Misplaced Pages

Article rewrite

Sounds like you're looking for some work to do. Are you interested in helping me rewrite Kenneth Frazier? It was a total BLP catastrophe when I found it. I cleaned it up as best I could, but really it needs an overhaul. I'm compiling notes at Talk:Kenneth Frazier/Notes. When that's done, the writing of new content can begin. My goal for this project is to pass a GA review. DPRoberts534 (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. I've no idea why I've been following this Manning thing in the first place. I'll take a look at the article and see you on the talk page later. Thank you!Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! Whenever you're ready, can you pull up one of the references listed on the notes page and scrape out as much interesting, relevant, and unbiased info as you can? DPRoberts534 (talk) 04:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to read all of the references in the article first (at least the ones I can get online) to get some familiararity.Two kinds of pork (talk) 11:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions warning

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia). Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

You are engaging in a slow-moving edit war which is not appropriate; please discuss on the talk page rather than continuing to revert. Rschen7754 22:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

d

For reference, dum dum dum dum. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Newsmax

Greetings. Your input is requested in the discussion at . Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose deletion → Keep

I humbly suggest editing your !vote at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Chelsea Manning/FAQ to change “oppose” to “keep”, per Ego White Tray’s comment there. —Frungi (talk) 05:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Phyllis Schlafly

All that collection of jerks do is threaten me. I tried to come and suggest improvements and I get them calling me names, claiming I misrepresent sources (I DO NOT) and threatening me if I "misrepresent sources" again meaning if I speak and I'm not agreeing with them. This whole place is fucking corrupt.

Not a fan of Andrew Carnegie, eh?Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Patrick Califia

Please don't reinstate such rants again. I have no idea why you feel the need to champion those BLP violations--and I'm getting a bit tired of cleaning up the history of that talk page. This is not the first time: please consider this a final warning. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

What BLP violations were in that? The person who made those comments are obviously frustrated at all of their comments being removed. Have you ever thought of that? If something is truly violating BLP, then redact it, and maybe even possibly engage. There are a lot "20 question" rules jokers around here. Are you one?Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat them. For your benefit, I'll cite from WP:BLP: " Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". Parts of that are in bold in the original. You yourself participated briefly in discussion at Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive186#Patrick_Califia, and maybe you should read the rest of that discussion. Also, I don't know what you're getting at with "20 question rules jokers". "Are you one?" What, an admin who enforces our BLP policy, in this case by redacting and rev-deleting blatant accusations? Sure I am. And consider engaging instead of insulting: I explained at length on the IP's talk page last month, User talk:68.118.64.249. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 04:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

However in the last rant (and it was a rant) the guy posted about the writings, which as far as I can tell are far game. I'll take your word that something was amiss. In any case, I'll try and be more careful. As for "20 questions", I've seen a lot of nitpicking people with "rules" one-at-a-time and it was obvious to me that they were laughing at people behind their sleeve. Regards.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

They basically repeated the same claims, which boil down to "he wrote fiction and non-fiction and in his books promotes and thus he himself promotes it". I'll grant you that it's not the worst kind of violation I've ever seen, but it's bad enough (and as a scholar of literature I can't stand that confusion between storyteller/author and "real" person). Now, I thought it was indeed bad enough to revdelete, which is a pretty serious thing (the next-to-most serious kind of redaction), and if I abuse it I'll get in real hot water. In other words, you are welcome to ask another admin to check it out and see if it was justified. But as I said on that user's talk page, they are welcome to discuss the topic, and I think they can do so in a more careful manner, one that complies with our policies. Seriously, I don't mind engaging about engagement and I'm all for discussion. The subject is plenty controversial, but whatever that subject says, as long as they're alive they are entitled to some kind of protection. Regards, Drmies (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for being sane and reasonable. If you get into any difficulty over this with an admin, let me know. Shelly Pixie (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you also for your comments on drmies page. I noticed you stood up for Sportfan5000 too. I thought this was very fair of you, and really respected you for doing this, despite your disagreements. Shelly Pixie (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Tara Platt

