Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:07, 21 April 2006

Welcome to the Misplaced Pages!

Hello, and Welcome to the Misplaced Pages, Merecat! Thanks for weighing in over on the War on Terrorism article discussion. Hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Misplaced Pages experience:

• Take a look at the Misplaced Pages Tutorial and Manual of Style.
• When you have time, you can peruse The five pillars of Misplaced Pages, and Assume good faith, but keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
• Always keep the notion of NPOV in mind, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
• If you need any help, post your question at the Help Desk.
• Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!

And some odds and ends: Boilerplate text, Brilliant prose, Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Utilities, Verifiability, Village pump, Wikiquette, and you can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes: ~~~~.

Best of luck, Merecat, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman 06:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Jason Gastrich

Please read Jason Gastrich's RfC before you get involved with him. I'm glad that there's still someone left whose supply of good faith hasn't been exhausted and is ready to defend him, but the problem with that is that he's become basically indefensible. If you can find the Christian parable or argument that everyone else has missed that will convert him into a productive member of Misplaced Pages, I'll take my hat off to you. Then eat it.

I hope that by messaging you I won't give you the impression that I'm part of Jason's imaginary atheist cabal trying to isolate him; Gastrich has isolated himself. Just letting you know what you might be getting into. You told him that he could remain faithful to his 'mission'; well, Jason's mission is to evangelise (on the RfC he explictly states that he is trying to save people from Hell), so as long he does remain faithful he will be unable to contribute in accordance with NPOV. --Malthusian (talk) 09:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

16th Street Baptist Church

• "Infiltrate" is technically correct. (American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd definition: "(of a liquid) permeate (something) by filtration."). "Seepage", while not common in technical literature on building conservation, is a more concise synonym for that definition, so thanks for the improvement. --Dystopos 14:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you for supporting me in my successful RFA. Please drop a note on my talk page, should you need assistance with anything, or have questions about any of my actions. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 01:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

With apologies for the impersonal AWB-ness of the message... Thanks for your support on my recent request for adminship. It passed at 91/1/0, and I hope I can continue to deserve the community's trust. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help you, and if I make a mistake be sure to tell me. My talk page is always open. (ESkog) 02:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Your Question

You asked me a couple questions on my RfA regarding the issue of keeping faith-based articles out of Misplaced Pages. In case you haven't realized, I have responded to your questions (or so I hope I have) in the RfA's comments section. Feel free to delete this message from your talk page after reading it if you feel it unnecessarily advertises my RfA. joturner 05:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe you have answered my question at all. However, if you want an opportunity to prove yourself to me, answer me this: Yes or No, are you interested to hear my concerns about what I see as over-injecting of the Islamic view on certain prophet pages? I'd like to see what you think about my concerns there. We could discuss John the Baptist. Are you willing to try that? Merecat 05:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am interested in hearing your concerns about the over-emphasis of Islamic views (or views of other religions) in prophet pages. On John the Baptist, your concern is very clear. Given that John's significance in Islam and the Qur'an are outweighed significantly by his significance in Christianity (I hope I'm thinking of the right John), the unnecessary Islamic quotations either need to be removed altogether or, if the topic becomes significant enough, moved to its own separate page regarding John in Islam. About the template though, I feel that should stay because as of right now there is no other page that discusses John as an Islamic prophet. On that same token though, if a template regarding prophets in Christianity or Judaism were created, those too would be belong in the article (presuming, of course, separate articles regarding John in the respective religions weren't created). And about the Qur'anic links, I don't find them especially useful in the article, but those hoping to trim down the Prophets of Islam wanted to keep the links for each prophet somewhere. joturner 05:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I have five major concerns there 1) there is a section which is specific to Islam but not a section specific to anything else. 2) The footer which lists all the prophets of Islam is overkill and is imbalancing the page by "laying claim to it" for Islam. 3) The "preponderance of the text" is weighed too heavily towards Islam. On multi-religion pages, word count parity should be observed. 4) the links at the bottom are not in any order suchs as alphabetical. I see that the Islam link comes 1st. Why is that? 5) The outline for this historical biography ought to open with a chronology which states when John 1st appeared in literature and also lists each next appearance. Chronologies and alphabetical are NPOV, other methods are not. Merecat 05:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

