Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:10, 23 April 2014

Hello, PraetorianFury, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

  Introduction

 5    The five pillars of Misplaced Pages

  How to edit a page

  Help

  Tips

  How to write a great article

  Simplified Manual of Style

  Fun stuff...

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Abductive (reasoning) 20:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

DrChrissy's records of COI OWN and lies

Thanks for your contribution to Misplaced Pages. I saw you came across DrChrissy in your editing. Her disrespect of other editors are notorious. Please see here for her records. 124.170.242.138 (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

It did seem a bit conspiratorial to me, and the way she kept citing essays instead of policies to support her position while flagrantly ignoring our rules on citation and original research were particularly troubling. Let me know if you butt heads with her again. PraetorianFury (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you!
• You may be interested in the edit of CYl7EPTEMA777. He is having ongoing battles with DrChrissy and her sock puppet gang. For example on talking birds
• There is also an original research case about DrChrissy on the noticeboard.
• have a nice day!

124.170.203.111 (talk) 04:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, DrChrissy is accusing other editors who do not follow her talk page censorship on the admin noticeboard

You experience is relevant to the case, you can voice your opinions in the discussion. 203.158.44.182 (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Appreciate your effort to clarify on Impalement, but..

The "quote" is not a quote, but a synopsis of the tale told in the primary source. The primary source sure warrants use of words like deep. dark woods and "cruel" robbers and so on, so my synopsis is faithful to the source, but it isn't a quote.Arildnordby (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Made a comment on my talk pageArildnordby (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Just go ahead with language improvements of the article, I'll be extremely grateful for that! Left a comment on interpretation of Warkworth on my own talk pageArildnordby (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I have made some major re-editing on your points of contention.Arildnordby (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

On refashioning of 1839-statement

I am very grateful for the improvements you have contributed with directly, and also to those you spurred me into doing. I went over again that 1839 symbolic date for petering out of impalement in the Ottoman Empire section, wasn't too satisfied with it, and have made a rather extensive re-modelling of the point. If you could look it over and say what you think about it, I owe you at least a half, not just a quarter.Arildnordby (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I have nominated Impalement to GA-status

Thanks for the indispensable input you have given me in the process.Arildnordby (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

To answer your question

While we are men, we cannot help, to a great extent, being fans of Malleus, for the great Master does but analyze the thoughts, feelings, views, and opinions of human kind. He has told us the meaning of our own words and ideas, before The Teahouse was born. In many subject-matters, to think correctly, is to think like Malleus; and we are his disciples whether we will or no, though we may not know it."

— Kiefer.Wolfowitz, after Cardinal John Henry Newman's Idea of the University

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Think for yourself rather than being blindly loyal. He's wrong this time. I'm sure he's a great author and has produced many fine articles. But people like me maintain them after everyone else has left. Tags help me identify things to fix, and presumably help the next browser fix things that I can't. PraetorianFury (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, then, go and find an article by Malleus or myself and fix the problem tagged, if that's how it works. (Is a joke really a logical fallacy?) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Maintenance tagging

The discussion is closed, so I'll briefly reply here:

There are two purposes to a tag, the first is to elicit a fix from editors watching the article. The second is the reason the tags are public, and that is to warn users to be more suspicious and skeptical of the tagged material. In low traffic articles, no one is watching. We can expect that problems mentioned on the talk page will never be addressed. Editors responsible for their creation might no longer be editing. Tags are an invitation for browsers, particularly experts who stumble upon them, to fix them. I'm not saying tags are the first or best option.

This is wrong from a practical point of view. If editors followed this model, we would have stubs with a dozen tags. In practice, what Misplaced Pages editors do is fix things, not tag them. Now, when we can't fix things, we tag, but we do so carefully, judiciously and sparingly. The problem at hand is that taggers have forgotten this and go straight to tagging without attempting to fix or elicit outside help by using the talk page and/or contacting outside parties (projects, cleanup, etc.). Viriditas (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't get what part is wrong. What you've described is exactly what I said I did in the second paragraph. PraetorianFury (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm summarizing. You go on to say, "I fix it when I can, but when I'm unsure, I tag it for the next browser, and for our users. Does this make me a villain?" Well, we really don't want to "tag it for the next browser" unless we have a system that actually patrols the maintenance queues and empties them out. We know that we don't have that system, so tagging should be used rarely, if at all. Viriditas (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