Hi there. I saw what happened over on the Tara Platt article, and I boldly restored the filmography and biography section since there are still plenty of sources that can verify this information. I personally think it is a good idea to just leave filmography sections as is, and source roles that can be sourced per the policy on WP:V and WP:BLP (it's pretty difficult to find sources confirming a role without using a work's end credits, especially for English dubs where reliable coverage is almost non-existent) but without blanking the whole section. The problem is that blanking or commenting-out a section is just not a good practice because it would remove most of the information on the page. While sources are admittedly very difficult to find, this does not mean that such sections should be removed. If needed, I think that simply citing an official website or the work itself would be enough. In the future, I would recommend that you please do not nuke any filmography sections, but instead just tag them. Please be careful next time. If you have any questions or concerns over my edits to an article, discuss here, on my talk page or on the talk page of the article in question. Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

You added refs to the biography, so that is ok with me. Personally I don't care much about the filmography refs, though some might. But too many of these voice actor bios are unsourced with claims that are BLP issues.Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

NAMBLA

 Done Kleuske (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

BLPN

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Misplaced Pages, as you did at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. GiantSnowman 14:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me? What "page content or templates" did I blank or remove?Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

, Toddst1 (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not like I wiped the page clean, I removed content that violates BLP. And please have a care with the "drama" accusations.Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Recreating deleted articles

Hey, Two Kinds. Not sure why you asked on the AfD if someone can just recreate a deleted article? Jasmine Waltz hasn't been deleted/recreated, has it? Therefore I'm answering you here: yes, they can. Or at least, they can create an article with the same name. They mostly can't recreate the deleted content, since only admins can see what it was. But if someone does go to create an article with the same name, they'll get a warning window that points out it was deleted before. That'll discourage some people, not all. However, depending on the reason for the original deletion, the second article is quite likely to be quickly deleted, too. And once that chain reaction has started, some admin is sure to "salt the earth" — protect the name against recreation. It's really simpler than it sounds… ;-) Bishonen | talk 23:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC).

Bish, I was just thinking out loud and hoping for an explanation. Your explained it all quit nicely. Thanks.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

Doc Ellis

Responding to the message you left on my Talk page. It looks like the major objection(s) to your recent edits is based on WP:WEIGHT rather than whether the Deadspin article you are citing is a reliable source. Dezastru (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand the objection. I was just giving you a "heads up" that I tried to implement your suggestions. Perhaps it needs tightening up. In any case, I appreciate your time. Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

First Opium War

Hi. As mentioned on the First Opium War talk page, I'm answering your question here:
Your Question: What sort of potential losses? This might be a very useful addition to the article.

One of the things that really annoyed the British is that the southern Chinese had no interest in buying the heavy woolen materials and other stuff spewing from their dark satanic mills that were totally unsuitable for the warm southern climate. The northern Chinese weren't interested either, they were quite happy with their traditional quilted cotton stuff. Normally, the British would have exchanged these goods for tea (and other things like rhubarb, which the Chinese were convinced the British couldn't live without), but there could be no deal - if Chinese merchants took unsaleable goods then they would face financial ruin. Silver became the sine qua non until opium came along, which the Chinese did want. There was another reason that the Chinese wanted silver, which is often overlooked - the Qing government had big problems in Xinjiang on the north west border (not much has changed there) with rebellious individuals like Jahangir Khoja. To keep things under control the Qing had to maintain a massive army to contain the problem - and all those troops wanted payment in - you guessed it - silver. This is an oversimplification but you get the idea. Best, ► Philg88 ◄ 07:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Brilliant! Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

typo

corroboration not collaboration Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Ty. Autocorrect. Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks !

Editing at Brendan Eich

Hello Two kinds of pork. It seems to me that you are up to three reverts on the Eich article. If you revert again it's likely you will be blocked. In my opinion the issue that concerns you won't be accepted as an exception to 3RR. The BLP exception is intended for unsourced defamation, which this is not. At most the Eich matter is a question of WP:UNDUE weight, which needs discussion and consensus and is not a justification for unilateral reverts. My suggestion is that you stay away from reverting others' changes for several days, while discussion continues on the talk page and at WP:BLPN. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the polite message. Yes, I have raised the issue of weight already. As I've said already I'm ok with adding the information in a way that is not leading the reader to come to a conclusion that somehow Eich is defective because of the resignations, and let's be honest - that is how the text read, and how it was intended. The new source which discussed the resignations puts this in the proper light, which is much ado about nothing. Remember, BLP,policy says we must be fair to our subjects at all times.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Your view of the BLP policy doesn't give you permission to break WP:3RR. Whether or not you are 'ok with adding the information', if you revert again you may be sanctioned. The relevant policy is WP:3RRNO item #7. Should you find a consensus to back you either at BLPN or on talk, then matters would be different. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your interpretation, but see no need to belabor the finer points of BLP. Everyone who claims A BLP exemption takes a risk. But fortunately that won't be necessary, as it appears the discussion will take place. Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Re Jason Russell‎‎

Hi, Two kinds of pork. Seeing that you are a relatively new editor, you may not be familiarized with other than the basics of Misplaced Pages policy. When debating controversial articles, it's important that you focus on the disputes around the article's content, not the behavior of other editors. I'll gladly clarify for you any doubts you may have, about my concerns with the current reporting of the psychotic break, if you're interested in debating about the neutrality and balance of the section.

Please consider that in order to make a constructive contribution to discussion, you are expected to try to understand what point is being raised. Asking another editor to stop participating is against behavioral policy, and frankly quite ineffective; and stating on the talk page that I'm here to "make a point" (rather merely assuming than I'm trying to improve the article) is a personal attack, and you should avoid it. If you don't want to engage in the about neutrality nor make an effort to understand my point, you can simply stop reading the discussion and let others arrive to a consensus. If you're concerned about the quality of the Russell's biography, I expect that you'll agree to collaborate, and help me avoid the inclusion of cheesy descriptions about his psychotic incident. Cheers. Diego (talk) 09:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Contribute away, but this whole underwear-gate business is ridiculous. Just drop it.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

As I said, you're free to ignore whatever discussion happens at the talk page. Diego (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

If you keep haranguing about the underwear issue in spite of how the RfC is turning out, I will bring this to the attention of the BLP and admin boards. Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Question re: other accounts

Hello - please don't take this the wrong way, but it seems unlikely that this is your first Misplaced Pages account. Could you set my mind at ease and confirm that other accounts you've used (if any) were not blocked, banned, or otherwise subject to sanctions? There's something about your editing that reminds me of a very banned editor, but since I can't crystallize my intuition into diffs I thought I'd just ask you directly rather than beat around the bush. MastCell  21:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

If you count ip addresses, then yes this isn't my first account. If you mean a named account, then no, this is the only one. And the reason I created the account was because an article I wanted to fix was preventing all ip addresses from editing. I'm guessing between this and all the others, I've made about a couple hundred article changes, mostly correcting simple errors or facts. The only sanction I've ever received was a warning (see #13 above). And while I appreciate it that you don't mean to offend, but what is it about my editing is ban worthy? Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Previous accounts

Are you Off2RioRob/Youreallycan? Hipocrite (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea who you are talking about/Ireallydont. Did you see my post right above this one? Explain yourself or leave me alone. Same goes for MastCell and other creepy stalkers.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

American politics arbitration evidence

Hi. You contributed to a recent RFC about this topic area. This message is to notify you that the arbitration proceedings at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics are underway, and evidence about all disruptive edits to articles within this topic is being accepted at the relevant case page. If you wish to submit evidence for the committee to consider in reaching its decision, please do so now. The evidence phase of the case ends soon, and evidence submitted after the deadline may not be considered. Further advice on submitting evidence, and what evidence the committee will accept, is linked at the top of the evidence page. Please contact me or the other drafting arbitrator if you require more time to submit evidence. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK 14:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

can you point out where activists are mentioned in that source?