In response to number one, I'd like to point out there is a section entitled John the Baptist in the New Testament, which essentially means John the Baptist in Christianity. There is also a section for Eastern Orthodox, Mandaean, Gnostic, and Mormom beliefs. In response to number two, right now there is no better place to put it. You can, if you'd like, balance out the template with one for Chrisitianity or Judaism. On number three, I agree that the Islamic view is covered disproportionately high for John's relative insignificance in Islam. For number four, the reason the Islamic prophets link comes first is because the table, which includes the reference to the Islamic prophet category, comes before the category links. That's usually how it's done, but it could be re-arranged so that all the categories show in alphabetical order. About number five, this does not relate to the presentation of Islam in the article. However, I disagree that a timeline would make the article any more NPOV. The "facts" about his life vary between religious traditions. And it seems self-evident to me that John first appeared in literature in the holy books of Christianity. If that is incorrect, it probably should be more plainly stated in the article. But a timeline seems a bit unnecessary. joturner 05:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You answers are welcome, but to me, betray a rigidity of thought. Most specifically this; "there is no better place to put it" - it's only a POV mindset which concludes so quickly as you did. No better place? It's my view that it ought not even be there to begin with. However, to conclude without more dialog that "there is no better place", shows that your opinions are pre-formed and your mind is closed. I am unable to support you at this time. Thank you for your reply. Merecat 06:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Now that you have linked this discussion from my RfA, I believe it only makes sense to defend what I meant by "there is no better place." The template does not exist in Jesus, Moses, or Abraham because there are articles for Isa, Musa, and Ibrahim, which focus on the prophets in Islam. There, however, is no alternative for John the Baptist and so there is no better place for the template as there is with the others. joturner 20:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Again I will point out that comments such as "...no alternative" can only spring from a mind that is closed to alternatives. As I stated above, one alternative is to not include it at all. The fact that Joturner now restates that his mind is closed to alternatives, tells me that he does not welcome my views. This is not the type of mindset that I welcome in an admin. In fact, it alarms me that he does not see he is overtly asserting that being closed-minded is his method of dialog. Merecat 21:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreting my words. There is "no alternative" for John the Baptist in Islam as there are with some of the other prophets (Ibrahim vs. Abraham, for instance). That is a fact. If you find one (or create one), I would be glad to move the template and the mass of information on John in Islam to that location. joturner 08:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I dislike weighing in, but since this was linked from the RfA, I have to say I agree with joturner. I haven't seen anything in this dialog that betrays an obvious POV, as a matter of fact. I happen to agree with him. Johnleemk | Talk 20:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Your comments are welcome. Thanks for sharing your views. Merecat 21:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Merecat, with all do respect, your comments here are some of the most agonizing I have had to read in recent memory on Misplaced Pages. I would have avoided this discussion like the plague had you not linked it from joturner's RfA. I think what joturner what means ty "no alternative" is no subarticle for "John the Baptist in Islam". I do not think this means that he is being "closed-minded", his comments were clear as day for any editor assuming good faith. I would encourage you (and others) not to view articles about figures with significance to multiple religions as battle-grounds, as if it were somehow "zero sum" to include one religious view. Your comments about him "over-injecting" the Islamic view only make sense with this flawed assumption. savidan 18:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I invite your feedback on all issues that concern you about me, or anything else. Merecat 00:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ron Karenga

Merecat, I would like to do some consensus editing with you at Ron Karenga. regards, FloNight 16:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll check it out, but I have trepidations. My research about Kwanzaa is that when it was initiated, it was intended by Ron Karenga to be a "keep us apart from whitey" celebration. Now, though it does appear that Karenga himself has mellowed somewhat over the years, I am still personally leery of any so-called "holiday" that has as its flag colors black (not for whites), red (spilling of blood) and green (radical environmentalism). Suffice it to say, I am not persuaded that Karenga has forsaken his racist views and I am not convinced that he has sworn off violence as a means to an end. Those who want to hold Karenga up as a "father" of something, must watch that he's not called the father of only nice-sounding things, for if that's done, a hagiography results and this would violate Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons. Merecat 19:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand your thoughts. I have an idea. If some of your opinions get too hot for his talk page, email me and we can discuss them. Some of these issues bring out strong emotions that are best discussed off talk, I think. I want you to participate in discussions on his talk page, just not say very strongly worded derogatory things about him. I can see now that you were more attacking him than SV. Think about it and feel free to email me if it will help. If you reject this idea that is fine too. : ) FloNight 19:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that a factual recitation of Karenga's personal history rises to the level of an attack. If you want to dialog with me about Karenga, as a predicate condition, I ask that you state here via quotes of my comments, which comments of mine are (according to you - see above) "attacks" of Karenga. Also, I'd prefer to do all dialog on the record. I am uncomfortable with the idea of side-discussions. If my thinking is wrong here, I want all editors to have a chance to see it and so inform me. But, on the other hand, where my thinking is right, I'd like that to be known also. That said, please let me know what "attacks" you think I have made against Karenga. Merecat 19:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