"so tagging should be used rarely" does not follow. If material is suspicious and can't be immediately fixed, it should be tagged so our readers aren't misled, not ignored. We can't pretend that no problems exist because we don't expect it will be fixed immediately. PraetorianFury (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

There are many alternatives to tagging. My preferred option is to immediately remove unambiguously problematic material and place it on the talk page with a note explaining my actions. When this action is performed, the "problem" is partially solved—the content is preserved on the talk page and the main article is preserved for the reader. No tag is necessary. I often find tags that have been placed on articles for four, five, six, even seven years! This doesn't work. Viriditas (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't consider the duration of the tag a problem. It is the inevitable result of the tools we have to work with and the situation we are in. All we can do is move forward in good faith and do what we can. And let's be fair, removing material and putting it on the talk page of a very low traffic article is effectively deleting it. So who is right? Me, who dirties up the sacred taglessness of an article, or you, who hides potentially correct information? PraetorianFury (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree with you on these points. First, the duration of the tag is a huge problem, as they are indefinite. And, if the person adding the tag made a mistake in their judgment, then we have a wrongly placed tag disrupting the readability of our articles. We've had POV-pushers attempt to tag articles to disrupt the content presentation, and we've had editors use the wrong tags for a problem that could easily be fixed by removing or modifying the content. Second, removing unambiguously problematic material and putting it on the talk page is not deleting it. It is preserving it for anyone who wants to fix it, and anyone interested should be on the talk page. This isn't a matter of who is right or who is wrong, it's a matter of not using tags unless we are sure the problem will get fixed in a timely manner. This is more of a systemic problem, so we can't necessarily blame editors, but we can encourage them to recognize the problem. Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Tags are not the end of the world. They are also viewed with suspicion. So yes, we might get inappropriately placed tags that last for a long time. NPOV gets used like this all the time. I suppose the problem is you're more concerned with false positives, while I'm more concerned with false negatives. In the case of a tag placed inappropriately, this encourages our readers to be more suspicious. And I think that's a perfectly acceptable result. At worst, they Google what they just learned to verify it. Great! In the case of bad information with no tag, they might think, "Wow that's unbelievable!" when that is exactly what it should be. Unbelievable, because it's not true. The other solution is to hide the material entirely in the talk page, where browsers will not see it and only someone who intentionally goes to the talk page will see it. This could take years on low traffic articles. This is only marginally better than outright lying to our users, because now we have omitted information that a browser could have fixed, if it had been conveniently placed infront of him via tag. You keep saying what our editors and users "should" be doing. But in low traffic articles, the rules change. No matter what we do, we can expect no response or review, indefinitely. So what happens is they rot for years, only edited by bad faith IPs until someone like me comes along and cleans up everything all at once. Nothing I say on the talk page matters because no one is watching. If I want a response, I put it in the article for all to see. Maybe we'll even encourage some new IPs to become editors when they find something small they can fix. Who knows.

Misplaced Pages is effectively a forum, let's not kid ourselves into thinking this compares to a physical publication. Bad edits and tags will be a constant problem. All one can do is leave a clean or cleaner trail behind them. We are reverse snails, surrounded by slime and paving a path of accuracy through it. This is the best approach I can envision. PraetorianFury (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Your example illustrates that removing unambiguously problematic material to the talk page is best for Misplaced Pages and the reader. It doesn't matter if an article has low or high traffic, problematic material should be removed on sight, and our policies and guidelines enable us to do this. I've written about problems with maintenance tagging for many years. One essay I wrote, User:Viriditas/Don't hold articles hostage, is about how editors can misuse tags to hold articles hostage to their POV. Viriditas (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Massages eyes* That's what I do with unambiguously problematic material. The problem is when I'm unsure. I keep telling you that I'm not talking about battling over tags to push my POV. I know it's been done often, and I've been on the receiving end of such a battle before. That's not what I'm talking about. If there is a user watching the page and who justifiably removes my tag, that's great! It means the page isn't rotting, someone is actually watching it. If they use that as a prompt to improve a passage or section, even better. Even watchers sometimes don't notice problems on their pages until I tag them. In those cases the tags are removed almost immediately. That's perfect, that's what I want. I love it when an expert is watching the page, I can request clarification, or a cite, or whatever I need. But when no one is watching a page, there is only silence and inaction. Given a choice between low visibility talk page comment and high visibility tagging, I choose high visibility tagging. Sometimes I'm just suspicious of material because it is surprising. Maybe it upsets me, but I don't have the information to refute it. If I delete it entirely, I could be pushing my POV because of an emotional reaction to the material. Tagging is a less aggressive method of requesting more or better sources, that preserves potentially good information publicly. If it's good information, I wouldn't want to deny it from our readers just because I was surprised. But my skepticism is legitimate, and our readers should be informed that upon review, validation was impossible. It makes them justifiably suspicious, when the material is in the middle ground of "goodness", being too good to delete outright but too bad to let go uncited or poorly cited. PraetorianFury (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Should people who are "unsure" be tagging articles? Shouldn't you be using the talk page instead? And I question your assumption about aggressiveness. As my essay linked above shows, tagging can be one of the most aggressive acts on Misplaced Pages. When you fail to validate something on Misplaced Pages, you remove the material and place it on the talk page. I suspect we have different philosophical approaches to editing, and that's to be expected. But justifiable skepticism should result in action, not leaving little tags everywhere. Viriditas (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

