| Revision as of 02:20, 12 November 2013 editCarolmooredc (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,944 edits →NPA: accusation of inconsistent application of RS norms is kosher, etc.← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:22, 12 November 2013 edit undoCarolmooredc (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,944 edits →NPA: also response for the record, SPECIFICO still banned from my user pageNext edit → | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
| ] Please ] other editors. If you continue, you may be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. <!-- Template:uw-npa3 --> | ] Please ] other editors. If you continue, you may be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. <!-- Template:uw-npa3 --> | ||
| I suggest you very carefully review the "bias" link which you have repeatedly cited as justification for your personal attacks on me and other editors. That link does not state that you may falsely impugn the motives of other editors or engage in various personal attacks. I suggest you revert your hostile personal remarks and confine your future comments to content. If you disagree with other editors' views regarding content, please consider . I cannot recall ever seeing you land anywhere in the upper part of that chart. Your behavior does not foster collaboration, consensus, or compromise, and it is not consistent with the principles of this community. I urge you to accept this message in the constructive spirit in which I offer it and to consider it very carefully. ]] 23:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC) | I suggest you very carefully review the "bias" link which you have repeatedly cited as justification for your personal attacks on me and other editors. That link does not state that you may falsely impugn the motives of other editors or engage in various personal attacks. I suggest you revert your hostile personal remarks and confine your future comments to content. If you disagree with other editors' views regarding content, please consider . I cannot recall ever seeing you land anywhere in the upper part of that chart. Your behavior does not foster collaboration, consensus, or compromise, and it is not consistent with the principles of this community. I urge you to accept this message in the constructive spirit in which I offer it and to consider it very carefully. ]] 23:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :First, my response here is not an invitation for you to respond here. Just for the record. You are still banned from my talk page for long winded and I feel harassing comments. | |||
| : |
:Anyway, sounds like you finally read the link ]. Congratulations. | ||
| : I see an the editor agreed that my statement - which he described as an "accusation of inconsistent application of RS norms" - was relevant and not a personal attack. My statement being: ''Is it my imagination, or the same 3 editors who thought it was ok to use personal blogs to say nasty things about BLPs think that nearly a dozen independent mainstream publications calling someone a historian is not RS? What could possibly be the explanation for such an anomaly? '' I think you should consider how disruptive you and your friends' POV is to editing. Why else would we have to keep going to noticeboards to get outside opinions that more and more agree with us; opinions you usually ignore. Plus I see you made some edits at ] despite long ago consensus about them. I'll list them at talk when I get around to it. '''] <small> ]]</small> ''' 02:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC) | : I see an the editor agreed that my statement - which he described as an "accusation of inconsistent application of RS norms" - was relevant and not a personal attack. My statement being: ''Is it my imagination, or the same 3 editors who thought it was ok to use personal blogs to say nasty things about BLPs think that nearly a dozen independent mainstream publications calling someone a historian is not RS? What could possibly be the explanation for such an anomaly? '' I think you should consider how disruptive you and your friends' POV is to editing. Why else would we have to keep going to noticeboards to get outside opinions that more and more agree with us; opinions you usually ignore. Plus I see you made some edits at ] despite long ago consensus about them. I'll list them at talk when I get around to it. '''] <small> ]]</small> ''' 02:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 02:22, 12 November 2013
Please post comments about the content of a specific article on the Talk Page of that Article if it is relevant to all editors.'
 Green Line for Barnstars, Archives, Other Stuff
| ||
|---|---|---|
 |
Disambiguation link notification for November 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joseph R. Stromberg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Telos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Sheldrake
Hi. I'm a skeptic on most things but believe some of our treatment of pseudoscience and the fringe is puerile, inappropriate polemic. I've just read Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Rupert Sheldrake is a BLP mess and the Chopra piece. I've been aware of an ongoing dispute on this topic for some time but haven't read the relevant articles or followed any discussions. Are you able to point me to on- or off-wiki discussions and/or news reports of this dispute? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
The first couple of sentences of Rupert Sheldrake are a worry. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm a skeptic too, especially of mainstream ideology that supports the powers that be! Can you say Galileo affair?? So when you see massive attacks on new ideas/hypothesis that are not on their face totally absurd, you can't help wondering where all that anger comes from. I've had a problem for six months with fanatics trying to paint all Austrian economics of a certain persuasion as fringe crackpots, while saying the ones they like are credible. (Not that they've worked on those articles.) They didn't have much luck at fringe noticeboard (why I was there originally) but they did end up getting the whole series of articles under sanctions. Since it's mostly BLPs they've been trashing, it's hard to just walk away. Definitely opine on Sheldrake but it sounds like you need to make a long term commitment to help make it npov. As I said, it's not as bad as other BLPs I've worked on (like in the Israel-Palestine area). CM-DC
talk 16:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
NPA
Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages.
I suggest you very carefully review the "bias" link which you have repeatedly cited as justification for your personal attacks on me and other editors. That link does not state that you may falsely impugn the motives of other editors or engage in various personal attacks. I suggest you revert your hostile personal remarks and confine your future comments to content. If you disagree with other editors' views regarding content, please consider this well-known guide to effective disagreement. I cannot recall ever seeing you land anywhere in the upper part of that chart. Your behavior does not foster collaboration, consensus, or compromise, and it is not consistent with the principles of this community. I urge you to accept this message in the constructive spirit in which I offer it and to consider it very carefully. SPECIFICO talk 23:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- First, my response here is not an invitation for you to respond here. Just for the record. You are still banned from my talk page for long winded and I feel harassing comments.
- Anyway, sounds like you finally read the link Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors. Congratulations.
- At this diff I see an the editor agreed that my statement - which he described as an "accusation of inconsistent application of RS norms" - was relevant and not a personal attack. My statement being: Is it my imagination, or the same 3 editors who thought it was ok to use personal blogs to say nasty things about BLPs think that nearly a dozen independent mainstream publications calling someone a historian is not RS? What could possibly be the explanation for such an anomaly? I think you should consider how disruptive you and your friends' POV is to editing. Why else would we have to keep going to noticeboards to get outside opinions that more and more agree with us; opinions you usually ignore. Plus I see you made some edits at Jesus Huerta de Soto despite long ago consensus about them. I'll list them at talk when I get around to it. User:Carolmooredc talk 02:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)