If your preference is to keep all discussions on Misplaced Pages that is fine with me. In the past, I have found it helpful to do portions of consensus editing discussions by email. I don't think it needs to be done that way on this article. If you were interested, I would explain the benefits. I also discuss my strong personal feeling about controversial issues with my family, friends, and a few WP editors (by email). That helps me stay focused on the immediate issues. Some of your comments were too strong to go in the article, I labeled them attacks in my above post. If you want to characterize them another way, that is fine. I'm trying to get you to help edit this article, I'm not trying to run you off. FloNight 20:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your gentle reply. Hopefully, you will understand this point: I feel that the term "attack" is laden with detrimental meaning and if used, is tantamount to an accusation. If you really feel I have "attacked" Karenga, please qoute me here and dissect my quote with an explanation, showing me my error. I am interested to understand where, in your view, I transgressed. Thanks. Merecat 20:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Merecat, we'll let it rest for now. regards, FloNight 04:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for your comment. I'll apply it. Thanks for reading my user-page. I feel I am important. :D Take care --Aminz 10:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

See this link to review the talk page comments I made which are being referred to above. Merecat 11:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"End Notes" style of links...

Hi Merecat. Please try and keep discussions, such as "End Notes" style of links reduces readability, in one place. Copying your comment to multiple places is redundant and fragments the discussion. Thanks. ~MDD4696 01:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Not being sure where best to post it, I thought it sensible to try a couple of places. Merecat 02:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

When you are unsure, you can always ask someone on their talk page or post something at the Village pump. Or, you can just post it somewhere logical and people will refer you to the right place if it's not the right one. Just try to avoid spamming. ~MDD4696 02:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that the respective article talk pages are "spam" and the other three locations were admin specific. I am mindful of what you say, but I felt I was ok. Even so, thanks for the feedback. Merecat 02:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No problems :). ~MDD4696 02:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

DaGizza's RfA

Hi Merecat, thank you for supporting me in my RfA which passed with a tally of (93/1/2). If you need any help or wish discuss something with me, you are always welcome to talk to me. Gizza 12:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA Results and Thanks

Merecat, thank you for your constructive opposition in my recent RfA. Although it did not succeed as no consensus was declared (final: 65/29/7), I know that there is always an opportunity to request adminship again. In the meantime, I will do my best to address your concerns in the hope that when the opportunity for adminship arises once again, you will reconsider your position. If at any time I make any mistakes or if you would like to comment on my contributions to Misplaced Pages, you are more than welcome to do so. Regardless of your religious, cultural, and personal beliefs, I pray that whatever and whoever motivates you in life continues to guide you on the most righteous path. --- joturner 05:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Rationale to impeach George W. Bush

If you add the POV template to the article, it is really incumbent upon you to specify the problems with the article on the talk page. Your discussions on the talk page really don't touch on problems of the article; it would be good if you can set out exactly what needs to be fixed. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Answered on talk page there. Merecat 03:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

(comment by anon ip deleted)

Template:Jack Abramoff

I am responding to your edit summaries on multiple edits to articles containing this template, stating such things as "This template is biased POV crap".

I created that template to bring together articles relating to the Abramoff controversy, specifically for use on articles where the article's subject is primarily notable for their relation to the controversy (e.g. Konstantinos Boulis), or where the article's subject has more than a passing involvement with the controversy (e.g. Tom DeLay). I feel that it is used properly in many of the articles where you deleted it.

I would appreciate it if you would quell the nastiness in your edit summaries; my strong suggestion to you is that if you dispute content, at the very least you should copy it to the talk page for discussion. There may be one or two examples where content can be improved for NPOV, but based on your approach I think that others are well justified in reverting your edits as non-helpful.

