Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:36, 1 February 2009

Spoiler warnings are slowly coming back

I took a notion to do a search on "plot spoiler" and ran across several articles with spoiler warnings. For example this article on a 1944 comedy film. I'm not sure how long it's been there, but another sweep should probably be conducted. --Farix (Talk) 04:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've not really decided whether to interrupt my holiday at this stage, but if you are willing to do some work I'll restart the sweeps (which are automated). Let me know if this would be useful to you. --TS 17:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific nonsense

... is no reason for removal of the Templeton Prize from year articles. It being non-notable is the appropriate reason. Much as I'd like Misplaced Pages to be scientific, notable pseudoscientific nonsense should be listed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. How significant is the Templeton Prize? More or less significant than the Fields Medal? More or less significant than the Carnegie Medal? --TS 17:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Restroom vs. Toilet in potty parity

FYI, in the U.S. "restroom" is used to describe the room with the toilet, and I believe "toilet" used to describe the room is a U.K. usage. In the U.S., "toilet" refers to the toilet bowl itself, so the way you've written it, "spending time in the toilet" sounds like the person is actually in the toilet bowl. :) I'm not sure I have a solution... Blackworm (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, well I guess the language should be left in its original form (analogous with the spelling guidelines). I meant to make the meaning more clear and since that failed it's probably best left as it was. --TS 17:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

When I eventually get to the USA (one day...) I'm going to enjoy asking people if I can take a rest in their restrooms, or have a bath in their bathrooms. tomato, tomato anyone? :-) --Dweller (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't be surprised if they ask you to take a powder in their powder room. --TS 12:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of taking a powder, nor a powder room. Great stuff, thanks. Americans coming to the UK are welcome to visit my bathroom. It has a bath, but no toilet. --Dweller (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

If by any chance you should drop your cigarettes in an American bathroom, resist the urge to call out for help with the words, "I'm on my hands and knees looking for a fag in here!", else somebody might think you have mistaken the place for a tea room. That would be almost as great a faux-pas as congratulating the management of the Swiss Cottage pub on importing the noble art of cottaging into North London. --TS 13:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Lol at fag comment. I've spent many a pleasant evening at The Swiss Cottage. Or is it Ye Swiss Cottage. Hmm. Ƿe Olde Swiss Cottage? --Dweller (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons/Contest

I'm scratching my head... please "unconfuse" me! --Dweller (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll write again to clarify. --TS 15:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I normally find what you write very clear, so I was doubly confused. --Dweller (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

thumb|left||200px|Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)]]

Happy Monkey! --TS 12:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Hey, was that you who traded emails with me recently regarding insights gleaned from years of helping Misplaced Pages grow? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was me. A bit like teaching one's granny to suck eggs in your case, perhaps, but I suspect my thoughts might be new to some Conservapedia users. --TS 19:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

does this have a chance to reach good article status?

Hum, Hongcheng Magic Liquid looks really nice now, could you take another look at it? I'm pondering nominating it to good article, so a bit of help with prose writing would be good. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you did a fantastic job. Thanks. I'm not the right person to ask about Good or Featured articles because I have fundamental disagreements with with the basic concepts. --TS 09:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, I try to do it as well as I can :) I think of these things like carrots to motivate the editors to get a higher standard, with the sticks being the blocking system. I'll investigate a bit on Good Articles and get a review, I suspect that it will be rejected outright because of being too short, but it can't hurt to give it a try. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Usually a short article full of relevant information is better than a long one full of waffle made up to satisfy length preferences. Editors often forget that most of our articles will be read online, and little information beyond the first page will ever be seen by any of the readers. --TS 11:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Carl Sagan

The material critical of Sagan's "analysis" of Worlds in Collision resided in the entry for many months with nary a concern expressed. Then all of a sudden editors come along opposing any criticism of Sagan w.r.t. Velikovsky. I found this quite surprising, esp. since no one seemed to be aware of how flawed Sagan's criticisms are and did not show much interest in educating themselves. No objective appraisal of Sagan's career as a popularizer of science can ignore the fact of his incompetence and/or carelessness concerning Velikovsky. AND, this is not my opinion; it is a matter of public record, if anyone cared to look at the cites I provided along the way. Phaedrus7 (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sagan (number)

I removed your prod tag from this article because a prod has previously been contested. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

RFAR

Hi Tony, below is a copy of the message I left at Newyorkbrad's user talk. They pretty much apply toward both of you equally.

