Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:45, 19 April 2008

Welcome!

Hello, Breadh2o, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Archaeoastronomy

Hi, Breadh2o. I'm sorry, because I can tell you put a lot of time into it, but I had to revert your recent addition to the Archaeoastronomy article. If you want to add something like that, I suggest you seek consensus on the talk page first. Even then, it would need to be totally rewritten for tone: encyclopedic, whereas what you added read like a rather opinionated (if colorful!) essay. I appreciate your interest in the topic, so I wanted to say something to you personally about it. Peace, - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, you're missing the point. I can see you added sources of some sort. The problem is the unencyclopedic tone. I appreciate the effort, but what you added really isn't acceptable without a rewrite. I strongly suggest you rewrite it for tone and POV, if you can. Or let others create the section. Take it to the talk page. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Kathryn. Perhaps my entry appears unencyclopedic in tone. I don't really understand what that means. And I won't edit war over this. What I have been attempting to accomplish for weeks now is to establish balance to the archaeologically-centric POV of academic tag-team AlunSalt and SteveMcCluskey, as the Talk forum clearly establishes. We have reached a philosophical impasse whereby they have unilaterally declared a consensus on my RfC which I challenge as inconclusive and premature, justifying their resumption of sanitizing the article to match their exclusive POV, which I find terribly skewed and authoritarian in many respects. My appends to their initiated sections have been reverted to their exclusive authorship of provincial, erudite and scholarly viewpoints, heavily annotated and self-righteous in tone. AND THAT I UNDERSTAND. I felt by initiating my own contrarian, free-standing section this might just be the key to expressing, in a concise, clear, cohesive and logical fashion, the minority viewpoints that are suppressed by these two and leave readers without an understanding of the background politics that is being played out so long as archaeology dominates in its control, unchecked. This is sad, but you have condoned this injustice. I'm beginning to understand city hall rules and prevails, despite the libertarian foundation of Misplaced Pages, it will and does. Egalitarianism and fairness are sacrificed so the rules can be upheld above all else. My expository style couldn't be any more different than Salt and McCluskey's, no question, and I have addressed this repeatedly and forcefully as well in various talk threads. I communicate. There is a problem that exists with archaeology's dominion over archaeoastronomy. It is reflected in books and numerous contemporary news outlets. And the injustice will continue as long as valid, well-sourced minority opinions get wiped lock, stock and barrel. This discourages good editors with a flair for expression and entitles dull prose with slanted POV to prevail. I try my best to balance, but my best is no good, I suppose. Breadh2o (talk) 04:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you've responded. Your reversions without discussion or consensus worried me. While I understand that you feel frustrated by the impasse with other editors on the Archaeoastronomy article, I would like to offer some observations from someone who only just came upon this situation. People with an academic orientation are always going to be more comfortable on WP, because it's an encyclopedia. If you want to write to write colorful essays where you don't have to collaborate with others or follow guidelines, really, WP is not going to be a satisfying venue for that endeavour. I'd suggest starting a blog for that sort of work. I know that others have posted things for you about what constitute Reliable Sources on WP. The thing is, I don't think anyone was doing this to try to hurt you, as WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOR are not a matter of opinion here; they are core policies.

I am also concerned with some of what you have on your user page. Another admin has now removed your personal attack on Alun Salt. Please be aware that WP User pages do not belong to us as individuals, they belong to Misplaced Pages. They should not be used to attack other users or post articles that you could not get consensus to post in the mainspace. I would suggest that you remove the "The Politics of Archaeoastronomy" and "History open" sections from your user page, as that's really not the purpose of a user page on WP.