This section uses shallow references to the home page or some other high level page of a website that contains the cited document. Please edit the article so that the hyperlink points to the cited document. (January 2013)

PF,

I gave the example of aggressive tagging at VP:P, Andy Mabbet/Pigsonthewing's development of an obese, badly worded tag that he plastered on articles I'd written. It's only been used on those articles. Here's a guy who's already been banned for a year for his battleground aggressiveness, etc. How do those tags help anybody? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Neither of you guys are getting it. Viriditas continues to ignore the fact that the articles I'm talking about will have no one on their talk pages, and Kiefer thinks I'm talking about driveby tags on entire sections. I can only tell you so many times that this is not what I'm doing. I'm done trying. Browse my history if you want to see what I do. PraetorianFury (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you give me an example of just one article you're talking about? Viriditas (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, here's one. I added those tags about two weeks ago, publicly. No one has addressed them. It is a low traffic article so they just sit there. No one is watching the page. No one cares. But maybe someone like you will hate tags so much that they will be inspired to look up a source for that comment, and fix the weasel phrase. In the months before I expect that to happen, our users can view that particular sentence with appropriate skepticism. It is a controversial statement, and should not be given the authority of Misplaced Pages's voice while the link remains dead. PraetorianFury (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

To call "criticized" a weasel word is strange, and you should have just reworded the sentence rather than put a tag. Second, you added the deadlink tag in the main article space, rather than in the footnote, and the VP(P) discussion concluded that such placement was improper. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

"It has been argued" is the weasel phrase. And I would have fixed it had the link not been dead. But it was so I can't tell who made the criticism. Hence both tags. PraetorianFury (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a very good example actually. It took me literally 30 seconds to find an archived copy of the PDF you tagged as being a dead link. Malleus Fatuorum 19:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

And you left the weasel phrase intact. You want to talk about laziness? With this new source it is apparent who made the argument. But this also leaves the question of weight. Is a claim by one organization worthy of mentioning in the lead? Additionally, this is a WP:primary source, and really leads should only include information from tertiary sources. But I guess actually analyzing these problems would take more than 30 seconds. Did you even verify that the source given was a reliable one? That also takes time. Are you content using a PDF source that not everyone will be able to open, or at least not conveniently? Finding a better one would take more time. It is not my responsibility to do these things, and I have neither the time nor the inclination. Apparently, neither do you. But someone with a vested interest in the argument made or in Cuba in general might feel inspired to take a few minutes. Tags highlight this for them, when they do eventually come along, and hopefully they would do a more thorough job than you did. PraetorianFury (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Do I have to fix everything for you? What did your last slave die of? I was addressing your dead link tagging, so for fuck's sake grow up and do your bit. Malleus Fatuorum 20:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Irony --- in both swearing and telling me to grow up --- and the humiliation evident in your comment is just...just delicious. Thank you. PraetorianFury (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Clearly you don't even understand the meaning of the word "irony", much less "lazy". Malleus Fatuorum 20:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Can we take a step back for a moment? I think we have an opportunity here to work together and fix the maintenance tagging guidelines. I can foresee a system that works to bring interested editors to articles needing help. I think we all agree that we don't have that system at the moment. Viriditas (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that would be great. Sometimes I find stuff I just don't understand, but I think was written in good faith. If I could get an expert to review it, they would probably have the knowledge to improve it better than I could. PraetorianFury (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Slutwalk

