Kinda no fun and am discouraged.

Thanks - Steve SGW999 02:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Butting in here, as the person who placed the conflict of interest tag. Don’t be discouraged! There can, however, be problems when articles are essentially written by people close to the subject: there is a temptation to ‘valorize’ the subject out of proportion to its importance in the context of a global encyclopedia. (To write an encomium is praiseworthy, but Misplaced Pages is not the place to publish it.) And as your main contributions to Misplaced Pages currently are to articles on two people called Bisel, it seemed likely that you had some connection with the family. My intention in placing the tag was not to do-down either Sara Bisel’s reputation or your writing about her: rather I hoped that it would draw in other editors with knowledge in the field who would be able to ensure that the importance of the subject was not being over- or under-played.

In retrospect I see that it would have been better if I had first dropped a note on your talk page and asked whether you had some personal or professional connection with the Bisels. I apologise for not doing that. (Sometimes one is rushed.)

Is there a connection?

—Ian Spackman 14:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no?

Ok so you just told me that my comments to new users is "uncivil and not conducive of an encyclopediac environment". Then you told me to greet members with a generic template! Dude, that is such a pussy way of greeting members. How do you think it makes them feel when they sign up and the best thing we can do is slap a welcome stamp on their talk page with nothing original or special, just for them? Unlike other members that slap a template on and called it good, I was being a man about it by 1: Checking their edits, 2: Judging if their edits were in good faith 3: Making original comments about them and why their edit(s) were good/bad. I am absolutely appalled that you would call any of what I said "Complimenting Vandals" and "Scaring away newcomers". Here's two of my comments incase you didn't get the picture.
"I like your edits, pimp. Looks like you just might be what this project needs. Keep up the good work."
"Good job Kerry. Looks like you got the smarts, skills, and manhood to get some real work done around here. This place ain't for most of the other pussies that sign up. Glad to see you've got more mojo than they do." AlfredTerry 13:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

my reply. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sara Bisel

Yes, I have a connection with the Bisel family. But, my articals should stand on their own, and I would be happy to discuss any specific issue anyone has with them. Certainly having a connection to family should not automatically disqualify an entry.

What prompted me to write about Dr. Harry Bisel on Misplaced Pages was the Minnesota Historical Society's Mayo Clinic display in the exhibit, "MN 150." Dr. Bisel has a number of his artifacts on display, as do a number of other Mayo staff. I wanted to link the MHS wiki page to your wiki page in order to allow visitors access to more in-depth information. I hoped to write articles and add to existing entries about Drs. E Starr Judd, Philip Hench, Edward Kendall, Wiliam Plummer, and Howard Polly in order to supplement the exhibit. (I should note that I am not getting any compensation from anyone for any of this work)

I have already worked a bit on the Dr. Henry Stanley Plummer and the Mayo Clinic articles. Sadly, an error on one of those pages has made it into the exhibits printed catalogue. Specifically, one which states that St. Marys Hospital became the Mayo Clinic in 1914. Yikes!

At that point, I decided to look at the Herculanuem page, and was disturbed by the misinformation. That is when I decided to add the Dr. Sara Bisel artical.

The question now is how do I get the "conflict of interest" bar removed from the articles? In the meantime, I will remove the links from the Minnesota Historical Society pages to Misplaced Pages.

Thanks again for taking a look at this - I would appreciate any help.

Steve SGW999 16:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, I will remove the links from the Minnesota Historical Society pages to Misplaced Pages.

Why? —Ian Spackman 16:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Bisel link removal from MHS

My concern about having a link to Harry Bisel from the MHS "wiki" (which is a seperate entity from your on-line wiki) is that it may give the impression that his label and interprative material is questionable. In the context of Wiki, this type of dialoge is inherent in the process and acceptable, while in the Museum community it often is not.

To further complicate matters, I helped write (as a unpaid volunteer with no connection to the Mayo Clinic) for MHS the Mayo Clinic interp materials and labels. Note - all materials submitted was vetted and appoved by the MHS and the Clinic. I also wrote the nomination for the Mayo Clinic.

Thanks again,

Steve SGW999 17:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Appreciated and Duly Noted

Yes, your comments did help and may I apologize on confronting you in such a belligerent manner. I know it might not make sense in your perspective but it gets frustrating when your way of doing something is challenged by someone with more authority than you do. I don't mean to say that you did the wrong thing but I just hope you understand the extent of the reason I responded the way I did. You're actually one of the few decent people on here, and again, my apologies for talking to you in such a manner, since you do deserve respect. AlfredTerry 17:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Marvin Perry {primarysources}

Howdy, do you think that the organization that awards a title is really a secondary source? They have as much of a financial interest as the person that won the award - it serves as advertising for them. To me, a secondary source would be someone that doesn't have a financial stake writing about the topic - and I don't see that here. Have fun! —Mrand 22:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

A primary source would be the subject's papers, letters, journals and such, or the document s and first hand accounts of others. For instance, Jefferson's letters are primary sources. They speak volumes on the world as he saw it.