I realize some of this may be hard to hear, but I hope it has helped clarify some things for you. I would also suggest that if you are really interested in being a Wikipedian, that you calm down about the Archaeoastronomy article. The best editing happens when we are not overly attached to the results, because nothing on WP is ever guaranteed to stay the way we write it. Best wishes, - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, the draft sections for the aa article have been removed. I'm very discouraged about double standards and selective enforcement. I guess it's OK for others to maintain running logs of my foibles on their user pages so long as they carefully annotate the details. I guess it's OK for some to team up and remove every last word from an article to maintain their POV and ownership of content without rebuke. I guess it's OK to game the system and refuse to get the point and accuse me of all sorts of nonsense about sources alleged to be not as good, reliable or verifiable as the academic citations they present. With the exception of the Stones of Wonder (website essay) footnote in my draft on tonight's Politics segment I attempted to insert, everything else checks out as either high-end mainstream news organizations or published books. My History lead the other day was indisputably true in every detail and was reliably sourced. But it was summarily trashed by Alun with his same intransigent excuse "Metrology is not archaeolastronomy!" mantra, discredited by me many times. For weeks, we've gone around in circles on this persistent mischaracterization by him, and as anyone who reads with comprehension could tell in Thursday's piece, Alun prevailed once again in his refusal-to-get-the-point, considered a disruptive behavior in the WP policy book. For weeks now I have been working to get a word in edgewise in a couple key places of their article, but every last word of mine has been erased with the exception of a lead sentence altered by Steve McCluskey in his insertion of the vague conditional adjective professional between no and archaeologists as being on the scene two hundred years ago. When WP punishes me for my infraction of bad-talking the opposition and allows a pair of collaborative authors to preserve only their words, their POV, and entitle them to delete at will any opinion they disagree with, then it is condoning and empowering violations. I urge you to examine the logs. Good stuff that would have helped to balance the POV, attempted in many different ways, with many different rewrites, vetted in advance on the Talk page, have been systematically trashed by the owners. What has been going on for the past few weeks is disgraceful...and validates everything I have alleged about the problems with leaving hard core archaeologists in control of the shop. Check the logs. Read the threads. Why wouldn't someone want to throw in the towel or let off some steam after all this? Breadh2o (talk) 05:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

With regard to your comments on User:Breadh2o: Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Your userpage is not a soapbox to rant against editors with whom you disagree. Blueboy96 04:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I hear you, Blueboy. There's a ton of injustice and unaccountability for many things going on with the archaeoastronomy article. I'm not being disruptive regarding the edits, trying really, really hard to make the points that need to be made by somebody without having them inevitably erased. When I put up my intro and history for this article that ran from Jan 5 through March 16, I preserved every essential point and reference from the previous version. When my article was wiped, absolutely nothing I contributed was retained.I wonder if anyone hears my appeal to common sense about the injustices of being squelched. Where's the justice in halting WP:OWN violations? Breadh2o (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Breadh2o, can you see the irony in accusing other editors of WP:OWN when you write about the article in this way: "When my article was wiped," ? From what I can see coming into this from the outside, you are excessively focused on this article. You seem to be doing nothing else here on WP. While I commend you for sticking to the talk page recently, I would also suggest that you back off and try to understand policy a bit better. You may not perceive what you are doing as disruptive, but other editors are perceiving it that way. Please consider that, as well as refresh yourself on the policies others have pointed out to you. I would also suggest you stop using every exchange as an excuse to berate other editors. That is against the spirit of WP:CIVIL. Thanks. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPA

You may want to rethink the quote on your user page. One way to get blocked is to immediately repeat an offence, and following your comments on the Archaeoastronomy talk page it could be read as an attack on the editors rather than the content, and a signal of intent to continue edit warring. I thought it best to raise it here rather than with the editors because it could be a sign of passion rather than malice.

Unfortunately the two can be confused and you may find people become less tolerant. Alun Salt (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, we do not see eye to eye on many issues, the interpretation of the George Orwell quote, among them. There is no personal attack. I suggest Orwell's insight is instructive on the profound consequences of attempting to whitewash history and the inordinate fear that conveys. If tolerated today, future historians will likewise be encouraged to continue practices we, the most enlightened so far in the river of history, apparently condone. They will take the raw history and revise to their proud perspectives evolved over time, superior in all ways to what makes sense to us, contemporaneously. Take the quote as you will. I think it is what it is. I would hope some compromise and egalitarianism might prevail, but zero tolerance for minority opinion in the archaeoastronomy article is unrelenting. WP:EQ#A_few_things_to_bear_in_mind -- Breadh2o (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)