Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:14, 23 April 2008

{{Top}} may refer to:

• {{Collapse top}}
• {{Archive top}}
• {{Hidden archive top}}
• {{Afd top}}
• {{Discussion top}}
• {{Tfd top}}
• {{Top icon}}
• {{Top text}}
• {{Cfd top}}
• {{Rfd top}}
• {{Skip to top}}

{{Template disambiguation}} shouldn't be transcluded in the talk namespaces.

Hello and welcome to my Talk page!

1. If you start a conversation with me here, I'll usually reply here. I like to keep discussions in one place. So, if I've left a message on your Talk page, it may be best if we continue the discussion there. Of course, if you feel I've forgotten about you, please post a reminder here.
2. Occasionally, I may copy a discussion to what I feel is a more appropriate venue, particularly if I think it would benefit from other editors' input. If I do, I'll leave a link here so everyone can follow the thread.
3. Please start new conversations at the bottom of this page by clicking on the "new section" tab above.
4. I reserve the right to revert any edits to this page that I feel to be truly messed up.Template:Bottom

Welcome!

Hello, SheffieldSteel, 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
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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

Xiner (talk, email) 03:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Your AFD comment

I just dropped by to say I enjoyed your comment. You might have swayed me if you had used a different example - right now, re-voting the 2000 election doesn't seem like such a bad idea :) --Kubigula (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

EVP

I'm sorry if I deleted the extra info you inserted in the EVP article this morning. I got a little mixed up trying to keep the NPOV changes and delete the POV changes- You changes are now kept (: Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed you last change -"The paranormal nature of EVP is disputed,"- it is good to have an editor who is not so ideologically motivated! Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I'm just trying to be clear about what is what. SheffieldSteel 00:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Dates

Just a suggestion, when creating dates with citations, the format is year-month-day. So todays date would be 2007-03-29. I was doing the references for Flood Geology when I say a new reference. It caught me by surprise, because I was thinking, "hmmm, I don't usually do it like that." Anyways, I hope this helps out. Orangemarlin 19:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The Pope

Your comment under Creationism seems to lend to the idea that you think the Pope is in charge or is president of Christianity. No...the Pope is a religious leader of Catholics. There is also Protestantism. I would read that article for your own education. Also, 90% of the worlds population belives there is a higher power, that is God. Fbc215 23:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I wish I could draw Venn diagrams. I find it hard to explain logical issues without them. le sigh SheffieldSteel 22:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

ASP

I took out your (I think it was yours) mention of "anomalous speech products" in the EVP article definition. It appears that MacRae (and subsequent reports of his activity by AA-EVP) are the only ones on the planet to use this term. It probably shouldn't go in the definition, but can certainly be mentioned when the article talks about him specifically. LuckyLouie 20:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Solar System

No shouting, I promise... please see the note on the Solar System talk page. Cheers. --Ckatz_spy 00:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

STOP using unreliable sources to spread lies

as you did here, thank you. COFS 20:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I would love to use only reliable sources, but I fear that where the church of Scientology is concerned, there aren't any. SheffieldSteel 22:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure there are. It's just more WORK to find them. COFS 23:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think perhaps it's a lesser evil to include information from a dubious source, when that info can be refuted (allowing the read to make up their own mind), than to information from a source that is beyond reproach, and attempt to mislead the reader as to what that source says. SheffieldSteel 23:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Operation Clambake actually is a reliable source, specific to Scientology articles on Misplaced Pages. Smee 03:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, for example the not yet existent one called "Scientology critics scam" or "Atheists fighting Scientology" or "Lies about Scientology. Misou 05:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to put this in context: COFS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SheffieldSteel 21:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Doomsday

Appropriate or not, I got a good chuckle out of your late-night comment on Talk:Intelligent Design. Gnixon 20:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad someone liked it. I've done the decent thing and got it out of the way now. SheffieldSteel 20:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Planet Earth

Many thanks for the heads up about the airing of Planet Earth. I was enroute to New Guinea (!) at the time so missed it, but my TIVO caught it for my return. Anyhow, much appreciated... Mahalo and aloha! Arjuna 21:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom

I just wanted to let you know, a case has been requested at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Paranormal. Feel free to add yourself as an involved party, otherwise participate, or follow along if you're interested in it. --Minderbinder 14:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll add comments if I feel I can make a contribution. SheffieldSteel 17:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep civil

DO not delete information on causes of abortion. http://www.fertilityfacts.org/articles/fertility-articles/your-lifestyle-can-impact-your-fertility.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foremanfan (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Advice from the master, eh? http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AAbortion&diff=124161807&oldid=124160755 SheffieldSteel 21:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Not as bad as this:

Did is the revert other user did, you wants facts for what is already given.

cur) (last) 21:28, 19 April 2007 Severa (Talk | contribs) (72,080 bytes) (Rv. WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:RS. There are multiple other causes listed at Miscarriage, and "stress" or "lifestyle" aren't one of them. No reason this should squeak by with a fact tag.) And g, you posted my only reply, but ignored good ones. Nice hypocrite. Keep in mind guys, many of your sources are not always reliable... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foremanfan (talk • contribs) 22:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Goodness me, what a horrible revert by Severa... including links to wikipedia policies like that is so... brutal.

Now, as to your accusation of hypocrisy (nice choice of section in which to make it, by the way!)... whether most of your contributions to Talk pages are civil is beside the point; they all should. be SheffieldSteel 22:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If I thought anyone would take exception to my edit summary, I thought it would be SheffieldSteel, because the "squeak by" comment was more directed at his (or her) addition of the fact tags. I'm sorry if that came across the wrong way. Let's all of us take a step back for a minute. Everything that's added to Misplaced Pages is subject to the policies I linked in my edit summary (V, CITE, and RS). That means, Foremanfan, that if you want to add new information to Misplaced Pages, you generally have to provide a source to verify this information (unless you're taking that information from another article, and the sources are already listed in that article). In this case, the information on miscarriage added to Abortion was not supported by a source, nor was it supported by the information and sources already present at the article Miscarriage. The onus is on the editor who wants to add new information to an article to provide sources before that information is added. It isn't the other way around. Sources must also meet the standard of WP:RS; an essay "written by AJ," which does not list any of its own sources, and which is hosted on a site filled with Google Ads is not a reliable source. Also, Foremanfan and SheffieldSteel both, please remember to sign your name at the end of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). That makes discussion easier to follow. Thanks. -Severa (!!!) 22:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

EVP

Sorry, I have to disagree with "the thing which is unusual, thus meriting the term "phenomenon", is that the presence of the "electronic voice" is unexplained." Only a relatively small group of EVP/paranormal/proponents call it a phenomenon and say it's unexplained. The rest of the world, including professional audio engineering organizations, don't call it anything -- and haven't reported any unexplainable anomalies with regard to audio technology, design, or application. Therefore those sorts of claims need to include a phrase such as "said by paranormal investigators to be". See my note on the Talk page. -- LuckyLouie 17:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 01:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar :)

I don't get a lot of them, and they are appreciated. I wasn't sure if my most recent edits have been overkill. The page is already featured, after all. But thank you. Serendipodous 05:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

Hey, please excuse my alteration of your comment. I still don't quite see the difference between making a suggestion outright (the way I edited your comment) and making one indirectly as you did. Nevertheless, I acknowledge and submit to your personal sovereignty and will refrain from any further edits of the like. I would appreciate a direct suggestion here, if you have one. Thanks. —Red Baron 21:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom evidence..

I thought it might be a good idea to cut down on the mass of arbcom evidence information there is. I cut my evidence down to simply pointing out that parapsychology being affiliated with the AAAS doesn't mean it's a 'field of science' and I believe we should probably combine our evidences into one single part so that the arbcom folks don't have to wade through it all. Would you be willing to allow me to bind your evidence into mine and you erase yours? TO make it easier for the arbcom reviewers to read it all? Since it's essentially the same thing.Wikidudeman 03:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The talk exchange with ProtoCat

Hi Sheffield: I left a post on User talk:ProtoCat recommending that some of the exchanges be struck or removed, towards a possible fresh start. Any interest? ... Kenosis 18:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