Regards,

KWH 15:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

So if I called it biased POV caviar, you'd be ok with that? Merecat 21:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It would be considered civil if you would discuss matters on the talk page by actually detailing an objection, rather than continuing to revert and remove, with accusatory edit summaries. KWH 04:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question, to wit: If I called it biased POV caviar, you'd be ok with that? Merecat 08:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it wasn't very witty. And I can only repeat the same thing again: It would be considered civil if you would discuss matters on the talk page by actually detailing an objection, rather than continuing to revert and remove, with accusatory edit summaries. State a reason why you think that the template has a POV (on the template's talk page). KWH 12:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Merecat 16:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Katherine Harris

I believe you are being disruptive with respect to your insistent tagging of the Harris article as having a disputed neutrality and your recent edits. It is obvious that encyclopedic/objective treatment must be subject to the facts; it is further obvious that the mass resignation of Harris' campaign team is, in terms of factual importance to her political fortunes, far greater than anodyne reassurances from partisan sources that everything is fine. To insist, as you have, that somehow equal time be given to refute factual circumstances simply misses the point. Please indicate on the Harris talk page how your recent actions can be interpreted in good faith because as it stands it appears ineluctably as if you are POV pushing, in violation of WP:NPOV and, with your insistent edits, WP:POINT. Otherwise this should go to mediation. Eusebeus 00:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment and with your conclusions. However, your erudite way with English is refreshing. Thanks for your comments. Merecat 08:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

WADR, I think insisting on "alleged" is like saying that if I propose a tax decrease for every person in your state who uses or edits Misplaced Pages, then it "allegedly" helps you. Look, the article I cited is headlined, "Harris backed bill aiding Riscorp", and in the article it says that she "sponsor a bill in 1996 to block Riscorp competitors from getting a greater share of Florida workers' compensation market." --Sholom 00:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Then we would do best to simply quote the article. Merecat 06:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for characterizing your actions as "harassment". I actually do try to stay away from adjectives and adverbs. But it was a bit frustrating to read your complaint about me not quoting articles when I was indeed quoting articles. Nevertheless, I hope we're closer to being on the same page now -- I left a 2-paragraph response to you on Talk:Katherine Harris. -- Sholom 14:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thank you for your support vote on my RFA. The final result was a successful request based on 111 support and 1 oppose. --CBDunkerson 12:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

Now, I'm getting chewed out for a few missing edit summaries so I figured a friendly little reminder to use them might be a friendly little thing to do :) -- Tawker 02:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you link a few diffs here so I can know what you are talking about? Merecat 13:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Plame affair unexplained move

Why the heck did you move Plame affair to the obscure title Wilson Plame Scandal? The title you chose is POV and it does not abide by Misplaced Pages guidelines. What is worse, it cannot be changed back! You did not even mention this on talk, and you have not participated in editing that page or discussing anything on that talk page in the recent past. Your name change has caused a lot of confusion and now has made it impossible to return to the NPOV name that had been agreed upon over a year ago on that page. Please change it back, and explain yourself on the talk page.--csloat 18:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I also found the move premature and disrespectful of the consensus reached previously. Merecat - I'm asking that you please participate on talk, and in good faith restore the article. We should all initiate a discussion about possible titles before anyone unilaterally moves it again. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know

You attempted to vote oppose twice on my RfA, I took the liberty of striking out your duplicate vote, no worries mistakes happen pretty easily there. If this RfA doesn't pass I look forward to your vote in 3 or 6 months -- Tawker 07:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry! Merecat 18:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Latest and greatest

Hi Merecat. Just wanted to say I appreciate your consideration and good faith responses to my posts. I'm hopeful that whatever the real or perceived political differences between our respective POV, we can at least agree on what a precious and wondrous work America is. I'm grateful for your good faith and willingness to engage civilly in our ongoing discussions. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Or, as ham radio fans would say, TNX. Merecat 00:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Response

Yes, I did edit your comment to change "Democrat party" to "Democratic party". Apologies if you prefer to be wrong; or if you were subtly trying to indicate that you're a freeper. Generally though, typo corrections are appreciated. To allay any possible concerns, I assure you that I would also correct any reference to the "Republic party".