Let's talk on the Slutwalk talkpage. Hyper3 (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

:-)

Lol, thanks. I needed that. PraetorianFury (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

EA

Thanks a bunch, very well done! --89.0.238.89 (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Using RfC template

Hi, thanks for taking the time to explain things and give advice on my talk page, I much appreciate it. In this case and then the talk page of the article 2 days ago. So I was at least trying not to only use edit comments and the RfC wasn't the first comment, it was my 2nd comment because there were 2 days between my (first) comment on the article talk page and the RfC. I realise now that I should have started with the talk page of the article, not the talk page of the user. So when I noticed that nobody responded on the talk page of the article, I was looking for a 3rd opinion. How long is it reasonable to wait for a user to respond? Anyway, thanks again for your advice and I will try better next time! AadaamS (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the help again! I'll pay some extra attention to categorising the RfC if I ever come across a need for another. Happy weekend! AadaamS (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Since you are GA reviewer on Impalement..

I've chosen to expand "Myth and Art" quite substantially, and also increased somewhat Archaic Age/Antiquity, with some minor additions on Americas, England and Byzantine Empire as well. Since the reviewer should be apprised of new changes during review, I thought to mention these to you.Arildnordby (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look at them. PraetorianFury (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Swedish honor

The article mentions the word "honor" in relation to the beating of that ethnic Swedish woman. It is honor based violence. The other things you wrote on my talk page is irrelevant. TelusFielder (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

*Sigh.* Let the record show that I tried. PraetorianFury (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing GANs

Hi PraetorianFury, Sorry put it this way, but you clearly have no idea what you are doing, although I'm fully prepared to accept that you did what you did for all the best of reasons.

The instructions for reviewing GAN are given at Misplaced Pages:Good article nominations/Instructions and the requirements are given at Misplaced Pages:Good article criteria, quite clearly you have never read them, although it appears that you may have read the essay Misplaced Pages:Reviewing good articles, which is an essay, not the instructions.

Looking at User talk:Arildnordby#Re: Impalement GA status and Talk:Impalement/GA2 you appear to opened the review and then wrote "I've already read this article from top to bottom and fixed or helped to fix any outstanding errors that I could find. User:Arildnordby has poured his heart into this article and the quality is a clear reflection of that passion. This seems to clearly meet our WP:Good article criteria, so it has my endorsement".

So why put it has my endorsement? You signed up as the reviewer, so it is your job to review it, not to endorse it.

You then seem to have waited a week or so, (see User talk:Arildnordby#Re: Impalement GA status) on the basis " If no one wanders by and cares to comment by that point, I'll pass", and having been told how to pass it, you passed it just now. But what you have not done is to review it against the requirements of a GA. The impolite term for such a review is a "drive-by-review".

Its a "good article" and its probably good enough to be a Good Article, but there is no evidence that you have reviewed it, or even reviewed it against WP:WIAGA. If the article was bad, I would have opened a new review, but in this case its unnecessary since the article is Good, but don't pretend that you've reviewed it.

The first "review" Talk:Impalement/GA1 was not a review, it was a "quickfail" decision, on the basis of lack of citations. Your's was supposedly a review, but I don't see much difference, other than one said "fail" and one said "pass". Pyrotec (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Having looked at bit closer at the article, I'd suggest that it may well be non-compliant with WP:WIAGA clause 1(b) and WP:Lead, but I don't see why the nominator should be penalised as a result of a poor second review as well as a "quickfail" in the first review.

Well, I have to admit you know how to use the edit page, it was little more than copying and pasting the lines for action1 = through to action1oldid= into the {{articlehistory}} and changing the "1" to a "4"; and you could have got that from looking at a recently passed article.

I did not use the word "forgive", it is your word; and I'm not sure why I should thank you, or why you think I should thank you? The nominator will probably thank you since you awarded his article a GA, and you may consider my words condensing, if you choose. It was you that contacted me, twice, I did not initiate this exchange; and if you choose to see "hostility" then see it on both sides.

I was already aware from the article's history, that you had worked on the article before you opened the review: you have 17 edits against the nominator's 1666 edits, I also know the date ranges, so I choose not to comment on it, as you don't appear to have significantly contributed (to use the official words); certainly not as you suggest, did I fail to check what you had done.

