| Revision as of 22:55, 1 February 2008 editFairchoice (talk | contribs)114 edits →response← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:39, 2 February 2008 edit undoSharavanabhava (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers6,327 edits →Homeopathy article probation notification: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
| So the plot section should be short and just include a few known facts like who is being interviewed. I see the butchering of the plot section or not having one as an attack on the film industry, even if not the intention. If you make a film, you should be given the courtesy of a WP plot section if there is an article in WP. '''If you want to know my agenda, it is not pro or anti intelligent design. It is fair treatment of the film and entertainment industry.''' Having a simple plot section is one way to show this. Why I am compared to Profg, I haven't the foggiest clue. It's an insult. ] (]) 22:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | So the plot section should be short and just include a few known facts like who is being interviewed. I see the butchering of the plot section or not having one as an attack on the film industry, even if not the intention. If you make a film, you should be given the courtesy of a WP plot section if there is an article in WP. '''If you want to know my agenda, it is not pro or anti intelligent design. It is fair treatment of the film and entertainment industry.''' Having a simple plot section is one way to show this. Why I am compared to Profg, I haven't the foggiest clue. It's an insult. ] (]) 22:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == Homeopathy article probation notification == | |||
| You should be aware that Homeopathy and related articles are under probation - Editors making disruptive edits to these pages may be banned by an administrator from ] and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be ''especially'' mindful of content policies, such as ], and interaction policies, such as ], ], ], and ]. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before being banned. All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at ], and may be appealed to the ]. —] (''']''') 00:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:39, 2 February 2008
Given the level of dysfunction that has come to prevail on Misplaced Pages, the most appropriate course for a principled scientist is to withdraw from the project.
The bureaucracy should either take corrective steps to fix this situation, or else suffer the eventual loss of huge amounts of valuable talent and volunteered resources.
If you agree with this statement, post it to your pages, and pass it on. (discuss this here)
 Archives |
|
Barnstars Humor
|
Fact, theory and a new journal
This article is likely to interest you, found via the links shown at Talk:evolution.... dave souza, talk 00:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Evolution resource
Just wanted to share this link, it's for the new "big" textbook on Evolution. Amazingly, most of the figures from the book are available free of charge on the web page, so it's a really useful resource. It may be a useful external link on some articles. I've added it to a few, maybe you can see further uses.
http://www.evolution-textbook.org/
I also messaged Dave Souza and Adam Cuerden. Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC) diff=187720119&oldid=187578481 :)] David D. (Talk) 17:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Expert withdrawal
I'm not sure what you want to be shown, but the Ilena/Fyslee Arbcom has multiple, blatant examples by multiple editors. What do you want to be shown? Editors arguing that it is harassment to point out their improper behavior because others have similar behavior? Editors arguing that they should be allowed to harass editors accused of misbehavior? Editors repeatedly gaming the system? It's all in the arbcom. Worse, it's all still being done by editors that were part of that arbcom. --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal --Ronz (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
response
I wrote on my talk page why a factually written, neutral plot summary is needed. After that, an analysis of the film can be done (of which I'll let others do most of the work). For theatrical films, the plot section isn't constantly interrupted by commentary about how the scene had bloopers, is stupid or unrealistic. The commentary is always later. Fairchoice (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
So the plot section should be short and just include a few known facts like who is being interviewed. I see the butchering of the plot section or not having one as an attack on the film industry, even if not the intention. If you make a film, you should be given the courtesy of a WP plot section if there is an article in WP. If you want to know my agenda, it is not pro or anti intelligent design. It is fair treatment of the film and entertainment industry. Having a simple plot section is one way to show this. Why I am compared to Profg, I haven't the foggiest clue. It's an insult. Fairchoice (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Homeopathy article probation notification
You should be aware that Homeopathy and related articles are under probation - Editors making disruptive edits to these pages may be banned by an administrator from homeopathy and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before being banned. All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation#Log of blocks and bans, and may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard. —Whig (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)