I'm not seeing it. Your point about the differentiation between resignation and boycott was spot on, however. --j⚛e decker 05:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's go to the talk page please.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

No prob, responded there. Cheers, --j⚛e decker 05:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Jason Russell

Your edits to this article and to the talk page were wholly inappropriate. In the article you inserted an unsourced quote and a sentence that wasn't noteworthy and wasn't even well-crafted. On the talk page, you reverted the archiving bot saying stuff was recent. Most of the material was from March. The latest post I believe was from April 30, which is not recent. Worse, having reverted the bot, you left the archive alone, thus not even cleaning up after yourself. I've reverted your edits to both pages. Please try to edit more responsibly in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I missed the reference, my apologies. But it's not my responsibility nor do I care about the bot. I care about the talk page and it removed everything, including the RfC. Does 3RR apply to bots too? Since it can't participate in BRD, what am I to do? Sheesh. Can you please just put the RfC back?Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

offside (association football)

Hi,

I saw you edited the Offside (association football) wiki page so that it claims that offside IS the most confusing rule(etc.) But, in my personal opinion, it's pretty easy to understand. I changed the page so it doesn't say that offside IS confusing(...), rather that it has been CALLED confusing(...)

The reference you used was an american source and the world already has enough people who are prejudiced against americans with regard to their understanding of soccer, so I am making this note on your talk page in case you might want to remove that part entirely from the page.

Cheers!

-anon

No.Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts on that page. I still think it's atrociously confusing. In normal English, the opponents' goal would be the place they are aiming at in order to score. That's what a goal is, outside association football. Something you aim for. So the opponents' goal line would be there too. I manage junior school soccer teams in Australia, where it's not the major code. We have a lot of enthusiastic beginners. In winter, my school fields teams in Australian football, rugby union, soccer and (field) hockey. The latter sport abandoned the offside rule decades ago. The kids remain confused forever. So do I. HiLo48 (talk) 07:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Offside position is fairly simple; don't be ahead of the last outfield defender towards the opponents goal without possessing the ball. Technically you could posses the ball and have the ball behind you and still not be offside. It's the sanction that confuses most people.Two kinds of pork (talk) 07:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Note the language you used there. You spoke of "the opponents goal", meaning the goal I want to get the ball in. In normal English, that's MY goal, the thing I'm aiming for. Have a think of the impact of that reverse meaning on people not imbued in the language of the game since birth. It's confusing. HiLo48 (talk) 07:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Your objective is to put the ball in the opponents goal and prevent the ball from going in your goal. This is supported by the language FIFA uses, such as "attacking" for kick offs and "defenders" for corners.Two kinds of pork (talk) 07:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It may well be FIFA's language, but it's not normal English. Outside soccer, a goal is something we all aim for. I have a goal. Make a million dollar. I what I'm aiming at. I just wish soccer could explain itself in normal English. It would make my job a lot easier. It's confusing right now. HiLo48 (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

That's debatable if it's "normal" or not. However the attack theirs/defend your goal is a common theme in many sports, with a "goal" such as basketball, ice hockey, lacrosse, polo (both land and water) for starters. But for our purposes, we use what the sources state.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

This discussion began on the matter of whether it's confusing or not. I could find plenty saying it is. And it's part of the problem for the growth of the game where it's not already strong. Many people who have grown up with the gsme seem to find it impossible to accept that. HiLo48 (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree that it's confusing; in fact I added text supporting it is the most misunderstood and confusing law of the game. But IMO this confusion is due to the sanction, not the offside position itself, and certainly not my goal vs their goal terminology. Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by "the sanction". Ice hockey, lacrosse and the polos are rare in my country. Basketball is common enough, but I don't hear the same sort of language about my goal and your goal. Yes, it has defence and offence, but that's about play, not places. As I said, I look after beginners, in a country where the game competes with bigger games without offside rules, and where goals are what you aim at. It's very difficult. HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The "rules" for soccer are officially known as "The Laws of the Game". Sanctions are the result of handling violations of the laws. When the ball crosses a touchline, the "sanction" is a throw-in is awarded to the team that did not last touch the ball. Pushing, grabbing and holding an opponent are all against the laws of soccer. The sanction is a direct free kick may be awarded. It is up to the refs discretion as to whether or not to sanction a violation. For example, lets say a player shoves the player with the ball, yet the player manages to hold their balance and make a good pass to his teammate in the open field. The referee would wisely yell "advantage" or "play on" and make a sweeping two handed gesture. This is the ref telling the players and spectators that, "Yes, I saw the push. But in my opinion the team that suffered the push had an immediate opportunity to advance the ball, so I'm not enforcing the sanction". If there were no advantage, then the free kick would have been awarded. Being in an offside position is a violation of Law 11, however it is only enforced, or sanctioned if the player in the offside position got involved in the play. It's too bad you dont have ice hockey, because this is very similar to the delayed offside rule of that sport. Why not sanction EVERY instance of a player being offside? Because it would slow the game down.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I'm used to the word "sanction" meaning to permit something to be done. Ain't English wonderful? HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Misplaced Pages:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Misplaced Pages:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Misplaced Pages:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Susan Lindauer

