Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:26, 22 May 2009

Cant believe I just said this

Grsz 17:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 18:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Iowa Barnstar

		The Iowa Barnstar
		For your help in rescuing and fixing African Americans in Davenport, Iowa, I hereby award you the Iowa Barnstar. Bill Whittaker (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Civilization

One small step for man, one giant leap for TP :) Acroterion _(talk) 00:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hotel toilet-paper folding

		The Oddball Barnstar
		I've never awarded a barnstar before, but I feel that your tremendous contribution to Misplaced Pages, civilization, and reality by creating the article Hotel toilet-paper folding (with sources, to boot) should earn you the coveted Oddball Barnstar. Regards, Jd027 (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD is no match for such a noble creation! I'll wikilawyer, you pull the IAR defense. Jd027 (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

		The Oddball Barnstar
		Hotel toilet-paper folding is an absolutely delightful, quirky article. Well done! Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I know you've already been given one, but two doesn't hurt, does it? :) Regards, Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• I was going to give you an Oddball Barnstar but two people beat me to it! The reason the article is getting attention isn't just its oddity -- plenty of articles are about odd things -- but how well-shaped and encyclopedic it is despite its odd subject matter. Kudos. --Boston (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• But a question: Why is there a hyphen in the article title? The article Toilet paper doesn't have one. Does the hyphen appear when it's folded? --Boston (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

the_ed17 :  Chat  02:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Trout

Ow. But I think you're right, I was not exactly a voice of calm there. Thanks.--Tznkai (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Hotel toilet-paper folding

On April 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hotel toilet-paper folding, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Since nobody cared to let you know, I will: Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know#Queue 3: Hoax or WP:POINT or OK? --NE2 02:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Charles Brasch additions to XXXX in poetry articles

Hi, it seems that about a year ago you added references for Charles Brasch to the series of XXXX in poetry articles. It seems you made a consistent mistake in failing to wikilink the year correctly (e.g. here. I'm now going to correct them using AWB, but just wanted you to know for future reference. Thanks Rjwilmsi 11:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality enforcement: a proposal

I've started a proposal to enforce neutral editing on Israel-Palestine articles, which could be extended to other intractable disputes if it works. See Misplaced Pages:Neutrality enforcement. I'd very much appreciate your input, if you have time. Best, SlimVirgin 08:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

My career as a "Nazi"

Thanks for the replies. The discussion has drifted from where I started and this seems like a good point to end it. I'm still interested in answering any questions from people at WR who have concerns about me, but that can be done in three (nonpublic) forums I'm still allowed to post at on WR: "Misplaced Pages Review Review" "Support Group" and "Politics, Religion". -- Noroton (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I've been accused of being a "Nazi" for the opinions I've expressed at Talk:Martin Luther (good example here, but scroll up from there for more of the same). The position that's supposed to make me a Nazi is:

1. That Misplaced Pages articles should reflect scholarship on a subject.
2. The Martin Luther article cites scholarship in which Luther is described as anti-Jewish, including a quote in which Luther approves of killing Jews. Further, the article cites scholarship asserting that Luther's writings appear to have been used by people who killed Jews, both in the decades just following Luther's death and in the 20th century by Nazis.
3. WP article lead sections should reflect the highlights of the important information in an article.
4. What the article says about Luther and his statements about Jews seems to be important enough to mention in the lead.

I've stated repeatedly that if scholarship is said to show something, Misplaced Pages articles should reflect that, or better scholarship should be used to refute it. I've also said that I'm no expert on Luther, so if better information is brought to my attention, I could change my mind -- I just want Misplaced Pages to reflect the scholarship on a subject, and I want leads of Misplaced Pages articles to reflect what those articles say.

But I've been restricted from posting at Misplaced Pages Review by the authorities there in part because the views I've just described can't be held by a normal person (unless I were Jewish). Therefore, I'm told, I must be a Nazi, hoping to make Naziism look good with Luther's endorsement of killing and persecuting Jews. That's the "reasoning". It didn't do any good for me to declare that I'm not a Nazi, or, for that matter, a supporter of the Ku Klux Klan, or anti-Semitic.

