Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:53, 1 March 2013

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Torchwood Edits

I'm slightly confused as to how to contact you so I am posting here. What exactly wasn't relevant with the Torchwood edits? If you read the main Torchwood pages about the characters it clearly states that Jack's character is considered pansexual, not just bisexual in the way of humans. In fact it is stated several times and even Jack stated on the show he is "omnisexual" so I don't see how it wasn't relevant or extra, it is the truth.

Tease and denial

Tease and denial should be deleted, or at most merged into other articles.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocksville

I especially liked your comment to User:Xerographica about "a one way ticket to blocksville." Of all the admonishments directed to him, it is the best. I think (and hope) it has had a positive result. Well done. – S. Rich (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Sexology arbitration case opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 22, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm 03:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Xerographica

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for stepping forward and giving Xerographica such good advice. All of your words are well said and to the point. You have gone out of your way with your simple and elegant admonitions, and I am proud to offer you this Barnstar as a small bit of thanks for your Random Acts of Kindness. – S. Rich (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

LGR, I think your continued gentle admonitions have had a positive impact. I've noticed that X's most recent edits and talk page comments have moderated considerably. Here's hoping! If he continues with his positive contributional attitude, you (I'm sure) will have been a major factor in his reformation. Again, thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 06:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

word to the wise

WP:OWNTALK – S. Rich (talk) 07:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. But it appears there have been some intervening additions/reverts so that might be adding to the confusion.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  07:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Confusion is the right term. I'm not going to try and figure it out. In any event, just take it for a FYI. Best regards. – S. Rich (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Little green rosetta/Archive 1

Do you want to keep User:Little green rosetta/Archive 1 or would you like it deleted? It was created by Ysfan. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me and for the offer, but I CSD'ed it already. I appreciate the heads up however.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Maafa 21

Thanks for you recent contributions to the article on Maafa 21. However, I suspect that given the folks we're working with there, we'll eventually need to go to some sort of board to resolve issues. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC) Badmintonhist (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

My edits were mostly cosmetic in any case.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the article approximates a POV monstrosity. Kinda in the same class as the one the Southern Poverty Law Center when I started to work on it a couple of years ago. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I see the usual suspects are in this article. Binksternet's recent edits look ok to me so far. Tomato v Tomatuh edits for the most part. Roscelese is her usually charming lolcats self. Her POV pushing is blatant. I try to avoid articles she has her nose in because she is such an irritant.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but the problem is that the ones she gets a deep foothold in are, of course, the most ideologically lopsided. I once was successful, though, getting her to acknowledge that she couldn't use a pro-choice fundraising flyer as a reliable source. LOL Badmintonhist (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I've participated in a DR, but unless the stick is dropped we are headed for one. The problem isn't that the sources don't convey the message some of the POV pushers want to get across, it's the adjectives that make their edits POV in the first place.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I call it more-royalist-than-the-king (make that queen) editing. Finding a "friendly" source then pushing the hell out of it, so that subjective inferences become "objective facts." A couple of pro-lifers in Knoxville plead ignorance to a journalist's questions and this becomes the basis for stating as fact in our article that Tennessee pro-lifers like the film but don't know what they're talking about. The last time that I "got into it" with our friend it was over our article on "Pro-life feminism" which then stated, with no in-line attribution, that Irish pro-life feminists stayed out of political disputes over abortion. Since that proposition sounded rather dubious to me I maintained that we state it as the opinion of our source. Our friend insisted that since a reliable source had said it, this made it cold, hard fact and no in-line attribution was needed (you see, the point was to make it appear that these pro-lifers didn't have the courage of their convictions). When I found two newspaper columns by one of these pro-life women which utterly contradicted the assertion, our friend said that she wasn't at all surprised. It was as if she knew it all the time, but rather liked the idea of portraying the pro-life feminists as timid souls for as long as she could get away with it. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

A few months ago, I did some poking around to see who added a diff that shall we say bended a source on the SPLC. When I did a binary search to see who/when/why added this "fabricate" nonsense, I just shook my head when I discovered the source. How many gems like this do you think are buried in articles? Any editor that would have a perverse pride in getting away with such chicanery does not belong here.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Djuhever wonder what some of your "editorial colleagues" are like in everyday life? Do they insult their co-workers (assuming they have a job) with snide comments about levels of competence; argue everything to their own advantage : laugh out loud when they think that someone else is in error? Just wondering. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd be curious to what their contemptoraies think of their Misplaced Pages behavior.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Now, as for the quotes, I'm willing to accept in the name of compromise that it might be used in the broader conspiracy theory material and not only in the film