Think of your question in a broader context. The members of may have a stake or interest, but how does that keep them from recognizing members of the group who have excelled? Who better to ask them someone who knows? What possible gain would there in conveying a title on a member of the group who has not proven himself to be worthy or a champion? Does any other professional sport not recognize it's champions? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I see the sanctioning body's publications as secondary sources, but I'm found it harder to find the related policies than it should be. If you could show me the policies I couldn't find, it would help me be more sensible. Gotta stop for now. Too tired. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I look at it from the point of view that they are not completely Misplaced Pages:Independent sources from the subject at hand (in my opinion). My reason for calling them a primary source is because they are the exact ones who awarded the title(s). This is one of those gray areas that many people will have varying opinions on, so I'm not too worried about it.—Mrand 20:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

True, it is in a gray area, but the subject could not control the source, and there is nothing to gain from a sanctioning body giving an award to someone unworthy. I think we can be certain he earned the titles. The frustrating thing has been finding truly independent sources. My hope is that someone somehow can come up with better sourcing for this. I guess gray sources are better than none. <sigh> Then there is the AfD debate. Does the fact the sport lacks main stream media coverage mean the sport and its champion's are not encyclopedic? Again a gray area, but sometimes if one is to risk erring, it's better to err on the side of the article if one cannot find certainty. In the past, I've seen a discussion go to keep based on similar, to me at the time, trivial coverage and miserable (to me) sources. Currently, I've been gnashing my teeth and wringing my hands over spending ours to come up with one or two measly sources of other articles. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to make sure I was clear... I'm not saying he didn't earn it. The only thing I'm saying is that the people making the awards are not independent of the awards, and therefore in my opinion, not unbiased third-party observers. Have fun! —Mrand 23:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks for voting on my RFA! Although ultimately it was unsuccessful, I do appreciate the feedback. You being skeptic of me given my actions in controversies is completely understandable - I have nothing to disagree with you here, I have acted out of line at least a couple of times and that is unacceptable to say the least. However, I do believe that at this point I have evolved enough as an editor to not make those mistakes and be civil in situations, and I hope that if I ever decide to run again my editing history will be a burden of proof to that - and I will strive to gain experience and improve my abilities even further to ensure that, next time, it does. So again, thank you for the feedback, and hopefully I will be able to eventually earn your support!--danielfolsom 22:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

ClaimJumperBill Did What?

Forgive my ignorance, but did ClaimJumperBill just insert that gutter talk nonsense shown in yellow when the latest two version of David Talbott are compared? Is that what he does? Please tell me what such behavior is about. Phaedrus7 17:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, ClaimJumperBill introduced hidden spam text to a number of articles and was subsequently blocked indefinitely by Wknight94. I never saw hidden text spam before. Maybe he thought RCPatrol would not notice. Makes no sense to me. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Kiki Vale

I just edited the Kiki Vale page and would like for you to look at it again. I think it is up to the standard of Misplaced Pages. Please let me know as soon as possible if there is anything else I need to change. Thanks again —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigJ83 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Mongoloid Race - India section

That section belongs on a page specific to India. Dark Tea pushes an agenda to single out how racially impure India is and frequently singles out the country on pages non-specific to India.

Her comment to me - "Face it. You're not pure Caucasians." on the Mongoloid Race history page displays this. I NEVER once said Indians were pure Caucasians. Making such a comment is silly and would never be made by me. Pureaswater 23:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like y'all got a content dispute going. I think you need to seek consensus on the talk page amongst the editors before removing such a big junk. If that does not seem feasible, you can make a Request for comment Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Mongoloid Race - 3RR

I understand.

The information is no doubt evidenced well by citations, and Dark Tea has done her research extensively and effectively. A whole section about one country is too specific for that page though. That information would sit comfortably on a page specific to the racial make up of India. If she wants to be so painstakingly specific, then she should add large sections about other nations with Mongoloid influence, such as the many nations of the Far East and South Eastern Asia, not to mention the Mongoloid influence in Central and Western Asia also.

If you had a look at her various comments and edits to other pages, you will clearly see she is pushing an agenda to add sections specific to India on pages non specific to any country, in the hope of proving how 'racially impure' Indians are. I don't know why she does this, but it is her behaviour.