With respect for your comments, here was my reasoning at the time. During the hour or so following Bish's announcement there was an unusual flurry of activity at ANI, even by Wikidrama standards. People were getting 12-15 edit conflicts as they were trying to post. The cluster of time stamps at Misplaced Pages:ANI#Indefinite_block.2Fban_of_FT2 is a good indication of how dense things were. Past experience has been that when things remain too heated and chaotic a dispute may grow new heads like a hydra. So the immediate concern was to bring things to a more structured environment.

Shortly after RFAR opened things did calm down at that ANI thread. It was likely to end at RFAR anyway, and if I had to err I'd rather bring it there a little early than a little late. I'm not cunning enough to initiate RFAR with the intention of certifying an RFC, but people caught their breath enough to start one. Any alternative to arbitration is a good thing if the alternative works.

Here's hoping you can see that decision as a sensible one given the situation at the time, even if you personally disagree with it. Durova 18:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I would probably have opened a subpage on ANI. It's not a huge deal, but if you have ongoing problems with Bishonen's conduct as an admin I strongly suggest a conduct RFC. Only if that fails should you go to arbitration. She's a good admin and usually gets things right, but everybody makes the odd misjudgement now and then. --TS 18:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

My drama-meter is near the red zone this week. Remember that fellow who got quoted in the Wall Street Journal? He's open to recall and agreed to my suggestion of a conduct RFC rather than an immediate reconfirmation. In the broader scope of things some kind of formal response to that is more important than strictly internal matters. Bish isn't a perfect admin; neither were you or I. If someone wants to initate an RFC I'll certify as promised. Other than that I'd like to keep a little time for content. While I was working on a Medieval chart last night someone sent me a half-finished restoration and asked for a hand. Oddly fitting: the subject is Sisyphus. Best regards, Durova 20:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of anybody who was quoted in the Wall Street Journal. I strongly disapprove of this kind of affair. A section of the community seems to be addicted to politics, and that's getting in the way of what should be a light, efficient body whose operation keeps long-festering disputes to a minimum. We've forgotten that Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, to the extent that a small but very active section of the community now wants us to act as if it were. --TS 21:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

One of our admins used his view deleted edits tool to find a purported answer key to an employment test, and reposted to Facebook. WSJ interviewed him and characterized it as a 'culture of cheating'. Delicate balance there between selective quoting by a journalist who overstated a problem, and legitimate concerns regarding the proper use of sysop tools and actions that bring the project into disrepute. If you were a brave mouse with one bell, which cat would you prioritize? Durova 21:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you've misread the Wall Street Journal article, which refers to a "culture of cheating" being spawned by the use of online tests to screen job applicants. The article also mentions the incident you describe, and Soong's comments don't reflect well on him. It's not a serious issue for Misplaced Pages and I doubt very much whether that incident alone would bring Misplaced Pages into disrepute. Despite the doom-laden jeremiads of the Chicken Little tendency, Misplaced Pages continues to enjoy a ridiculously high level of public trust and support. Of course Misplaced Pages also gets things badly wrong, sometimes--all public corporations do from time to time. --TS 21:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe the summary wasn't spot-on. Tried to express it in as few words as possible and broad brushes sometimes paint outside the lines. But you catch the general gist of it. As someone who used to volunteer at WP:COIN a lot, I worry about the impression of a double standard if we hold regular editors to a high standard (which I used to do) while failing to hold any formal inquiry regarding our own administrators. You might come down differently in the final analysis, but I do think asking questions in a formal setting is a good thing to do here. Better than immediate RFA, which was looking like the alternative at the time this came up. Durova 21:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem here isn't asking questions in a formal setting, it's a long, slow drip of off-site trolling, and the consequences of people taking such off-wiki stuff seriously on-wiki. --TS 21:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You have a point. Part of the problem is that few of the people who really know the site and are in good standing with it do much to publish offsite, and as a result some of the general perception gets colored by the people who do publish offsite because they've been sitebanned, but still have an axe to grind. Durova 22:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I fear that the on-site ramifications are felt most keenly. It is our community that watches the off-site sources most keenly. They're not on anybody else's radar, except perhaps for the Register. We can and should ignore the off-site trolls. Let them scream bloody murder. --TS 22:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Personal comments

Could you tone down some of the personal comments you made about me on the FT2 RFC. You aren't in possession of all the facts, and I cannot tell you all the facts. Thanks Peter Damian (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Until now I wasn't aware that I'd made any personal comments about you except to commend you on those excellent points on the "Fringe science" arbitration (which I'm still interested in turning into an essay).

