Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:27, 20 January 2013

earlier on this program... (archives) (+)

2009 15255    july 2009 49597    august 2009 12718    september 2009 6884    october 2009 20650    november 2009 27742    december 2009 2010 38848    january 2010 31594    february 2010 18754    march 2010 14511    april 2010 18480    may 2010 9998    june 2010 13864    july 2010 17597    august 2010 6479    september 2010 12322    october 2010 22341    november 2010 6914    december 2010 2011 27363    january 2011 15692    february 2011 16618    march 2011 12744    april 2011 9267    may 2011 5866    june 2011 13911    july 2011 4768    august 2011 4600    september 2011 5340    october 2011 13038    november 2011 15661    december 2011 2012 5527    january 2012 6684    february 2012 6179    march 2012 7290    april 2012 8723    may 2012 10438    june 2012 5929    july 2012 7638    august 2012 14328    september 2012 16008    october 2012 9891    november 2012 1822    december 2012 2013 12285    january 2013 8185    february 2013 18650    march 2013 6264    april 2013

Editing of this talk page by unregistered users is not allowed because choosing to edit without logging into an account creates a power imbalance in communication. All such edits will be reverted without comment. Unless you have a static IP, you are purposely preventing other editors from observing patterns in your editing behavior as well as purposely choosing not to have a permanent place where other editors may reliably communicate with you about those behaviors. If you are allowed to make this choice, then I choose to rectify this imbalance by ignoring you. If you truly wish to communicate as equals, please create an account and become an established editor. Thank you.

TB

— Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Tarre10

We're having quite a problem with Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis on Chuck Hagel and other articles so there is a possibility this user is a sock, a friend or could have been hacked? CarolMooreDC 16:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Iuno; I'll keep watching. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 17:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Closure with a parting shot

Hi there. I noticed that when you closed this thread (which I fully support), you took the opportunity to have your say in passing. I think that's the wrong thing to do. If a thread deserves closing because the question is inappropriate, then it seems wrong to be engaging in the answer with the OP or other respondents in the very act of closure. The message I got from your post was "I'm allowed to have my say, but nobody else is". That's not a good template for future actions of this type. It wasn't like you were explaining why you were closing the thread. Instead, you got into the actual matter raised by the OP. You've just had your cake and eaten it too. I've always wondered what it tastes like. -- Jack of Oz 20:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

hm. didn't know that. ah well... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

P. W. Botha

Hi, why did you revert my recent edit to P. W. Botha? I didn't add any new information and was only revising a small segment of text. Kurtis 03:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

no, as stated in the edit-summary, you added a major, unreferenced, controversial claim that is not in the article's body. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

"As economic and diplomatic actions against South Africa increased, civil unrest spread amongst the black population, supported by the ANC and neighbouring black-majority governments." — That's just one segment that backs up my claim. Kurtis 03:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It doesn't speak of any causal relationship whatsoever. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• OK then, for the sake of argument, I will assume you're right. Actually, forget about that, I agree with you almost entirely anyways — the article needs more references, the claim I inserted probably needs a reference, and the subject of South Africa's foreign relations under P. W. Botha ought to be substantiated compared to what it is now. Wouldn't it make more sense, then, to expand on it yourself or raise your concerns on my talk page, rather than reverting my edit entirely? I realize the onus of providing a source lies partly with myself, and I would be more than willing to collaborate on providing reliable third-party references, as well as expanding on the information already provided in the article (which is meager at best). I am not a new contributor, and have been editing Misplaced Pages for several years (using the site as a resource since at least 2005, made my first edit in March 2007, registered in June 2008); I know how things work around here. Kurtis 06:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The problem is your claim is wrong. Good luck finding sources for it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
    • OK, let me get this straight. I inserted a claim that international pressure on the governmnent in South Africa factored into their decision to grant some concessions towards the Black/Coloured demographics who were subject to racial discrimination under Apartheid. You are saying that this is entirely false, that Disinvestment from South Africa had nothing to do with the concessions at all? Kurtis 20:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Correct. Botha is known for not having caved to it, but rather for becoming more of a hard-ass. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 20:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Heh. Then I guess I was mistaken.

It's been a while since I read up on Botha; I'd forgotten just how much of a dictator he had been. Sorry for the inconvenience — but please, do try to slow down a bit on the Twinkle, OK? You don't want to accidentally override grammatical corrections in the process. ;) Kurtis 22:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

ANI FYI

I've just reopened the thread you just archived (Burzynski etc.) given that there seem to be some massive behavioural issues on the talk page (including a stated desire from long-standing editors of good faith that a topic ban ought to be instituted) and ANI seems the bestleast worst place to have that discussion. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, fine w/ me. thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

Seb az86556, on 1/19/2013 on my WP:NPOV Administrator's noticeboard discussion you posted: "Good points here; seems like an at least partial boomerang. I didn't see that. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)". The WP Administrator's noticeboard indicates: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." WP:CONS indicates: "This page documents an English Misplaced Pages "policy." Therefore, WP is clear & unambiguous re WP:CONS being a "policy." WP:NPOV indicates: "The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other "policies" or guidelines, or "by editors' consensus." Therefore, WP is clear & unambiguous that WP:NPOV is "not" "coequal" with WP:CONS, but "supreme" to it, & that WP:NPOV "cannot" be superseded "by editors' consensus." . Yet volunteer & Admin editors are attempting to do just that. There would be no reason for WP:NPOV to state "by editors' consensus" if this "policy" did "not" supersede WP:CONS. Therefore, please advise if you disagree with WP:NPOV. Otherwise, I will post my grievance re you enabling editors refusing to comply with WP:NPOV: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources," on the Administrator's noticeboard. Thank you very much. 166.205.68.19 (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/20/2013