Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:23, 2 August 2008

• Archive 1 - 17 July 05 to 22 Oct 06
• Archive 2 - 24 Oct 06 to 26 Feb 07
• Archive 3 - 28 Feb 07 to 21 June 07
• Archive 4 - 25 June 07 to 1 Aug 07
• Archive 5 - 6 Aug 07 to 2 Oct 07
• Archive 6 - 2 Oct 07 to 30 Dec 07
• Archive 7 - 1 Jan 08 to 25 Apr 08
• Archive 8 - 30 Apr 08 to 28 Jul 08
• Archive 9 - 29 July 08 to 15 Sep 08
• Archive 10 - 17 Sep 08 to 14 Dec 08
• Archive 11 - 16 Dec 08 to 16 Feb 09
• Archive 12 - 16 Feb 09 to 16 Apr 09
• Archive 13 - 21 Apr 09 to 9 July 09
• Archive 14 - 18 July 09 to 13 Dec 09
• Archive 15 - 24 Dec 09 to 21 Feb 11
• Archive 16 - 29 Mar 11 to 23 Feb 13
• Archive 17 - 1 Mar 13 to 4 Nov 13
• Archive 18 - 11 Nov 13 to 3 Mar 14
• Archive 19 - 10 Mar 14 to 21 Jun 14
• Archive 20 - 23 Jun 14 to 5 Oct 14
• Archive 21 - 13 Oct 14 to 16 Mar 15
• Archive 22 - 19 Mar 15 to 1 Feb 16
• Archive 23 - 8 Feb 16 to ...

Ok, look here.

You can't just go around calling everything you disagree with, original research. What I have been adding isn't original research. I am not making up theories here out of thin air. I am also not posting disruptive edits--in fact, I would say you are. Just because I say it doesn't make it so. You seem to know very little about the topics you are posting on. Have you even seen these movies? If so, at least address these topics in the discussion area. If you continue to mindlessly threaten you, I will begin to deal with you in the same way you are attempting now to deal with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.220.174 (talk • contribs)

You continue to restore material without citing a single reliable source, and I'm not the only editor who has undone your insertions of original research. The burden of proof is on editors adding/restoring material and your edits have not met that threshold. (Yes, I've seen the movies.) --EEMIV (talk) 05:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I give up because I am even less interested in a discussion war than I am in an edit war. If you've seen the movies, you ought to see them again. You can't argue in good faith that an inference, for instance, that the Space Jockey was killed by an alien is pure speculation or original research. It is all but spelled out--and no matter what IllaZilla says, we as intelligent humans do not need everything spelled out to the letter for us. You guys are playing devil's advocate, very poorly I might add, and arguing against a very very simple issues that you know to be patently true, for absolutely no good reason. You're also not the only editor attacking my edits who happens to be wrong. For example, it took me forever to prove DarkHyena wrong about the Predalien being a queen, but he saw the light of reason in the end. I have no reason to suspect you or IllaZilla ever will (IllaZilla was of course wrong about the Predalien queen as well... no surprise). IllaZilla is to me nothing better than a vandal--I checked out the discussion behind removing the Derelict page, and, pardon my plain English, but it was pure bullshit. He isn't consistent with his own guidelines, he is destroying useful information just because it's not sourced 100% properly (if he's so adamant about it, he should fix the sourcing himself--HE KNOWS THEY EXIST) and he will bend the facts in anyway necessary to support his petty and idiosyncratic editorial preferences. In fact, I restored a lot of material that did have reliable sources, but I'm not an editor. I'm a fan of the series, I only take the movies as canon, and I simply would like to see the Misplaced Pages pages reflect the continuing development of the A/P universe, as it has expanded a great deal with the release of the past 2 movies. I would expect help from the other editors, not mindless bickering over obvious topics. But there's good news, none of this is worth the effort, so you guys can go back to monopolizing and stagnating the pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.220.174 (talk • contribs)

Okay, bye. --EEMIV (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

User:ArtsandCraftsHistorian

(ArtsandCraftsHistorian (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)) I read the reference instructions and re-formatted my footnotes. I hope they are now correct.

However, my Mission Style Furniture article is being criticized for lots of reasons I cannot understand.

It seems to me Wiki accepts articles if someone writes as if what they are saying is factual; but is it? For example, several Arts and Crafts related sites on wiki state "facts" which are simply not true. Other historians, including myself, have spotted mistakes in earlier research (in books) accepted as "true" and we have published books correcting prior historians' mistakes. But, judging by the comments on my article,if we publish our new information on Wiki, Wiki's editors assume our corrections are "opinion" unless we state them as facts.

If Einstein published his E=MC2 on wiki it would be torn to shreds within two weeks as "opinion."

It is very sad that Wiki articles are so often incomplete, in error, wrong, old information etc. Now I see why. If an historian with credentials writes an article disproving others research and clearly proving a new theory it is considered "theory" and "opinion" whereas the first article is presumed to be true and factual because the writer writes as if his points were facts when actually they are not.

What's really sad is that many people not educated in a particular field check Wiki for information which often is old info, outdated and thus wrong.

Just for fun I may re-write my article as if it were all fact, without showing why the facts are true.

Re. Restoring images

In response to this

Thank you for the notice, and I'm glad I did not add anymore that those. I guess I should read up on those policies. Much appreciated, and happy editing, Leonard 02:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries; happy to help. --EEMIV (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Images

EEMIV, Thank you for your notes.

You're right/article mostly plot summary;

Still working to improve/expand.

The fair-use-reduce template will be handy; thanks!

Any thoughts on how it could be done w/o a merge would be appreciated.

Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ♥ 00:45, 2 Aug 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, you're right about overimaged.

Added one back for total of two.

Nomi one of more significant characters in that series.

Working on expanding beyond plot synopses.

Also added "see also" section.

Thoughts and/or assistance appreciated!

Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ♥ 00:59, 2 Aug 2008 (UTC)

Editing of an Entry: Seeking a Third Opinion

Hello,

I am interested in having someone work with me to fix an entry I have been working on regarding the American writer Raymond Kennedy. Some of the information I have posted includes original research gathered from exclusive interviews with his family and friends, as well as professional literary critics.

So far, these entries have been disputed by a wiki editor who does not, as far as I can tell, have any credentials in terms of professional editing or the literary world. I am very concerned that someone such as this has final say in the editing of an article on this encyclopedia.

At the very least, we would like to have a third person involved in this discussion.

Cordially, James Donovan