I am convinced that the Wilson plan was hatched at the highest level of the Democratic party, probably with help from anti-Bush staffers at CIA

I'm sure you can understand from that why I thought you might be stoned. It's ok man, no need to get defensive; we all like to relax now and then. Maybe you were just drunk; no worries, it's all good.

Ok, you got me on Scotty. He didn't actually write that here. But, he obviously agrees with the sentiments. Nevertheless, I do apologize to Scott McClellan, and indeed to the Bush administration as a whole, and to America for impersonating the White House spokesman on a Misplaced Pages talk page. Though in my defense, I did immediately below note that it was a joke. I sort of figured that, given the Ann Coulter SCOTUS death threat precedent, that a joke acknowledgement would be good enough for Misplaced Pages. Apparently not.

You are right, I do owe you a heartfelt apology. I am really, truly, deeply, stupdendously, overwhelmingly, tremendously, prodigously, and poignantly sorry. I was wrong, and will now flagellate myself with a scourge of thorns. Derex 04:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of a "scourge of thorns". A scourge would typically be a cat-o-nine-tails type of whip, with metal or bone pieces tied into the leather strips. Personally, I don't think that thorns would hold up. Perhaps you were mixing metaphors by mistake? Anyway, thanks for your apology. As for this "I am convinced that the Wilson plan was hatched at the highest level of the Democratic party, probably with help from anti-Bush staffers at CIA", are you mocking me about that? If so, please read this and tell me what you think. Also, please don't say things like this "Maybe you were just drunk". I think it's un-called for and does not add to rapport among editors. Thanks. Merecat 05:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Your tastes may run to leather, but I'm a vegan. Kate's Texas kink is something to consider though.

I think the "American Thinker" is anything but. If that's what passes for critical thinking on the right, it's not difficult to understand why things are such a mess. The writer needs to take a remedial course in basic cognitive skills. You asked; that's my opinion of that paranoiac.

As to the "drunk" thing, you're right; I was making fun of you. Fantasies such as the Democrats & the CIA together conspiring to make Bush publicly leak the identity of a covert CIA WMD operative (working on Iran no less), and then lie about it, are an extreme manifestation of cognitive dissonance. But you are also correct that forthrightly expressing such opinions doesn't add to rapport, and I'll leave off that now.

I do have some sympathy for your condition, as I myself leaned to the right as a youngling (as most privileged Southerners do). Left off that though when I resolved to always argue both sides of any issue to myself. You might try it. Derex 15:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

I've blocked you for disruptive editing and reversions that break the spirit of WP:3RR, if not the precise letter of it. Please work out your differences on Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush rather than blindly revert. —Spangineer (háblame) 15:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you! Hello Merecat. Thank you for your support in my RfA! It passed with a final tally of 91/3/5. I am quite humbled and pleased by the community's show of confidence in me. If you need help or just want to talk, let me know. Cheers! -- Fang Aili

Michael Scheuer page

Please taka a look at recent edits on this page. One editor is reverting quotes from Scheuer's book in a seemingly pure act of censorship, just because he does not want readers to know Scheuer has written these words. Please take a look and see if you can mediate the situation. RonCram 13:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I will look at the material in question ASAP. In the meantime, watch out for your reverts. I recently ran into a SNAFU with another editor and unwittingly transgressed 3rr - so be careful.Merecat 19:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I have replied in several sections at: Talk:Michael Scheuer. Merecat 21:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Bush Crimes Commission

You are invited to vote in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bush Crimes Commission (2nd nomination) Morton devonshire 01:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Merecat 04:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for supporting me in my RfA. I really didn't think people appreciate my work here that much, but it's nice to see you do: my Request was closed with 66 supports and 4 opposes. I'll do my best not to turn your confidence down. If in any point in the future you get the feeling I'm doing something wrong, do not hesitate to drop me a line. --Dijxtra 11:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Workshop: Press blackout

Hi Merecat, I saw Press blackout on your Workshop page, so I thought I'd draw your attention to my comments on the article's Discussion page. T. J. Day 18:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

See my reply there. Merecat 20:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

User conduct RFC

• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Merecat

I noticed that you have not been notified of the RFC on your talk page. Obviously, you already know, but it's policy/standard procedure to notify the user on their talk page. So I'm making sure everything's done right. Kevin Baas 23:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

(delete anon ip comment)

Response...