I'm posting this here partly for informational purposes, but mostly for amusement purposes. Thanks, Misplaced Pages Review authorities. I'm happy to discuss this with anyone, either here or, if they let me, at Misplaced Pages Review. -- Noroton (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Excruciatingly long explanation of the background: If anyone really cares, here's a little background (I'm not upset over any of this, even though I go on at length here , but I find it interesting to see how Misplaced Pages Review operates, at least in one case, so maybe other people will, too): Last week, I found that I was suddenly not permitted to post at WR on any but a few forums (such as "Religion and Politics"). On April 24 or 25, I think, I sent Somey, an administrator at WR, a note asking what was going on (nobody had bothered to inform me). Somey replied on April 26 with a rambling message, going into speculative details as to why I was making certain statements on WP and WR, basically accusing me of trying to maneuver among various groups in order to get some kind of influence (I have no idea why I would want some kind of influence or what I would do with it, or even who I'm supposed to have it over). I found the message confusing, but by reading it a few times, I understood that there was some kind of discussion about me that I wasn't privy to and where I wasn't allowed to defend myself. It appeared that there was a decision made to "fish tank" me -- block me from posting in all but two or three forums at WR.

The reasons for the decision seemed to be three: (1) I may be a Nazi because I took the position on the Martin Luther talk page that the information about his anti-Semitism should be in the lead; (2) I posted in the German-language thread in mock-German, asking why Misplaced Pages Review had such a forum when it hadn't been used for months (I was trying to be funny), and therefore might be either anti-German or trying to show people that I wasn't really a Nazi (I kid you not -- this is what Somey told me); (3) People at WR were mad at me because I disparaged "Col Scott" (Don Murphy) in a thread. On about April 26, I replied to Somey (in a private message at WR that I forgot to copy and that Somey has refused to provide me with a copy of). I told Somey (as best I recall) that I was just having fun with the German forum, and if anyone were truly offended, I had no problem apologizing for my post; that if anyone wanted to ask me about my posts at the Martin Luther talk page, I would be happy to explain just what my position is and reassure them that I am not a Nazi, and, finally, that I thought I'd gone over the top with Don Murphy and that while my opinion of what he's done hasn't changed, I don't think I should have insulted him. (Don, if you or any of your minions are reading this -- sorry! I certainly didn't do anything you haven't done, and no, I'm not looking for anything in return from you.) But keep in mind that I was no harder on Murphy than many other members of WR on all sorts of people -- so my comments didn't appear to me to be out of place there. I told Somey that if anyone has concerns about me, I'd be happy to discuss those concerns in a polite way, and I suggested that we post his message to me and my message to him in the WR "Tar Pit" forum and let anyone at WR discuss the matter. I don't think I got a reply. One other thing, Somey said he didn't think I'm a Nazi. Which made his next messge to me sound rather odd.

I have no idea which of the three concerns is more important or if any of them are real concerns and not just excuses from people who may not like me for some other reason, but I'm not losing any sleep over it. I think it's interesting to see how Misplaced Pages Review operates, and I think I needed to counter this "Nazi" accusation because it amounts to a rumor. It's important, I think, to respond to rumors like that.

In the meantime, an interesting thread opened up at the "Politics and Religion" forum, where I could still post, so I participated in that for a while. Yesterday, I asked Somey if he could send me a copy of my reply to him, and his response was that I should just admit to being a Nazi, with a link to my most recent post at the Martin Luther talk page. He's now given me two contradictory statements about what he thinks, and I can't tell which is real and which is a snide joke (or worse).

I don't censor myself for reasons like that (I will censor myself to avoid hurting someone unnecessarily, if no bigger principle or concern is at stake -- I try to be a nice guy when I can). I'm not despondent about not being able to post in various WR forums -- it isn't that important to me, and if WR is going to act this way, the value of the place as a forum is just very limited, but that's a decision for the WR Powers That Be. I'd go back if they let me, and I'd be happy to follow whatever rules everybody else is expected to follow, but I'm not going to be changing what I think are reasonable opinions about Martin Luther or anything else. I don't tend to form "alliances" with people -- I disagree with everyone on some things and agree with everyone on some things, and when I do, I say I do. I recently agreed with User:Bali ultimate on some things, although we've repelled each other in the past. I happen to agree with him on a certain topic and said so. I find a lot to admire in SarcasticIdealist and Alanyst, but when I disagreed with them about something (I can't even remember what) in the ArbCom election discussions, I said so forcefully (I hope I wasn't rude). I think that's the way it should be. I'm posting at length here on my talk page becasue all this is essentially Misplaced Pages related, because I think I should explain myself to people who may be scratching their heads about what's been going on, and because I just find this experience kind of interesting. -- Noroton (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It's because you had the guts to stand up to ColScott/Don Murphy, whom the folks at WR seem to worship. I used to read and enjoy WR regularly until I saw that they condoned Murphy's appalling behavior, and I realized that Somey and the rest of the WR folks are no better than the worst bullying admin on WP. 63.19.228.114 (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

@63: "Somey and the rest of the WR folks" reside in an internet backwater, which is, and purports to be, an internet forum. WP purports to be an encyclopedia and is one of the first google results for your search term. So it's very much impossible that they are "no better than the worst bullying admin on WP." Do you see?