I'm finished on that RFC but if there is a particular problem please email me in confidence and, as a matter of urgency, I'll take whatever action is necessary to avoid offence to you. --TS 23:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You said, amongst other things "This looks as if it started as a very, very ugly and reprehensible campaign to embarrass FT2 over his involvement in editing an article about a taboo sexual practice that touches on subjects such as animal welfare. " A campaign is technically a series of battles and implies a length of time. The issue we are talking about concerns a handful of edits by myself, which I am very sorry for, and a single blog post which I deleted after discussion with Will Scribe. The oversights happened a day after this. I would like you to respect this chronology. The blog post itself was about the ethics of human-animal sex, about which there has been a lot written, not much of it from the point of view of animals. Furthermore, only one edit by FT2 was linked to in the deleted blog. The other one - well, that's another story. Anyway, if you could remove your word 'campaign' and if you could consider why it was ugly and reprehensible in the first place. I have certain very deeply held moral views, you are welcome to use these words but I would also like you to consider why you are using them. Best Peter Damian (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll replace the word "campaign" with "series of comments (which the originator now repudiates) ". I hope that helps to clear the air. --TS 00:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I would like you to at least think about 'ugly and reprehensible'. I did it for deeply held principles. I regret the whole thing, after what it has caused, but I think 'reprehensible' is a litte 'judgmental'. Peter Damian (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I repudiate the manner in which I expressed these judgments, by the way. The basic moral principles I do not repudiate. Peter Damian (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I recognise that your original comments were based on deeply held principles. It's part of the nature of Misplaced Pages that we don't need to be friends to work together on it. It reflects extremely well on you that you are contrite over the consequences of your actions and recognise that you could have expressed your feelings better. I don't hold this affair against you. --TS 00:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

RE : Votes on proposed decision by arbitrator who resigned during the case

Thanks for bringing that to attention. I'll double check and confirm with the Arbs/fellow clerks on what to do with FT2's votes on that case. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 17:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Creation evolution article

Cut it out, please. I know you know better. I'm tired of soapboxing to regulars that the talk pages aren't to be used as a soapbox. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That isn't soapboxing. It would be soapboxing if I advocated opinions. --TS 20:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your cooperation. It's usefully quite helpful in controversial articles to leave deliberately inflamatory jibes at aggrieved editors who already think there's a double standard against them. It always helps to keep the article in good shape too to draw the focus away real policies and toss a few more red herrings into already divisive discussions. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't intended to be inflammatory, though I don't think the other editor expected such a forthright response. The evolution thing is done and dusted and distinctly uncontroversial so it's just as well to make sure people who want to make an argument out of it know they've come to Misplaced Pages, and not some silly discussion forum. --TS 20:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Nasal Sex

I have nominated Nasal Sex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Richard 23:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

How bizarre. I no longer remember why I created that one. --TS 23:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Note

I have removed your comment here. The Arbitration Committee noticeboard is intended to be a place to post notices; the kind words of some editors in respect of FT2 are, I hope, cherished by him. It's not another place, however, to discuss your view of how FT2 came to his decision. I do respect your view on this matter; this just isn't the place for it. Risker (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No problems there. --TS 09:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Scheme Now!

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Scheme Now!, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

A search for references has failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources in order to comply with notability requirements. This has included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:

Scheme Now! – news, books, scholar Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Rogerb67 (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Why Misplaced Pages cannot claim the earth is not flat

I have made a stab at a whole article - 10 commonly encountered arguments to support the inclusion of marginal or pseudoscientific views. I have described the arguments, and given examples, and in certain cases given recommendations about how to reply to the arguments. I would welcome help on this article. Note I extensively plagiarised material from User:ScienceApologist and User:Filll - I am sure they will understand. Peter Damian (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom diff

I suppose the answer to this is simply because they want to keep track of the account used that placed the block. Just figured this response wasn't enough for a post to RfAR. Best. Synergy 20:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Londonistan

• Londonistan (term) (AfD discussion)

You contributed to the 2005 discussion. You might want to contribute to this one. Uncle G (talk) 13:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Addictive

Sorry, hadn't picked up that it had been restored twice. I redeleted because the last restoring admin said he would send it to AfD, but that hasn't happened It's now untagged, not at AfD and apparently can't be speedied, so presumably it will now stay permanently. I'm not looking to create problems, so I'll walk away from this one jimfbleak (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It can be deleted by listing it at AfD and reaching consensus to delete. --TS 16:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