I suspect that you are right in that there is a COI editor involved.

If the subject of the article is verifiably in favor of deleting (via the OTRS) and if I remember the sourcing correctly, the only marginal claims of notabilty rest on dropped criminal charges, then I would not be opposed to deletion.

It does not seem to have been picked up widely as one of the iconic misapplications of the War on Terror laws which might be a target for a merge or redirect?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. Someone seems to have removed the request for deletion. Was this ever resolved by consensus, or did someone just remove it? I too think it should be deleted. It does not stand up to wikipedia's standards for BPL. SpringandFall (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
It seems that you are edit warring with Cwobeel over minor wording changes. - MrX 17:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Which "minor wording" changes are you talking about? The POV language ones? Are there ones that have been reverted more than once? I'm not aware of any.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry for the in-your-face warning, but it looks like you are very close to breaking WP:3RR. I count two plain reverts ("Undid revision...") and several where you and Cwobeel are going back and forth, mainly on the word "peaceful".- MrX 18:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

One of those was changing the text from "arson" to "burned by looters" because he said the source didn't say "arson", which is a little petty. The other was a BLP violation. The first was clearly fulfilling his request to find a source or fix the text. The second should hold up per BLP. If he wants to discuss "peaceful" I'm all for it. But per NPOV, V and sometimes BLP I don't think he has a leg to stand on.Two kinds of pork (talk)}

Fly on the wall here. "Arson" refers to a crime, whereas "burned" does not. I would be careful to follow the descriptions and assertions available in RS references. SPECIFICO talk 18:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually that is why I changed it. My original issue was "shell" had no adjective in front, and seemed awkward. Thanks.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

If you are claiming that this is correcting a BLP violation, then I question your understanding of the policy. Please tell me that you're referring to another edit.- MrX 18:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm conflating this edit with another one. That one you mentioned was a POV removal om my part. My apologies. For the BLP you would have to look at the recent history where the caption claimed in the image he was pointing his weapon at the protestors, which (that image ) was not RS. Additionally, claiming they were peaceful, when we don't have secondary sources stating such could be BLP. What if the crowd was threating? That would possibly justify the cops emotionally response. In my personal opinion, in lieu of secondary reliable sources making this statement, you don't add it. Hope that helps. Now I've got to go get new tires. Thanks and cya round.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow. I'm sorry about that 2KoP. I specifically recommended against blocking, but I guess other views prevailed. Don't let it discourage you from editing once your block expires, or ends early if you can convince an admin that you will not edit war any more.- MrX 21:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

He was a bit hasty on the block IMO, but whatever. Not your fault. I was more annoyed with the Misplaced Pages version of "20 questions" where someone tries to use the "rules" as a strategy to keep their preferred version or get you busted by the admins. I've seen it happen to others a few times, and now it's happened to me. I've had my cherry popped. My Wiki-Bar-Mitzvah.

In any case, please see this secondary source which used the term peaceful protestors with respect to the video. It should be added to the caption. I have more to say about how the lack of "peaceful" does not mean the opposite "violent", a trap which several people were caught. There is a cognitive bias called anchoring, which causes people to latch on to the first thing they hear, in this case "peaceful". If in another universe the Ferguson protests were violent, and the wiki in that universe said "violent protests", removing "violent" would not make the protests peaceful. My goal on this article is to be able to read it and come away feeling like it was written at the news-desk of the NYT or Washington Post. Last time I checked, it felt "off", and looking at the associated references there were many instances of editorializing and completely unverifiable claims. Hopefully those can be cleaned up soon.