Yes, I already commented there. I think you may need to tone down your POV a little bit. I didn't comment to blindly support you though. I think both parties were generally in the wrong there. See you around. --LV 00:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I value your input. Merecat 01:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest you try and initiate a nice cup of tea and a sit down as a sign of goodwill towards Nescio? Try and meet a political opposite halfway. Oh well, just a suggestion. See ya. --LV 01:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure: I made a comment about you here. I tried to explain myself, and I didn't mean any harm, and hope you understand that. But if you think I erred too badly, kindly say so and I will take my appropriate punishment. Thanks. --LV 01:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Merecat 02:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Always best to make sure, and keep things transparent. --LV 02:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Merecat

Thanks for invite, but I am not familiar with the dispute. For the record, Bush has about as much chance of being impeached as I do of becoming the President.--MONGO 07:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Merecat 16:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders

Respectfully, Sanders is an independent, i.e., he has no party affiliation. There are no Greens, Reform, Liberterian, or Communist Party members in Congress. Please don't accuse me of making false statements if it's not absolutely clear that I have done so. - Jersyko·talk 16:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Please read Bernie Sanders whic states "*Bernie Sanders "s one of very few self-described democratic socialists elected to federal office in the United States in recent times."

Also, where is the definition citation which you draw on that defines major as having as a prerequisite, election of a party member to Congress? If you have no citation, we are having a semantic disagreement. However, my version of the facts is baked up by Bernie's self-description, yours is not. Also, absent a citation proving Major = what you say, my opposition to it on POV grounds is valid. Larger refers to size and is NPOV. Major infers rank or validity. Please think this through. Also, saorry for my poor choice of words. I believe you are mistaken and should have said "mistaken", rather than "false". Your distress about that echos my distress about "major".

Merecat 16:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Major vs. Larger

• All political parties have equal standing under the law. There is no such thing as a "minor" party. Consequently, there is no such thing as a "major" party. The term larger or largest must be used instead as its clear with that word the comment is about size, not validity. UTC)

• Bernie Sanders "s one of very few self-described democratic socialists elected to federal office in the United States in recent times."

• The Conservative Party "has been significant in influencing the descisions of the New York Republican Party."

Merecat 16:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sanders has no official party affiliation - he is an independent and caucuses with the Democrats. Pundits and scholars are essentially in unanimous agreement that the United States has two major parties, thus the extremely commonly used term "two-party system." - Jersyko·talk 16:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Also see Green Party (United States) which says "has been active as a third party since the 1980s.". Ralph Nader ran as a Green in 2000 and tipped the Florida election, his impct there was indeed "Major". Also, "in 2002, John Eder's election to the Maine State House of Representatives marked the first Green Party state legislator in the United States elected in a regular election." Merecat 16:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Also see Libertarian Party (United States) which states "The Libertarian Party is a United States political party created in 1971. It is the largest third party in the United States, with over 200,000 registered voters and over 600 people in office, including mayors, county executives, county council members, school boards and other local offices."

I contend that by any reasonable defintion, the Libertarians and Greens are major and the use of major in the intro as currently used, is a false statement. Merecat 17:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Merecat 17:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

____
thanks and here's a new wedge-tailed eagle pic resize

Hey Merecat, I've been following your comments on the dem party talk page. You kick ass. I made a new resize of the Wedge-tailed Eagle photo you have on your article. If you don't like it, it won't hurt my feelings if you don't use it. I sharpened it a bit and added some contrast and stuff to it. I put it on my site where you can download it if you like. http://earthhopenetwork.net/Wedge-tailed_Eagle-mdm.jpg
http://earthhopenetwork.net/ Thewolfstar 23:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

____

Merecat, I worked on your meerkat photo, too. It is here:
http://earthhopenetwork.net/Meerkat_Calgary_zoo.jpg
Thewolfstar 00:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comments. I'll look into the photos ASAP. Merecat 00:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Many thanks for your support of my recent RFA, which passed narrowly. I will try to be worthy of your support, especially since we appear to disagree on some ideological issues. Such as the serial comma, which I seriously, really, and wholeheartedly employ. Regards, Kaisershatner 21:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

SOS

Dear Merecat,
The Democrat Party edit war has escalated itself into huge proportions.