A user

I just checking, you aren't "please avoid gibberish in discussion" are you? Simply south not SS, sorry 22:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have overestimated my capacity to guess the meaning of your question, and you'll have to elaborate. I have no idea what your question means. --TS 23:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you Please avoid gibberish in discussion (talk · contribs)? If not, i am going to SSP or should i go to checkyser? I came across this when doing a one off random search, as well as Please choose a different username (talk · contribs). Simply south not SS, sorry 23:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No. I always go to some lengths to identify my alternate accounts. See for instance this and this when I set up User:Tasty monster, and this when I set up User:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The and so on (the other two accounts are User:RegenerateThis and User:Scunthorpe man, and there are various bot-related accounts).

If these fellows have done useful edits, we can treat them as good faith editors (albeit with every interesting choices of username). If not, I suggest that they should be asked to select less confusing usernames. --TS 23:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

As seen from the users' userpages, they say things using other people's signatures. And one user has done vandalism. Simply south not SS, sorry 23:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we can say with some confidence that they are just silly trolls. --TS 00:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Please get somebody to run checkuser too. Something may show up. --TS 00:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm doing a case at SPI (new name for it now, strange it sounds like a private investigation company!). (Btw, my alternative i can confirm is User:Please can you think of one?) Simply south not SS, sorry 00:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Spoilers

What's happening with spoiler warnings? When I originally wrote the article for The Unknown (1927 film) under my original Misplaced Pages name (long-lost password, unfortunately), it didn't occur to me that anyone would ever write a full plot description, irretrievably spoiling the most shocking movie I've ever seen. I was lucky; I saw it the first time without knowing what would happen and I'll never forget its impact. I think we should actually remove the "Plot" segment of the article so as not to spoil the movie for anyone about to see it for the first time, but of course there's no mechanism for doing that. Have "Spoilers" tags become outlawed by the "legislation" of Misplaced Pages? Can anything be done to rectify what amounts to a kind of intellectual vandalism aimed not merely against the long-dead filmmakers but unborn future audiences? Skymasterson (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to avoid information, go to a fan site. If you want to obtain information, go to an encyclopedia. Different entities, different missions. --TS 17:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:EL Cleanup

No worries at all - I pay special attention to EL on my watchlist, and yours was a big one. Ghost hunters. :sigh: -- Xinit (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

MSG

If I freaked you out then I chose my words carelessly (WP wise). I am relatively new so forgive me for using the word push along with POV in the same sentence. I meant "nudge back" as if the pendulum has swung a tad bit too far the other way, in a reaction against true POV pushers. -Shootbamboo (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Helios Eclipse‎

And maintenance tags in general for that matter.

The tags go in article space to server a few purposes:

1. To alert editors that, if they've got the time and desire, the article needs help. Yes, there are flags that can be set in Project headers for similar things, but those are seen, if at all, by a much smaller set of editors.
2. To categorize the article as one that needs help in the general maintenance categories. This may again be a smaller target group of editors, but there are some clean up Projects that use those categories to find articles to help out with.
3. To let readers know there may be issues with the text and that it may not be what they need or want.
4. To a degree, invite readers to become editors. Essentially bringing to the person's attention that "there's a problem her and, since this is a wiki, you can help.

All of these functions are hampered, if not prevented, if the tags are applied to the talk page instead of the article itself.

As for vandalism... you may want to take a look at {{Uw-tdel1}} through {{Uw-tdel4}}. Those warning templates exist for a reason. And my apologies, I had though I had placed a copy of Uw-tdel1 here with the 2nd restoration of the maintenance tags. The upshot is that, more oft than not, removal of a tag without addressing the reason for the tag, or noting that it has been addressed by others, is going to be looked at as vandalism and/or disruptive.

As for the the footprint of the tags... there are a couple of options:

• Actually address the problems and remove the tags. On the face of it, the "Unencyclopedic" and "Copy-edit" tags are the easiest to deal with. UE is a little redundant and CE should be a simple pass through MSWord and then pull obvious fan hype/comments.
• Swap out the 4 for {{Articleissues}} since it has logical fields for all 4 existing tags.

Actually... the latter is preferable so I've done that swap out. The article needs help though before the tag(s) come off.

- J Greb (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I see that you still believe that removing templates is vandalism. This is false. Vandalism is "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages. I've been around for yonks and I have never edited with the intention of compromisng Misplaced Pages's integrity.