@Noroton: My impression of that thread was that you were being extremely dickish, and I don't mean to Col Scott merely, but in the thread and to the forum generally. Rather like a fellow who comes to a party and has no idea how to behave. Col Scott is only there, after all, because an anonymous person decided to write him up here, and now anonymous unaccountable people can write what they like about them here. You are there for your own entertainment or edification. To see you take the opportunity to use WR to rant inanely at someone who many WR regulars must consider a victim of BLP was excruciating.

This leads to another point that might be worth making - that your other WR posts are "Wikipediot" fare, that is, you still basically hold to orthodoxies of wikipedia policy, practice and platitude that many regulars have long since rejected as bogus. You are by no means the worst offender there in that regard, in fact you may be the best, since your posts usually evidence actual thought and reason. But you often wade into things, it seems to me, in this way, and it seems like you have not the experience, nor done the reading nor the thinking, necessary for informed comment. Like the fellow at the party, and like other less interesting "wikipediots" at WR, you are entirely oblivious in the centre of your little world. Hence ranting at Col Scott, for instance, or to pick another example from memory, setting yourself up as arbitrator of what is fair or unfair about SV vs. WR members she had a hand in banning from WP, based merely on whatever facts you can pick up in a given thread, when of course they and others are intimately aware of the history and are not therefore rehashing it for your benefit.

All that said, I think it's a shame that WR mods are (probably necessarily) paranoiac and obsessed about alliances and power games, and that your opinion of the Luther article issue, with all that has gone before, has fed into that. Also I wouldn't be surprised if the concerns of users who kick them a few bucks for server costs are probably listened to intently - I'm thinking of Brandt here, but Col Scott may have contributed also? - or if "somebodies" outranked "nobodies" in WR mod sensitivities, and if any of that were so, it wouldn't help as far as fairness or integrity goes. But it's just a forum, yanno?

Hope you forgive my coming across this talk page with its invitation to discuss, and therefore pontificating about the nature of your posting and so forth. But I thought you might find it in some way interesting and I was also a bit bored. - "zvook" 86.44.20.242 (talk) 01:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

No apologies necessary, IP86, and thanks for the comment. Sorry I excruciated you about the Col Scott thing. I wasn't ranting inanely just for my own entertainment or edification though. As I said in that thread, I was angry that a 17-year-old kid and a librarian were being harassed on the job and at home by a powerful adult. He didn't start that particular thread to bemoan the fact that he's got a WP article. And it's not as if they were vandalizing the WP article, either. As I've said, if I had to do it over again, I'd have tried a different approach -- probably something simpler and more serious and more boring.

When it comes to the SV threads, I think I'm like most readers of them who don't know all the details and wonder what all the smoke is coming from. I think that's actually a valuable perspective, and that's a big reason why I posted in those threads. I understand that people are angry and want to vent, but without presenting evidence for the rest of us, those threads were worthless to the rest of us. And I certainly can't draw negative conclusions about somebody based simply on rants or on rants and very little evidence. As I pointed out in one of those threads, I thought they made WR look bad and SV come off looking better, so they weren't making the best moves for people who feel aggrieved. Public discussion threads are read by a lot more people than those posting in the threads, so don't the posters want to make a case that other people will find convincing? That's not going to happen with high-octane rants giving little evidence. I think I spent too much time reading and commenting on that stuff. I'm better off ignoring it. Life's too short.

If they're going to be "paranoid", as you put it, about a sensible opinion expressed on the Martin Luther talk page, then that's going to ... make them look paranoid. It seems to me that looking paranoid isn't the best image you'd want to project to outsiders. It's odd that you bring Brandt up, since he didn't seem to comment much in the thread, and I didn't comment about him. (I did once in the past, when I asked whether what he was doing should be considered bullying, but I never got a response from him or anybody else. I think that's the extent of our interactions. Are you saying he's mad at me?) If Col Scott is kicking in a few bucks for server costs, is it worth the bad PR that comes with associating with him? But what do I know -- I don't run a web forum. All I know is that if somebody's going to start a rumor that I'm some kind of Nazi, I need to show just how silly that rumor is and do it loudly and immediately.

