Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:52, 20 September 2014

Welcome!

Hello, DaveApter, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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:Where to ask a question, 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! , SqueakBox 17:10, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Request for edit summary

When editing an article on Misplaced Pages there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Style tip

Hi. I have a small note on style conventions. Per WP:MoS#Headings, one should not use capitals in section headings, so

==Conic Sections and Gravitational theory== 

should be

==Conic sections and gravitational theory==

That's a small thing, but I thought I'd let you know. Happy holidays. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Ya Beat Me

Looks like we both had the same idea, but you beat me to it by about 30 minutes. I posted on both users' pages also. My biggest objection so far was the reverting to old versions instead of editing going forward. Hopefully with the page protected everyone will get serious about compromise and come to the table to work this out.

Btw, howdy, I'm John. Lsi john 23:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I responded to the MedCab - actually had to deal with an edit conflict from you :P Lsi john 14:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Anthropic Frayn

Hi Dave, thanks for adding the Frayn book to anthropic principle. I've been trying to reduce the number of "orphan" references in this article by citing them at appropriate points in the text. Any chance you could do this with Frayn (havn't read it myself so I have no idea which bit of the article is relevant). PaddyLeahy 22:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! PaddyLeahy 09:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Disruption

Distraction is used to derail and disrupt the process. Stick to the subject and don't take the bait that is being chummed out. Disruptive editors will be seen for what they are. Lsi john 12:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I love skiing!! Lsi john 15:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

French comments

Thanks for your comments on the mediation (and the thank you on my talk page). Could you draft a couple of sentences, or one, about the French description, along the lines of what you already suggest? Then if anyone wants to argue, at least we're discussing text. Chrislintott 18:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

LML

Greetings. I just made another change to LML, you might want to look at. I didn't mean to save the change, I was going forward to double check something and it saved. I'm comfortable with the edit, but you might want to double check it. Thanks. Peace.Lsi john 14:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ken's Article

I appreciate your candor on the edit help page. I don't disagree with any of your personal perceptions of Ken. I do not know him at all - never met him. However, without intending to provoke a negative reaction, there are relevant facts surrounding his involvement with the internet, his investigative journalism and viewpoints. This is essential to present a complete picture of an individual, biographically. Misplaced Pages is not a PR site. I appreciate your loyalty and believe your personal viewpoint about Ken. From his writings, I sense he is a deeply committed, passionate individual.

Having said that, it appears that Ken is reading the article as well. He has modified his BrasscheckTV.com site to convert to a proxy ownership from the previous AMACORD, he included a disclaimer on the site and also temporarily removed his entire Brasscheck.com site from the web. It appears to me that Ken would rather not publicize this aspect of his life - but as we all know - the internet is forever. I suggest we consider deleting this article as I would NOT want a person to feel they must conceal their life's passion simply becuase it is public. What do you think? Thanks. Jettparmer (talk) 12:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for being in communication.

I'd like to say several things, all with the greatest of respect, and without any animosity or antagonism:

1) You seem to have a tendency to perceive conspiracies yourself even where there are none (see the next few points)

2) You see some malign significance in the fact that brasscheck.com was down for a short time yesterday. I checked and it is funcioning normally now. Websites go offline temporarily for all sorts of reasons.

3) You claim that the registration of these two sites has been made anonymous in response to your activity on wikipedia in the last two months. I just checked here http://whois.domaintools.com/brasscheck.com, and the most recent update was 17th July 2007. Many website registrants prefer to keep their details private for all sorts of legitimate reasons.

4) You say that Ken is trying to keep his involvement in these sites hidden, but if that were the case why would he publicly announce it in the alteri interview and elsewhere?

5) You say - as though it were somehow devious - that "it appears that Ken is reading the article as well". I'd be staggered if he were not. I certainly would be if there was a biography of me here, wouldn't you?

6) You make particular play of the fact that the disclaimer on brasscheckTV.com has recently been added. So what? Perhaps up until now he would have thought it obvious that he did not necessarily give 100% endorsement of every single piece of material linked, that had been published and put into the public domain elsewhere.

7) You have said several times that the article should be deleted unless it can be made to conform to your personal perspectives, but this is to confuse several distinct issues: a) should Ken wish not to have a biographical article here, he only has to request that and wikipedia would remove it; b) if you wish to suggest it under the AfD process, you know how to do that, and the consensus will be duly established - however there is no doubt at all that he qualifies readily on grounds of notability; and , c) whether or not specific points get the prominence you wish is resolved by collaborative editing, in alignment with the policies regarding verifiability, citing of reliable sources, undue weight, and no original research.

May I ask you now the straight question as to what it is that prompts you to embark on this energetic crusade here over the last two months (and counting)? DaveApter (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Let me cover the top few questions quickly and then move to the last.

1-2) The changes made seemed coincidental and the domain registry change all were within a few days. I jumped to conclusions when the Brasscheck site went dark - I would submit that page failures are not that common anymore. No conspiracy, just coincidence.

3) Registration of the TV site was changed from AMACORD recently. Concur most people would like to keep some things separate, however, the operation of BrasscheckTV is significant and much better known than any of Ken's other sites.

• As you've researched it, you'll know that it went private around September 9th, 2008 - well before the current flurry of activity on wikipedia; so why continue making the misleading claim that they are connected? DaveApter (talk) 09:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

4) I did not say he was keeping his involvement hidden, the Alterati interview obviously contradicts this, however, the anonymity behind BrasscheckTV is notable.