I think {{articleissues}} is an excellent compromise, though I wish the template designers wouldn't come up with ever larger templates--I think the original format with just a line or two of italics was far preferable. Thanks. --TS 19:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It's likely that the vandalism/disruptive point comes down to hair splitting on the point of "Are you aware that the tags are supposed to stay until the article is fixed?" being voiced.

As for the combined template... to be honest it is smaller that most sets of 4+ tags. Also, the 1-2 lines of italics are way to easy to over look. That, or small icons at the top of the page would defeat the purpose of drawing help from readers and casual editors.

- J Greb (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't hair-splitting. You must understand this if you are to continue editing Misplaced Pages: vandalism is deliberate damage to Misplaced Pages. You may think that my removal of templates was disruptive, but it was obviously not vandalism. --TS 20:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop and think a minute: The maintenance tags are a method of bolstering "the integrity of Misplaced Pages". Removing them comes from one of 4 reasons:

• The tag's has been addressed. This is either as part of the addressing process or with an edit summary akin to "Some fixed it, but missed the tag."
• The tag was applied incorrectly or maliciously.
• The tag is removed in good faith without the issue being fixed, generally by an editor where there is no indication that it's been pointed out to them that the tag is supposed to stay as long as the problem exists.
• The tag is removed without the issue being fixed by an editor where there is an indication that they do know the tag is supposed to stay as long as the problem exists.

The last is disruptive at the very least. And since it is a deliberate act that impacts "the integrity of Misplaced Pages"...

- J Greb (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Read and try to understand Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. It's an agreed policy and it was around before you first edited. I agree that removal of templates can be disruptive. However, overburdening an article with many templates can also be disruptive. We've reached a compromise on that, which is fine. --TS 20:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

OK

Ok, thanks. Charlesblack (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of rollback

Do not use rollback in instances such as this. Rollback is only to be used for instances of clear vandalism, which that obviously wasn't. Oren0 (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Rollback feature. It is a common misconception that rollback is only for reverting vandalism. In this instance it was a clear repetition of a content removal under WP:NOTFORUM which I had already annotated . I'll avoid using rollback again where my action could conceivably be misinterpreted. --TS 21:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Better to err on the side of not using it. The policy states that rollback "should be used only to revert edits that are clearly unproductive, such as vandalism; to revert content in your own user space; or to revert edits by banned users" and not to use it if there is "any doubt about whether an edit should be rolled back" Even though your previous edit summary indicated the reason, I would disagree that the reinsertion was "clearly unproductive". As a rule of thumb, I recommend never using rollback to redo something you did that another user undone, unless it is very clear vandalism. Oren0 (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that I erred in a case I thought was clearly unproductive (see other recent comments on the talk page). I will avoid using rollback to repeat previously annotated actions, because when seen out of context they can still be confusing. --TS 21:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Royal Rife

I see you rolled-back my contribution to the article about Royal Raymond Rife. I would like to see the fraud accusation made evident if this defamation is appropriate.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1658030

Thanks, 84.104.135.86 (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't rollback your edit, I undid it and then immediately explained why I had done it on the talk page. I'll continue this discussion on the talk page. --TS 12:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Chiropractic

Dewd, I don't know how to message you, but you are some kind of moron. I just spent over an hour updating a medical science page here on wikipedia with the newest research, and then your dumb-ass comes on and reverses all my edits. Why would you do such a thing? This is a community of people striving to make the best encyclopedia of knowledge for the world to use, not one man's pissing pedestal. I can only assume your actions are out of vain or ego. Either way, you need to, right f-ing now, get over yourself. The world is already a darker place for your actions here tonight. I hope your heart grieves for the world knowledge's loss here tonight, however small it may be... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.171.107 (talk) 12:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see the discussion I started on the talk page. --TS 12:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Global Warming

I am confused. I was responding directly to a comment by William M. Connolley‎ where he explicitly referenced a blog entry that he wrote. The link I used was to the exact same blog entry where he was bragging about how he controls the global warming pages at wikipedia with a "Mailed Fist" and then makes fun of people who try to use the talk pages first before modifying the article. Yet you deleted my entry, left his, and didn't give a valid reason. If you want to invoke WP:NOTFORUM, then both entries (and probably several others) should have been deleted. Q Science (talk) 08:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a matter of purpose. William has information in a format unsuitable for Misplaced Pages, so he gave a blog reference. If you want to discuss the content, you can go to the blog and comment there, and anybody following the link will see the blog and your comment. This isn't the place to discuss his blog. In particular, it isn't the place to discuss his choice of words in a blog entry. --TS 08:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)