Jersyko and I got into a debate. He used the Wiki xy debate procedure, I guess you'd call it, and I x'd and y'd him back. I believe he lost badly. He and the others flipped out and archived the entire talk page with all the conversations on it. There are nasty comments still there left by John K. and Jersyko. At least, of this writing they're still there.
I put my own feelings into this also and made a mistake. They didn't delete the page and there is a link to it. They say they will archive every time I make a comment on the talk page.

Can you please help me with this, Merecat? Thanks a lot. thewolfstar 06:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Since I added this last appeal I have left them a lot of harsh comments, too. I cant' take this bullcrap, anymore.

See my comments at Talk:Democratic Party (United States). And please try to speak nicely. "Bullcrap" is not the best way to speak. Merecat 14:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note that at various times I've been called a "tyrant" multiples times, compared to George W. Bush, Stalin, and Hitler, and been told that I'm "harassing" thewolfstar by thewolfstar (but strangely by absolutely no one else). Additionally, read my comment on the talk page of the Democratic Party article and decide for yourself whether I'm attacking thewolfstar or actually trying to get John K to calm down a bit. Also, thewolfstar somehow thinks there was an argument that he/she won which was "covered up" by archiving the talk page instead of a lot of disjointed argument that wasn't going anywhere. Thank you for stepping in to help smooth things over, I appreciate your comment on the Democratic Party talk page and agree with it. My reason for posting here is merely to point out that perhaps thewolfstar isn't giving you the whole story. - Jersyko·talk 17:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I am aware that Wolfstar has several times resorted to histronics. My aim is to give him another avenue of communication, so as to provide an outlet for what's frustrating him and at the same time, to help distill his concerns to a managable list. Merecat 18:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

to merecat from thewolfstar

Dear Merecat,

You can say that I have resorted to histrionics. This is probably so. I would call it, more accurately, hysterics.

My anger and frustration is the direct result of a harrassment campaign done by the editors of the Dem Party (US) article. This can be seen both on the (archived) talk page of the article in question, and comments on the logs. It can be seen in conversations with some of them on my user talk page.

I have attempted to discuss my concerns on the talk page and my comments have been dismissed as nonsense, misinterpreted, no matter how carefully they have been written, ignored, and responded to with double talk. They have suddenly decided to archive the talk page with this comment: ==Archived==

I've archived again. Any more incomprehensible rants by wolfstar will be immediately archived. john k 21:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

While sympathetic to what you're saying, I disagree that thewolfstar's rants should be immediately archived. Let's not discourage discussion, but rather encourage everyone to post more coherently and less acerbicly. - Jersyko·talk 21:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I won't immediately archive. But I am convinced that thewolfstar will not make any substantive additions to this conversation. It'd be best to ignore him, and prompt archiving is usually the best way to achieve this. john k 01:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you have told them that this inappropriate, however,

I believe they are hiding this page because they don't want others to read it.

I have attempted to edit the article page and have been prevented from doing so, most often, with justifications and actions that are false and intended to confuse a newcomer on Misplaced Pages. I believe they fall under the Misplaced Pages definition of 'harassment'.

I believe the editors of the article have harrassed me (by Wiki standards) throughout our debate, if one can call it that, by lying, justifying their actions with claims not concurrent with those of Misplaced Pages, and being uncivil. I have reacted to these incivilities with more incivilities at times. At other times I have remained civil inspite of some real crudeness aimed at me.

I am following your advise and writing item #1 to insert in the talk page right now. Thank you for the advise. It is good advise.

And, Merecat, I apologize for using the word 'bullcrap'. I didn't know you considered this to be an offensive word.

Thanks for stepping into this edit war at my request. thewolfstar 19:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

== Dear Merecat, == item #1 is on the article talk page. Can you read it. Thanks thewolfstar 20:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

to merecat and all the others

Thank you again, Merecat, for coming to my assistance, being fair to both sides, and for your comments.

I would prefer to be called by my actual user name:
Thewolfstar, not Wolfstar. I have my reasons for this.

Thewolfstar is an actual existing thing in American Indian history.
Also, it's just my user name. If I wanted it to be Wolfstar I would have made it that to begin with.

I am not a 'HE'. Please stop referring to me as such. This is the third time I have stated this.

Would any of you like it if I referred to you as 'SHE', if you were actually a 'he'?