A bit off topic, but I have no overriding interest in standing up for LEO, whereas some seem quite intent on painting them in a bad light. I've dealt with asshole po-po before (ask me about my airport cop traffic ticket sometime -- I had the last glorious laugh). I can ignore my distaste for some police tactics enough to edit outside of myself in order to keep the articles accurate to the sources and have an even keel.

Anyways, thanks for the kind words. Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dick Van Dyke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Raps. 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) 09:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

RE: GTTP "Pay to play" proposal thread?

When I first saw your proposal I was suspicious, but since I've taken advice not to read too carefully/focus on/respond to questionable comments, I didn't remember the exact details of your past comments. Only when responding to your comment on "WP:AGF" did I go past your past comments and discover that you actually might have been joking. Since another editor removed the whole thread, including the below, I thought I'd post it here to make sure you saw it.

Your first posting to this Task force was at this diff:

This is a joke, right? Women getting "protecting from reversion" is a real proposal? Ignoring verification for the moment , this is the most asinine thing I've ever heard suggested on Misplaced Pages. This is a joke, right? Women getting "protecting from reversion" is a real proposal?

At this diff you made a joke(?) about paying teenage girls from the Phillipines to edit. So you can see how your putting a proposal to pay women to edit on the main page seems to me to be a similar proposal.

You've also at this diff doubted systemic bias exists. At this diff you yourself closed a section because "the sniping is getting out of hand". I was happy to see it cause it was mostly nitpicking. But soon after you at this diff started a derisionary thread about something that just needed a little text tweak to correct a mis-impression.

So you can see why a rational person might be getting skeptical at this point. <small>'''] </small> 17:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

}} Nevertheless, I did try to assume good faith by putting my original question back. If you are withdrawing the proposal, feel free to do so. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a completely serious proposal. English is taught in the Philippines, and the wage rate is low. It would be a better value than paying American girls.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

This year

Thanks for giving me your support with my work on Misplaced Pages best of luck to you for the rest of 2014 and the future. --Smokeyfire (talk) 09:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Smokeyfire

ARBCOM clarification request regarding use of "TERF"

I have initiated a request for clarification from the ARBCOM regarding the use of "TERF" per discussions on Talk:Radical feminism. I am messaging you because you have been involved in past discussions regarding this issue and may wish to participate in the new discussion at the ARBCOM. The discussion can be found here. Thank you and best wishes. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

RFAR

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gender Gap Task Force Issues and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll think it over first, though you should consider adding Evergreenfir.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

3rr clarification

Hi. I noticed your comment here. I didn't want to distract from the relevant discussion or potentially embarrass you there, but I wouldn't want you continuing to misunderstand 3rr. The policy states that "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." So it is the fourth revert that breaks the rule. In this case, the fourth revert lay outside the 24 hour period so there was no 3rr violation. While editors can sometimes be blocked for persistent edit-warring without ever breaking 3rr, I saw no suggestion that this was the case in the situation described. In general I try to avoid blocking good faith editors unless absolutely necessary. So I closed it as "No action". I hope that makes sense and I hope you don't mind me raising it with you here. --John (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I misunderstood, because I've seen many times where some admin stated that users can be blocked for less than 3RR. And some have said the 4th revert just over 24 hours can count as well. Again, I didn't think Dmries did anything wrong, but there is a perceived feeling by some that non admins are 2nd class citizens. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I can relate.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Some users can be blocked for less than 3rr, but as I said, there would have to be other factors or a pattern for that to happen. The "bright line" 3rr rule is 4 reverts in 24 hours. I promise that I would have taken the same action for a non-admin with no form for edit-warring. --John (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification.Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Makin Bacon

I like the new sig. I can't recall who I got that kind of markup from, but its much more fun than the boring default, yet it doesn't take up too much page space like seems to be more common lately.--Milowent • 04:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I copied it from someone else Two kinds of pork_Bacon 05:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014