ProtoCat

Until he/she gives any reason for us to think otherwise, I think it's time to stop feeding the troll. Because polite efforts to respond to queries they made to me have resulted first in them calling me a stalker, because I went to their talk page like I asked, then, when they asked me what they were doing wrong, the current rant resulted. I call troll. Adam Cuerden 19:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that ProtoCat was indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. If it looks like a troll, sounds like a troll, smells like a troll, and lives under a bridge, well, it's a sockpuppet troll. Orangemarlin 06:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cradle of humanity (2nd nomination)

You recently commented at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cradle of Humanity, which closed with no consensus. The article has been re-nominated for deletion, and you may care to comment at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cradle of humanity (2nd nomination). --Akhilleus (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Researching Misplaced Pages Online Survey

We are conducting research into the role of social norms in online communication. This research is funded by the European Union and is being undertaken by a coalition of European Universities (see http://emil.istc.cnr.it/?q=node/8). The research is designed to help us understand how social norms interact with the technology that supports online collaboration. We have selected 35 Misplaced Pages articles flagged as controversial for study. We are analysing the interactions on the discussion pages and are also seeking additional input from contributors to those discussions.

As a participant in the recent discussion about a controversial topic - Abortion, I would be very grateful if you could follow the link to a simple questionnaire. This should take only 2 minutes to complete.

http://survey.soc.surrey.ac.uk//public/survey.php?name=wiki_norms

Bugs-Bunny Bunny 16:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Church of Scientology

The section you "restored" is unreferenced and targets the Church of Scientology, not Scientology. A belief system cannot be harassing or exploiting individuals. In this light your edits seems to have the sole intention to throw mud on the belief system using allegations against the Church. Please understand that this practice has been tolerated for much too long and violates WP:BIAS. COFS 21:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You wanna finish this discussion? COFS 22:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Your comment

Per WP:NPA I would appreciate it if you redact your comment that I am a Scientologist editor. I find the remark rather offensive.

I have no connection to, nor interest in, Scientology.

My only interest is in ensuring NPOV articles. If you want the wording included, provide a source that says it, and I'll revert myself and add the source. Otherwise, insisting that unsourced statements and claims can be made, and then demonstrated, is original research and is prohibited.

Best regards. Peace in God. Lsi john 21:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I have assumed that in Good Faith you would have redacted the comment yourself, so I have saved you the trouble and done it for you. Best.

Peace in God. Lsi john 21:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with the brainwashed

Hang in there SheffieldSteel. I am sure you have already found a few folks chronically lie about themselves and their intentions here. They do NOT assume good faith because their policies and practices dictate otherwise. --Fahrenheit451 21:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about me; I'll be fine. But thanks for your support. SheffieldSteel 22:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The Purple Heart

		The Purple Heart
		I, Smee, award this barnstar to SheffieldSteel for enduring flack and uncivil behaviour while being a good editor and making valued contributions to the project. Thank you for your contributions to the project. Your work here is appreciated by the community. Yours, Smee 22:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC).

Arbitration notification

Per recommendation from the WP:CSN closure I have initiated Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#COFS. You are a named party in the request so you may wish to submit a statement to the Committee. Durova 02:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/COFS

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/COFS. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 22:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal

The above titled Arbitration Case has closed and the decision has been published at the linked location. Dradin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and any other editor who is involved professionally or avocationally in the paranormal is cautioned regarding aggressive editing of articles which relate to the particular subjects they are involved with. Kazuba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is cautioned to extend good faith to Dradin if he edits and to avoid including disparaging material about Dean Radin on his user page. For the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 03:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Electronic voice phenomenon rewrite project

Hey, I noticed you were a frequent contributor to the Electronic voice phenomenon article and I thought I'd let you know that I'm proposing a rewrite project for the article. I thought you might be interested in contributing to it. Currently the article seems to have numerous dispute problems including POV issues and I thought I could get it to at least a Good Article. You can see my proposal on it's talk page here Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon. There are a few questions I'd like you to answer first though. If you have any questions about it you can leave me a message. Thanks. Wikidudeman 00:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments EVP

Comments on new version of EVP intro? Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

problerms with C++

In reply to your "add references" message on my talk page, generally, I can't be bothered to spend ages looking for references for something that's bloody obvious :P But, just for you, I've added some quotes from the man himself, Mr.Stroustrup. I might add some more if I find the time (quite unlikely ;) ) Pog 02:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Warthog

Were you going to offer a 3rd opinion on the dispute or in some other way deal with your removal of it from the 3rd Opinion page? 24.6.65.83 20:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I am writing it up now. I think it deserves more than a rapid response. Sheffield Steel_stalkers 21:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I got a little concerned when the request disappeared and there wasn't a post to the Warthog talk page for at least ten minutes. Sorry for doubting you. :) 24.6.65.83 04:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus?