"Thewolfstar" it shall be. I thank her for communicating this to me. Merecat 23:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

from the wolfstar again

I just read your most recent comments on the dem party talk page. Merecat, you are awesome. You said something about looking for help with your projects, on your workshop page. If I can do research for you, or assist you in any way, please let me know. thewolfstar 03:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. Merecat 04:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

They weren't just kind words. I'm serious about assisting with any article. thewolfstar 04:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey Merecat. I'm not trying to bash or insult anyone now and that is the truth. Don't you think it's kind of odd that there haven't been many comments today on the talk page other than yours and mine? I have learned to grow distrustful of many people in my short time on Misplaced Pages, which really is kind of sad. I don't think that's the way Misplaced Pages was intended to be and I don't want it to be that way for me or for anybody. Although I have reacted harshly and meanly myself at times, It's not the way I like to be. Some people, like yourself, have been kind and helpful, though. I know a lot of bullying has been aimed at you, too.

I'm not going to let any group of bullies get me down or stop me, either. Thanks for all your help and input thus far. Maggie thewolfstar 05:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Maggie, take a look at my edits and see if you can follow along. It takes much practice to avoid arguments. I'm dealing with one now. Bite your tongue and focus on finding links to well regarded sources which back up the edits you are making. As for there being less edits from others right now, that happens some time. Don't focus on that. Instead, make a few edits in an article and back up what you are doing on talk with citation links. Then wait a few days and make a few more. You'll get less upset editors that way. Fast change can be alarming. Better to move at a modest pace. Also, don't make harsh comments to other editors. Merecat 07:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Merecat. I am not just some hysterical nut. I'm a pretty well educated woman that can see a lot of stuff. More than most and that's a fact.

I had just made other edits before putting that npov box up. That's maybe why you think the article isn't that bad. It is that bad. And just watch. Tomorrow or soon the orignal confabulated stuff will be up their again. This is only the 2 connected sections of the article that I have edited tonight. There are masses of lies and misleading statements. Facts are thrown in and left out with care, believe me. There is a section about Nader that is disgusting and it shouldn't be in there. I took that out, too. It will all be back soon. This article is that bad. Compare it to the Republican Party article which is just a straightforward, unbiased article. See the difference. Read this one more carefully. It is that bad. And I'm not tolerating it.

This article is a lying propagandizing ad for the Democrat Party. It is in an encyclopedia and may be there forever for people to read. Think about it, Merecat. Maggie thewolfstar 09:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Without commenting on your assessment of the article, I just want to caution you to move slowly. Misplaced Pages has a rule about consensus and though I'm guessing can support most of your edits there, others have indicated they will not. Based on that, it's very important that you move cautiously and get quality citations for each point you want to make. I support your drive for accuracy. However, I am concerned that others may take issue with your approach and use their complaints to do WP:RFA or WP:RFC against you. Please be certain to leave at least a full day or two for dialog on any strongly contested points. Merecat 15:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Merecat, thanks for what you just said. It is very sensible and helpful, as well. From the history of this whole thing and how it almost got civilized and then got turned back into a war by Griot and 8bitJake, I doubt true consensus or peace will ever rieign in this discussion. I am really trying to remain civil and calm. I know you have other things to do. When you get a chance can you check the talk page out? The lame edit war things and Jersyko's parting remarks about me are unbelievable.

I do get what you are warning me about, though and really do appreciate it. Yours in calm against all Puritanistic-hen-pecking-witch-hunt groups Maggie thewolfstar 20:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

---
That last comment is rescinded and apologies to everyone concerned humbly made thewolfstar 23:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Democratic-Republican Party

Thanks for taking my side in this Democratic-Republican Party debate. Some want to change it to "Republican Party," which to me is ridiculous. I used to edit college textbooks. I find it very strange that somebody wants to reverse fifty years of common usage -- and with such flimsy evidence. Anyhow, I'm writing to ask if you would weigh in on the Discussion page at the Democratic-Republican Party article. I think these guys have a political agenda. They want to associate the modern-day Repubs with Jefferson's party, when there is no historical affiliation. Can you help? Griot 21:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on things. Merecat 21:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Three-revert rule

Please be aware of the Three-revert rule, in particular with regard to your edits at Talk:2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities. Stifle (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Please help there. I am dealing with an agressive vandal. Merecat 00:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

(delete vandal comment)