Rather like a fellow who comes to a party and has no idea how to behave. But I wasn't behaving oddly for WR. In that very thread, other people were calling participants idiots and baboons. If the problem was that I was supposed to treat Col Scott with more care than I would other people who were sending letters to employers and parents, I guess I missed the memo on that. Other than that, it was a fun party, and I promise to return the lampshade. -- Noroton (talk) 07:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Mengistu Haile Mariam

I saw your edits to this article. It can be documented that he is the son of a former slave -- but it's going to take me a while to track down where I saw it stated. As for the story about his grandmother Totit, I left it in because it is more than likely a legend about him -- not true, but widely believed & relevant to popular perception of Mengistu.

And a last point: you're about the only other person besides me to worry about BLP issues concerning this article. He's not a very likeable guy (to say the least), & I doubt has access to the Internet (let alone knows what Misplaced Pages is), so this hasn't been much of a priority for anyone -- but there is the principle of the rule. -- llywrch (talk) 04:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. There's also some practicality behind the principle, though: Misplaced Pages can still be embarassed, even by supporters of a mass murderer. Also, if we can limit negative and potentially negative information to what we can reference to reliable sources, then we -- and particularly our article on Mengistu -- can be much more credible to our readers, including the ones in Africa. Best of luck with finding the sources. As I mentioned on the Mengistu talk page, I no longer think there's a BLP issue with the grandmother, since it's extremely unlikely she's still alive, and it's unlikely the father's alive, given Mengistu's age. Overall, I like the article, and it surprised me to find out that Mengistu is alive. I'd always assumed he was killed in the coup. (posted on my talk page and yours.) -- Noroton (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Just saw your note at AN/I. I had no idea there were so many other problems with the article. It looked OK to me, now, but I only took a quick look at it. It's great that you're cleaning it up. -- Noroton (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's that I would like to clean it up. At the moment, all of the information I can find about his tenure as ruler of Ethiopia is pretty skimpy after 1978, so it's unclear just how much (or what kind) of input he had into the Eritrean War of Independence, the Civil War, improving education & medical services -- let alone his repressive acts. Despite the fact he was an absolute dictator, he was just one man & obviously needed to delegate the actual implementation of his policies/desires to other people. All this requires time to sift thru the relevant archives at the NYT, BBC, etc. websites & hope that their foreign correspondents were able to safely have their reports published. (And then there is the issue that the NYT is trashing the archives of the International Herald Tribune, as noted in a post at the Village Pump.) No one has yet written a biography of Mengistu -- those inside Ethiopia either don't know enough, or aren't about to be a witness against themselves, & those outside Ethiopia don't care enough to do the needed research.

BTW, Mengistu's ancestry is fairly uncontroversial; while there was a rumor he was the illegitimate son of some noble, it's fairly well known that his father was a freed slave (slavery persisted in Ethiopia into the late 1930s), & Henze notes that a certain person was often pointed out in Addis Ababa as being Mengistu's father. But I'll do the research first before restoring that passage. This article's not important enough to me to get into BLP problems. -- llywrch (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

A question

I'm curious Noroton, and I'd prefer to speak in general terms on both my end and your end to not sidetrack the question over specifics that you, I or anyone else has written on WP, WR, blogs, forums, IRC, etc. Why do you think that when one person has a problem with another person, their actions, their seeming philosophy, their contributions or their behavior, it's so difficult to approach that person with those problems and ask them something along the lines of, "I disagree with about you, and I'd like to hear your response"? Why do you think that's so hard to break down that wall and just approach the person about it to hear what they have to say? I'm not talking about the frothing-at-the-mouthers, but people who feel they have reasonable criticism about another person? Don't you think that criticism would go much further if they actually had a response to it, and it was weak? -->David Shankbone 17:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Anything I said to you in LHVU's RfA was for the purposes of the RfA. I have no hope of ever changing your behavior in any way other than trivially at the RfA, so I don't waste my time at it (that should answer all of your questions). If you've read my comments about you at WR, you know everything I have to say about you. Now that I think about it, I was rude about you at WR, and I apologize for the rudeness. But you appall me in just the way I described it there. When you harm other people, you may find I'll speak up and oppose that, where I think it will do some good to tell people about it, although I only notice it if our paths happen to cross (at this RfA, or one of the Wiki blog aggregators or the like). Feel free to respond, but I'm not really interested in a dialogue with you, so your response would probably be the last word. -- Noroton (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)