Am I misreading this, or is she really saying that her attempt at compromise is that the Katz quote is still acceptable for attribution to the film? A compromise that isn't a compromise. You can't make this shit up. WP:PUREBALLS  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Gee, I don't think I've ever seen you driven to profanity until now. In other words, "IN THE NAME OF COMPROMISE I'd be willing to spread this dubious allegation even further than I wanted to spread it before"! Badmintonhist (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Where were you guys a few months ago when R&B were having fun tag-teaming me?!? =} -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Staying away. My few interactions and several observations about Roscelese haven't been enjoyable. Binksternet however, is open to good faith discussion. Or maybe I'm just not following the articles you are. This is my first encounter with you AFAIK.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Normally I'd rather be singing than doing this. But I broke up with my singing partner recently and have had the somewhat doubtful pleasure of editing on Misplaced Pages more than before. Binksternet is a professional liberal but comparatively intellectual, and usually more tolerable, than our ol' pal Ros in his approach. However, he seems to dote on taking time out of his busy editing schedule to help her out whenever he can. Sorry, Beleg, that you were the one who got tripped a lot coming off the ropes. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

It's been a good experience for me--I'm sure--and having you join the fun now has made it worth the wait. I'm just glad I didn't give up altogether. :) -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I gave "Lucy" even the slightest encouragement on the Maafa Talk page. She inevitably lifts up the football when you go to take a kick at it. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I really could use the assistance of you both on this question of whether or not Katz actually viewed Maafa 21, either by supporting my position and reasoning that she did not or by producing the evidence necessary to conclude that she has. I am willing to concede that she has if reasonable evidence is produced. Thanks for your help! :) -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't really help you on this one, Beleg. Katz may or may not have viewed the whole film. Don't expect utter "professionalism" even on the part of a professional historians when it comes to ideological warfare; after all, at one point she refers to anti-abortion activists as "anti-choice" activists. Her criticisms of the film are presented in acceptable sources for Misplaced Pages and that is pretty much that. It doesn't mean that her criticisms should be given undue weight in the article however. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand, but if she didn't watch the film, her comments are not relevant about the film, because she isn't commenting on the film's content but on what she has been told about its content. In other words, it's not her opinion that we are citing but Frank Carlson's (most likely) or that of whoever told her about Maafa 21. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Did you catch the latest Rosie? "Reverting to better version supported by consensus." A consensus of one? Are we dealing with a real person here or is this somebody's made-up character, kinda like the Notre Dame football player's "girlfriend"? Badmintonhist (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I have long since concluded that she delights in pushing her wiki-adversaries to the limit using double-standards, straw man arguments, mockery, name-calling, bullying, etc., etc. in the hopes that they will do something stupid so that she can try to get them suspended. It has apparently worked in the past for her. Let's all be careful not to allow it to work again here. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like she's gone to NPOV/N, the place she should have gone from the start. Of course she filed a rambling, self serving opening.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

And look who suddenly decided to opine on the matter. I find it odd an editor whose contributions to NPOVN have only taken place as an involved editor and never as a mediator. What are the odds of canvassing haven taken place?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Rosetta, I am puzzled by your latest article contribution--adding a citation to an article that lists local, public showings of Maafa 21. The formatting is pretty raw, of course, but more importantly, I think I'm missing the significance of the article. Would you please explain? -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

In the future, let's take content issues to the TP. However to address your question, the reason is Roscelese is constantly removing "documentary" from the lead, ostensibly for the purposes of debasing the film. I added one of many sources that exist that do call the film a documentary. I would have added the Washington Times ref, but was too lazy too ref it out properly.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's an article on Sanger that was published just about the same time that Maafa 21 came out which both of you may find of interest.

Thanks for sharing! That's a pretty powerful article. Many of his points are also covered in Maafa 21. Yes, I have actually watched the film: I decided that I must once R&B started jumping all over my head. I was thinking What's all the fuss about anyway? How much would you wager, despite all their flaming conclusions about the film, that neither of them has viewed it or attempted to research the citations offered in it? -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

R&B? That would be Rhythm and Blues, I presume. Just don't get in the habit of referring to yourself as BS. I've watched about two thirds of the Crutcher film so far. No doubt that it overstates the "genocide" theme (basically by quoting people who overstate it) but it is instructional in showing the historical connection between "Family Planning" and eugenics. No, Sanger was not trying to completely eliminate the black race, but she undoubtedly wanted to reduce its number as a percentage of the population. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Guys, please take this to one of your talk pages. While I intend to see this edited properly, I'm growing weary of these shennanigans. Thanks.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback (Ks0stm)

Ks0stm 23:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

ioby

Hi, you said that if I'm having difficulties with another editor to post on your talk page...so here I am. If you can get a chance it would be great if you can review the removal of content on ioby. The founder of the website had the content on his user page...User:Erinbarnes. I reviewed it and it looked sufficiently neutral and fact based. Being familiar with civic crowdfunding I'm fairly confident that the website is notable enough to warrant its own entry. So I created the article and moved the content over to the article. Then another editor, who I've consistently had difficulties with, removed the content with the following explanation "Delete promotional content".