So do you consider, for instance, Talk:Båtsfjord Airport/GA1 to be an adequate review, apart from the absence of a "pass" or "fail" marking? From what you've stated on my talkpage with either a pass or fail decision, it would seem to meet your standards. Pyrotec (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Since you asked look . As for the rest, its usually children that make comments of the type that you do: thank you for confirming your age range. Pyrotec (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Imperialism Edit

Hi I saw your message about my edit. I am trying to edit in good faith but I am new to wikipedia so please excuse some of my mistakes. My point about the edit is that in some of the battles in imperial campaigns like the Mahdist War some of the heaviest fighting was done hand to hand (like the charge of the 21st Lancers, which defeated a superior force and cleared the town of Omdurman of dervishes and allowed British occupation of the town, I think that makes the charge the decisive point of the battle because Lord Kitchener wanted to occupy Omdurman before sundown and the Charge allowed him to do so). Although it is true that the Western Imperial powers enjoyed a technological superiority I believe that it is a stereotype that technology was the only reason for Western successes. Something I always found interesting is that the Zulus were more afraid of British bayonets that the rifle itself. I believe that more should be said about superior Western military methods other than just technology.Gicantor93 (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

stop making a WP:POINT

The journal is already specifically sited in the reference, as it has always been. No link to the document whatsoever is required. The link to Halbrooks own site is a mere convenience link, which is explicitly allowed per Misplaced Pages:Citing_sources#Convenience_links_2. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You want *me* to stop making a point? After your shamelessly bad faith editing? You're removing tags in the middle of a dispute. You haven't provided a single source when that's all I've asked for. You haven't responded to my comment on the talk page once. Don't even try to talk down to me when you're showing every possible sign of a POV warrior. PraetorianFury (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hrm, remember how you deleted the entire section unilaterally that was already the subject of an RFC? The source is listed. The source is not self published. your tag is inappropriate. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hrm, I remember that not happening, and it's funny how much the article history agrees with me. Could you link me to the diff where I deleted an entire section? Oh, and hey, take a look at this, sentences 3 and 4 of Misplaced Pages:Citing_sources#Convenience_links_2 say this:

"When offering convenience links, it is important to be reasonably certain that the convenience copy is a true copy of the original, without any changes or inappropriate commentary, and that it does not infringe the original publisher's copyright. Accuracy can be assumed when the hosting website appears reliable."

So since the onus is on editors adding or restoring material to prove that something is reliable, can you please tell me why I should think that www.stephenhalbrook.com is reliable? PraetorianFury (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

No link whatsoever is required. The reference is to the journal. the journal is correctly cited. Adding an additional convenience link does not somehow cause the correctly cited journal to become self published. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The "Journal" is a student activity at U of Arizona. It does not appear to be a refereed publication and is not demonstrated to be a WP:RS. The tag is appropriate. It's rather aggressive to remove the tag before this issue is resolved. The content is still there in the meantime. Please replace the tag. I'll leave this same note on your talk page. SPECIFICO talk 00:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Guns

I am struck by the weasel-worded narrative that recent editors have woven around the content on "Totalitarian" In particular, I'd appreciate it if you'd have a look at a recent edit of mine which was promptly undone by another editor. The narrative about Nazi gun control, and then the Nazis "proceeded to..." All support the insinuation that ordinary governments, such as the American government, start with "gun control" and next thing you know it's concentration camps. Interesting. SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm about to head home for the day. I think you're right. As I stated and as the article states, for the majority of the population, Hitler relaxed gun restrictions. On the talk page, there is a discussion of whether or not taking guns from Jews lead to or intensified the Holocaust, can I can find no historical consensus for either point. But this is not what it stated in the article. The article states that "totalitarian regimes have passed gun control legislation". Totalitarian regimes have also built roads and produced money and negotiated for peace. This kind of statement is misleading by implication, and needs to be attributed so that it is understood to be an accusation. I will look into it in full tomorrow. PraetorianFury (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, I think the version that ROG re-inserted after my edit states that the Nazis "passed a law" just like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed, right? SPECIFICO talk 23:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Alternative account policy

Maybe you need to refresh the Alternative account policy. You abandon a 2 year old account that has a healthy block log on it, to go back to editing under a new name. Shadowjams (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Wiki stalking does not impress me. Those blocks are so old I could apply at WP:RFA. Anything else you want to try? Besides you know, providing reliable sources that actually support your position or editing in good faith. PraetorianFury (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ROG5728 (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• PraetorianFury, I've had a look at your contributions to Talk:Gun control, and the level of snark and condescension is overwhelming. Another admin might have blocked you already for that: it's disruptive and prevents a collegial editing atmosphere. Please consider this a warning, a final one. Please treat your fellow editors with at least a modicum of respect, and consider leaving that discussion alone for a while. The ship won't sink without you. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