Maybe you should advise her to create a page specific to the races of India where she can add her information more appropriately.

Many thanks, Pureaswater 23:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't want to take sides in this. My advice remains to set up an RfC. If you like, I can set it up on the talk page. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Mongoloid Race - 3RR

I'm not asking you to take anybody's side.

Surely if you saw her edit history you could see how painstakingly she singles out India on numerous pages that have nothing specifically to do with India.

Thanks,

Pureaswater 23:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me like you object to a well cited,section to an established article. The whole article needs work. Your demand that Dark Tea make similar edits to other articles or remove this section seems unreasonable to me. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Mongoloid Race

No, you have grossly misunderstood what I was trying to get at.

The section is well cited and indeed deserves to be on Misplaced Pages.

However, it is not good practice to single out one nation on an article non-specific to that nation, or any other nation for that matter, without also doing the same for any other nations that are relevant to the article.

The page is about the race generally. Any specifics should either be on pages specific to each nation's racial make up, or there should be specific sections for each nation with a Mongoloid influence. I mean, why is there no section about the Mongoloid influence in nations such as Afghanistan and Tajikistan for instance?

Thanks,

Pureaswater 14:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The perfect gift!

Just what I've always wanted! My very own macrophage!! And I think you deserve one of these little puppies:

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your Heroic efforts at combating vandalism ...! Dreadstar † 20:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

::Are you a Babylon 5 fan? Narnstar...heh...(sorry, couldn't resist..;) Dreadstar † 23:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm also a lousy typer. LOL Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fear of God

Hi,

No. It does, however, appear to satisfy criterion #5 of WP:MUSIC. If one strictly follows the guideline, perhaps it does. An AfD consensus would, of course, be free to ignore the guideline in individual cases, if a good rationale were given to do so. The guideline does render the information significant for the purpose of allowing a new debate: that's why the DRV succeeded. Best wishes, Xoloz 22:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I either had skipped over that line or had forgotten it. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Spongebob

I deleted the controversy part because I didn't think Spongebob should be criticized. I would like you reply to tell me why Spongebob needed to be criticized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pediagoof (talk • contribs) 22:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and uncensored. It covers as much of a subject as possible-- good or bad. Besides, I think the Controversy section says more about his critics than it does about Spongebob-- who is beyond reproach. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

oh

Oh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pediagoof (talk • contribs) 22:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

oh

oh, sorry about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pediagoof (talk • contribs) 22:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA Response (KieferSkunk)

Hi there. Thank you for participating in my RfA. I wanted to ask you a quick question about your oppose vote - you mentioned that part of your reason for opposing was that my answer to Question 1 is vague. I've seen several people continue to say it's a vague response after I revised it to cite specific areas in which I felt I could help, so I'd like to ask what is vague about my response and what you would like to see that would improve the quality of that response. The question itself is rather vague, and I feel there are quite a few areas that I can and would be qualified to help out - I listed them in order of familiarity and specificity, and with the intention of saying that I'm willing to help everywhere, learning the skills that I need as I go.

Could you please take a look at the response I left to your vote in the RfA, and give me some guidance on what you're looking for in a good admin candidate? Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

My response. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Successful RfA - Thank you!

Thank you for participating in my recent RfA. It was successful, and I was promoted to Administrator today. I appreciate your comments and will take them to heart as I learn the ropes. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Complaint about removal of non verifiable content

Hey man I put some info on the aviation high school page why did you get rid of my shit brosef? 71.255.71.150 02:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

my reply] Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA. As you may be aware, it was closed as "no consensus". Since your vote was one of the reasons why it did not succeed, I would like to personally address your concerns so that I can reapply successfully. Your concern appeared to be "I believe the goal of free content is more important than the goal of informing...Understanding IAR is also very important for an admin as their responsibilties take them into weighing policy against common sense".

It seems that I was not clear enough in my RfA that as an administrator, I would have to obey the community's wishes, no matter now much I disagree with them. It would be wrong of me to force my personal opinion on others.

As far as WP:IAR, I have understood for some time that the rules can be bent when necessary. I'm sorry that I wasn't more clear about that.

Please let me know if this addresses your concerns. —Remember the dot 02:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

(replying to message on my talk page) - Thank you for your response. Does this mean that you would support me were I up for adminship again? —Remember the dot 03:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

reply to reply to reply. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

My (KWSN's) RFA

Thank you for supporting my recent (and successful!) RfA. It passed at at 55/17/6. Kwsn (Ni!) 01:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)