If there is anything that is truly promotional...which I myself didn't observe...then throwing the baby out with the bath water is not helpful or constructive. And it certainly doesn't improve the article. Thanks --Xerographica (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I will look later tody.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I've started discussion on the associated talk page. Btw, did you get an "ok" from the user who had this content in their userspace? While not prohibited, it is considered bad form to do something like that without approval.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting observation about the "ok". But when original developer created his page, he "irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." – S. Rich (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, that is why I said it wasn't prohibited. But it is considered a little rude.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at the article. The user had added the link to ioby to the "See also" section on the civic crowdfunding article. Given that they posted a red link...and posted reliably sourced and quality content on their user page...I put two and two together and created the page for them. What also factored into my decision to do so is that I figured that they might be hesitant to create the page themselves because of possible COI concerns. But it's not like I cut and pasted their content...I simply copied and pasted it. And now they know that at least one editor approves of and appreciates the quality of their content. Plus, now you can see Rich and SPECIFICO in action. --Xerographica (talk) 02:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of rude...why would Rich undo another editor's positive contribution to Erin's user page? Why not just allow Erin to decide for herself whether she appreciated Djweinberger's contribution? --Xerographica (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I see no problem with Rich & SPECFICO. I did question their actions, but they discussed with me in a reasonable fashion. Did you see how easy it is to engage someone if you AGF? As for Rich's removal, I don't know. Try asking him nicely, and I bet he will give you a polite answer.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem engaging with them...my problem is that the ioby page would have been better off without their edits. They go around tearing down but they never build up. No worries, I'm sure they'll do it again. Hopefully, eventually, you'll see the pattern. --Xerographica (talk) 03:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

That was fast... Talk:Freedom_of_choice#SPECIFICO.27s_edits. --Xerographica (talk) 08:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

We won't discuss the pattern of your disruptive edits. And, it is considered improper to "improve" another user's User page unless (1) invited, or (2) the page violates Misplaced Pages policies and/or guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

And what X did is prohibited without giving appropriate credit, per WP:COPYWITHIN. However, it could have just been fixed, per WP:RIA. (As user pages can be deleted under {{db-user}}, the copyright credit needed to credit the user, not the user page. A minor technicality, which could have been fixed, if the article were not overly promotional.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Redaction

I would only redact in extreme cases. (What a task it would be to redact X's comments!) Your sense of fairness is appreciated, but my commentary was crafted with a WP:SPADE. And as mentioned in my ES, WP:TIGER was posted in the discussion. Besides, I am a member of PETA -- People Eating Tasty Animals. – S. Rich (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Naughty language

Aw man, now I have to block you for dropping the F-bomb. (THAT WAS A JOKE) The preceding has been a test of the HUMOR ALERT SYSTEM™. Thank you for your cooperation. The HUMOR ALERT SYSTEM™: can I HAS? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

F-Bomb? Pull my finger.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

ANI postings

You may have missed the big notice at the top of the page - "You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion." As you seem fit to little my talkpage I see no reason you couldn't also advise me when you are required to do so. Insomesia (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Need a fast block. Thank you.. It's not about you, but I mentioned your name so I have to notify you. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation/Belchfire

LGR you were mentioned in the Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Belchfire You probably saw it but I just thought you should have been notified. VViking_TalkEdits 13:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Chaplin

Hello. You recently added a "clarification needed" tag to the Charlie Chaplin page. I'm afraid some clarification is needed over the clarification needed tag! What exactly was it about the statement that confused you? I'm happy to try and fix this, but I can't see what the problem is right now. Thanks, --Lobo (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Specifically the 600ish k amount. Is this amount adjusted to the modern period? If so what year?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Well no of course not, there's no way that amount could make you one of the richest men in the world today! I guess it will be useful to add a footnote giving roughly what the amount would be worth in 2013. Would that clear up your confusion? --Lobo (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

That would be much better. It would be a truly shocking figure in today's amount. I did a double take on this figure and wasn't sure if you had already converted to present value. Nice actor/actress list on your userpage. I too get hooked into J.M. movies, and not just because she isn't afraid to show skin either! Too bad she always called The Dude Jeffrery. I look forward to seeing you get CC to GA and beyond. I'm watching his Netflix queue now and might come back to improve the article myself. Thanks.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

confused?

Hi,

You left me a warning-- "Warning: Making legal threats." on my talk page. I never made any legal threats!

87.232.1.48 (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it was someone else that is sharing your IP address that made this comment?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope, that was me and wasn't a legal threat. 87.232.1.48 (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

For adding the template here. I couldn't make up my mind whether to add one, or leave it a redlink. But I think on the whole probably better to go ahead and label it. KillerChihuahua 05:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your efforts that restored verified material in the face of determined opposition, at the article New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case, I present to you this barnstar. Your efforts are a testiment that wikipedia can be truly neutral. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Accusations from Viriditas

I see that you and I have received accusations from Viriditas of edit warring. However, other editors have not. Moreover, I believe that the editors of Viriditas, in response to myself, over multiple talk pages and accusations against myself could be seen as meeting wikihounding criteria. What would be the best way to go forward?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Ignore trolls.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  12:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)