–––Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Examine a Case Before Passing Judgment

You should see the first para of the main article Rgveda, in which there was a statement about Rgveda's dating which was falsely sourced to a work by Max Muller. I supplied the correct citation about dating from that work, but DAB removed the entire reference. Thus, the statement became unreferenced,which is bad. Then, I replaced the absolute dating 1700-1100 BC (which needs source; same statement is repeated elsewhere where source is given, but an unsourced statent in the beginning is bad) by a relative dating 'much before the Buddha', which no one would have challenged. There was no need to discuss dating in introduction,because it has a separete passage. DAB reverted my well-intentioned action and again inserted absolute dating without any citation, and posted an abusive message to my talk page. I find many people in Wiki are passing judgments without judging a case. I complained to many admins about DAB's insulting behaviour and wrong edits, but no one checks him. Moreschi said yesternight that no one will sympathise with me , after which I was frustrated and issued a legal warning to DAB in order to check him from abusing me publicly, for which Moreschi instantly banned me indefinetely. I did not know a legal warning against illegal activities is not favoured in Wiki, I joined Wiki just a month ago. But I do not edit an article unless I have adequate expertise of the topic together with adequate sources. Today, DAB inserted an unsourced statement by removing a well sourced one and abused me for giving a sourced statement ! Who will check him ? Implement what you have posted at Talk:Rgveda, and remove unsourced statement which has been inserted by removing a sourced one. The list of past complaints, see talk page of Abecedare and Moreschi. I am being abused and harassed and no one listens. -Vinay Jha 14:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I was not passing judgment. I was pointing out an important wikipedia principle because I thought, based on your post at Talk:Rigveda, that you would benefit from reading about it. Sheffield Steel_stalkers 15:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.Vinay Jha 16:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Lexie Kaye

Before an article is nominated for deletion it should be advised to edit first. Chuck Sirloin did not do that and created this madness as you referred to it. His "reasons" are not valid enough for deletion and did not give the opportunity to edit before deleting 95% of the article. Multiple citations in an article are a good form of resources according to what I read on WP. So the article is well documented and linked to other pages verifying that information. Why this individual's page is being targeted is beyond any rational decision. And I hope Chuck Sirlion gets blocked for his continued actions and edits on this site and not only with the Lexie Kaye article but for others as well. I agree with what you stated, this is ridiculous and it all began with Chuck Sirloin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Industry101 (talk • contribs)

I think you are confusing two things:-

• the act of nominating an article for deletion
• placing a notice on that article that says it has been nominated.

Your repeated removal of the notice from the article has had no effect upon the AfD discussion, which continues whether or not it is brought to peoples' attention by the notice on the article. Whether or not you think the article should be deleted (and I am not interested in the answer to that question) it makes no sense to remove the notice, which should (as a matter of normal wikipedia procedure) be added to the article. Sheffield Steel_stalkers 23:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Ack!

Completely ignore my last edits! WP:VandalProof has a few kinks to be worked out! Sorry about that! Dreadstar † 06:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Precession (astronomy)

You are interested in this article. Many readers have asked for deduction/elucidation of the precession formulae (which other contributors rightly say is 19-page long, cf. Talk page), which I can put here in very concise, lucid and well sourced way (Newtonian, plus relativistic corrections), but I am being reverted almost eveywhere before I finish. -Vinay Jha _Talk 13:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Remember, remember, the fifth of November? Thank you to everyone who participated in my Request for adminship, which was successful at 50/5/0 on November 5th, 2007. It became, as you may know, rather contentious toward the end (though fortunately no gunpowder was involved), and I appreciate the work of other Wikipedians to keep it focused. --Thespian 03:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Thank you for your support in my RFA. The passed with a final count of (73/3/1), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you need help, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an admin. Have a nice day! :) Aleta 19:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)