If you go to Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive790#User:Malleus_Fatuorum_has_a_vendetta_against_editors_who_use_tags and tell everyone involved that this level of rhetoric is not acceptable, I will promise to change my ways. Calling a spade a spade is well within the bounds of WP:CIVILITY. Additionally, if you scroll to the beginning of the RFC, I began by assuming good faith until it was spectacularly proven otherwise. PraetorianFury (talk) 16:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not interested in what others have supposedly done in the past, present, and future. This is about your comments at Talk:Gun control. Drmies (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• What needs to happen there is a new RfC that proposes that the four individual sections on gun control history should be taken out because they place undue weight on developments in those countries, that they are excessively detailed (already in their current state), that specifically Harcourt's work on guns in Nazi Germany is too controversial and not supported enough by mainstream scholars to be accepted (and its inclusion only needs to the need to include his opponents for balance, turning the article into a lopsided debate about Harcourt), that there is no need to single out Bolshevist Russia, Nazi Germany, Australia, and the US but leave out the rest of the world, etc. If those things in those sections can't be said in two sentences each with relevance to the topic as a whole they should be cut. Articles aren't collections of case studies. But that's just my opinion. Drmies (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The article needs to be expanded with further history of gun control (rest of the world etc as you say). That such sections are missing now is cause for someone to write them, not delete the sourced content. The use of gun control against Jews is an uncontested fact. It may be an unimportant fact in the scope of Nazis, but is not the same thing as being unimportant to the history of gun control, where it is one more instance of the LONG history of being applied as a tool of repression and discrimination, (in addition to the history where it was used with good intent). Gaijin42 (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin, in what sense do you call g.c. an unimportant fact with respect to the Nazis but nevertheless important as a tool of (presumably Nazi and other) repression and discrimination. Also, could If anyone in addition to myself feels that it would be appropriate, I suggest we copy the last few remarks to the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 20:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The same event/fact can have different levels of importance in different contexts. (My grandfather died. Very important to my family. Not so much to the rest of the world).

The history of gun control is often and unfortunately one of repression and discrimination. I believe this is not a controversial idea.

To be sure, there are many instances where it was done with good intent in the history as well. (However, even the discriminatory ones were done with what the authors may have believed was good intent - nobody believes themselves to be evil)

Each instance (Nazis, US, Britan etc) it was one part of overall discrimination against some group, and in the context of the discrimination against that group was one cog in the machine of discrimination. But collectively, they are very important to history and concept of gun control, and should be documented as part of the overall fabric thereof.

I am fine with copying this to the talk page, but I don't think any arguments are really here that aren't made there. I was replying to the comment Drmies made.

Gaijin42 (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

By my reading you have repeated your assertion without answering my question. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

That comment would imply that you disagree with the basic premise "The same event/fact can have different levels of importance in different contexts." ? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

That inference would be mistaken. SPECIFICO talk 23:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Gun Control". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot  15:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Slutdrop

Hi. You undid my edit adding the article 'Slutdrop' to the see also section of 'SlutWalk', with the edit description "That wikipedia article refers to a dance move. That has nothing to do with "reclaiming" the word "slut"" If you had of actually read the article 'Slutdrop', you would of noticed it states, with a reference "Sophie Wilkinson from The Guardian described naming the dance move a slutdrop an example of the word 'slut' being reclaimed by women, and also reclaiming the term 'slutdrop' from its previous meaning. Wilkinson states that slutdropping brings women together on the dance floor and called it a "true signifier of feminine camaraderie"." I'm not going to revert your edit myself, as I don't believe this is important enough to start an edit war over, I just wanted to point out that your justification for reverting my edit was incorrect. Freikorp (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm regular volunteer at WP:3O and I've removed your request because of lack of talk page discussion as required by that project, but taking off my 3O hat and putting on my regular-editor hat, I tend to agree with PraetorianFury that the addition of slutdrop to SlutWalk as an EL was probably inadvisable. I think that it's a bit too marginally connected with the subject of that article. But I do think that it's a reasonably close call and this is just my opinion of what I think is best, not what is necessarily mandated or prohibited by policy. You're both to be commended for being reasonable and methodical. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey there! Thanks for being my first "badguyeditor" ever! :D 190.30.132.232 (talk) 11:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Haha, I would say "any time" but I hope I don't have to do it too often ;) PraetorianFury (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

How about this: I hope you find me around soon being someone else's (extremely sweet and helpful) badguy :P I think you'll be glad to know I'm being mentored by an experienced editor who's also an amazing friend. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around this, but it's a tiny bit easier each time I try. Thanks for being a part of it.

Any time! Let me know if you need help with any other articles, I'm between big project here at the moment. PraetorianFury (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

(I also forget to sign posts) Luxxxbella (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

2013 Harbin smog

Regarding this edit; mind if I restore the section you removed? Keep in mind that we're not the ones quoting these individuals, our reliable sources are. There's nothing preventing us from including such observations in the article; while PPM measurements don't mean a lot to most readers, a visual observation can help someone who's unfamiliar with smog relate. m.o.p 23:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It's bad journalism to quote random people on the street. The relevant policy in this case would be WP:WEIGHT. What do these people know about anything? They were there, but so were millions of other people. "Visibility dropped to 20 metres", but are we to believe the claim by some guy that it was less than arm's length? Or do we need some other guy to tell us when the smog is bad? We don't quote random witnesses because their reports are so frequently wrong, exaggerated, or uninformative. I would prefer if we looked for things like, "witnesses reported" or "reports of" rather than "Mr. Ren said". I'm sure there are all kinds stories on this event floating around, there must be something better than this. PraetorianFury (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the wording makes it seem kinda suspect. Would you be OK with "witnesses stated"? And I know what you mean about undue weight, but given that the article is so sparse already and the lack of quality coverage from media outlets... m.o.p 00:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not really a problem if the article is short. We don't start exaggerating things' importance just so we can manufacture length. Length is a non-issue. If this is all the reliable information we can find on the topic, then this is the appropriate length. PraetorianFury (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

South Sudan

ALL sources provided for your reading in the talk page for every aspect of the setnece in question.,

Better you do that then threaten

btw0 left one tag for you to remove.(Lihaas (talk) 23:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)).

A kitten for you!

Wanted to wish you a Happy Mew Year! I'm amazed at the things I could learn in Misplaced Pages, and your help is greatly appreciated. I'm glad you nickname doesn't really match your behavior :D

Luxxxbella "There is no knowledge that is not power" 13:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

D'awww, thank you! Helping new users is easy, I'm always here if you have questions. PS: just be glad you don't game with me, mwahahaha. PraetorianFury (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright, warning taken :D --Luxxxbella "There is no knowledge that is not power" 13:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Your RfC comment

I have a question about your comment in the recent Battle of Berlin RfC.
Do you mean that if the historian Rzheshevsky is a reliable source, his view can be included in the article? -YMB29 (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't look too closely into the argument, and I am not an expert on the subject matter. This seems to be a matter of WP:WEIGHT, such that if Rzheshevsky's views are prominent among historians with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, we would be obligated to include those views. It is concerning if only Russian historians support his views, and, if that is the case, I think we would need to mention that.

If, on the other hand, it is only Rzheshevsky making the claims in the article along with a handful of other Russian historians, I think there is good cause to exclude them as not being supported by mainstream historians.

It's a question of how many, and what quality sources are repeating the claims, and this is a very tricky thing. Unfortunately, I really don't have the time to invest in counting sources, digging through them, and weighing their reliability. I can't give much guidance other than which policies should be the focus of your discussion. I hope that helps, as small as it was. PraetorianFury (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

By mainstream historians, do you mean Western historians?

So if the view is supported only or mostly by Russian historians, it should be excluded? How does WP:NPOV apply here?

If it is mentioned that this is the Russian view, that is not giving the view undue weight or is it? -YMB29 (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Basically, I mean if Rzheshevsky and the other Russian sources I quoted are reputable historians with academic degrees (and also hold high positions in Russia's academic institutions), should their view be included, given that it is attributed to them (such "According to Oleg Rzheshevsky and other Russian historians...")? -YMB29 (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

If this view is prominent among Russian historians, but not among historians of other nationalities, then I think it would be fair to give it some coverage. But we would need to need to mention that it is the Russian view. Others may disagree, but that is my interpretation of WP:WEIGHT. PraetorianFury (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)