5) As to Ken reading the article, I don't mean this in a negative way, simply as a "what does he think?" sort of way.

6) The disclaimer issue is two fold. Prior to the addition of the sites, it was pretty clear that he endorsed many of these views - evidence by his positive reviews of the videos and selection for inclusion / promotion on the TV site. Issuing the disclaimer (on one level) seems like a weak attempt to claim neutrality - when there seems clear evidence that there is a bias. Secondly, if it was an endorsement issue, why now? Perhaps the article simply brought this to his attention.

7) This is a mischaracterization. If the article is overly skewed (i.e. individual is only presented in one aspect), then it doesn't meet the encyclopediac definition of a good biography and devolves into either a PR or hit piece. There is no original research here, all the sites are Ken's sites and the writings are his. Nothing has yet arisn to dispute that. In the case of undue weight, which would you balance? The TV site is orders of magnitude more popular than his business site. The internet libel lawsuit was mentioned in several major news publications and is considered part of beginning internet case law. Is this more or less relevant than being program director at the Princeton College FM station?

To the last point about my interest. I have stated it clearly, I have received numerous forwarded e-mails from firends and relations from Ken's BrasscheckTV site. After viewing a few I began to wonder where all this was originating. There was no information whatsoever on the BrasscheckTV site, so I began to research it. Once I realized it was the work of one person, I was further interested. Finding his beginning bio on WP I was surprised to find no mention of this work at all. I began to edit the bio, perhaps with too much of a counter to a bias I felt was almost purely PR. I am a sporadic Wikipedian. I noodle around what intertests me and generally enjoy a little research challenge. I am a little sensitive to being labeled a "crusader" and assigned attributes that are not warranted WP:CIV. I have worked to create a more complete view of Ken McCarthy the whole person, not simply the internet marketer. Jettparmer (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I am comparing the current state of the article to its pre-December state. I think by any standard it is now objectively better referenced and more complete. The pursuit of truth can be a passionate endeavor, especially for the sincere. I'm certainly not a power user myself and am sure I've made mistakes in procedure and tone along the way and for that I apologize. If things have been messy to this point, we seem to be arriving a good place in terms of this particular article. I sense fundamental good will in all the parties who've taken an interest in this.

In that spirit, I'd like to encourage Jettparmer to take a look at the most recent comments relating to the Rick Boyce article. There are some clarifications and significant new references that may well address some of the concerns he's expressed about that article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolatime (talk • contribs) 21:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

LE & Cirt

What is the previous username/account of Cirt? You can reply here, I'll come back. Thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to give you a straight answer because I've been threatened for doing exactly that previously. Have you asked him/her this as a straight question? DaveApter (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

A straight answer has come on my page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Help Locating Complaint re LE edits

I appreciate your alert of a complaint against me back in September. I have not been able to edit in some time due to family emergency. Now I am back, and have not been able to locate the specific complaint you referenced. Can you help me track it down? Aclayartist (talk) 16:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update on my Talk Page. Aclayartist (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding unreliable source at article Landmark Education

Your recent edit to the article Landmark Education removed sourced info to secondary sources, and added info cited to www.keepandshare.com. This is not a WP:RS source. Please do not do this again. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 04:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This is totally unnecessary wikilawering. Anyone can easily establish from the public record that these cases were dismissed, and the keepandshare.com link is simply a convenience to enable readers to view copies of the documents. This is typical of the double standards you apply to sources according to whether they support your POV or not. You have frequently used court papers as refs for your edits, and frequently referred to them via reprints on various websites. DaveApter (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Your edit just provided a link to a collection of various documents at www.keepandshare.com. The edit did not reference a specific document. That is poor sourcing practices. Cirt (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I take your point entirely and apologise for that. You will see that I already referenced to the actual court documents in the refs in the article to avoid contention over using the reprint site, and for convenience, I provided links to the actual pdf reprints of the specific items (rather than the catalog listing) on the discussion page. Again, my apologies. DaveApter (talk) 12:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Cirt (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Incentive sites

The deletion debate has been closed as a merge to Incentive program; please help extract content from the page history of Incentive sites and merge it to the other article. Deryck C. 17:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

caic.org.au discussion

Hello! As someone who has edited the Landmark Worldwide article in the past few weeks, I am notifying you of a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard regarding the use of the website caic.org.au as a reliable source in that article. Please feel free to review or participate in that discussion.

Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Please refrain from making personal attacks in violation of WP:NPA as you did here. Also, under the circumstances, I believe it entirely appropriate and in accord with conduct guidelines if you were to clearly indicate any biases toward or against any organizations which you might yourself have on your user page and in any relevant discussion on article talk pages. I also believe that you will find that the histories of the pages, including the discussion pages, rather clearly reveals that the statement I made is defensible, which would make it reasonably appropriate. However, there is nothing I can think of which would indicate that the implicit threat in your own comment linked to above could be considered or appropriate by anyone. Should such misconduct continue, in this case I believe even once, I believe it would be entirely appropriate for me to raise that matter for appropriate administrative review. John Carter (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

1. I have no idea how you or any reasonable person could construe my remarks as a personal attack.
2. I cannot see anything in my remarks that could possibly be interpreted as a threat, implicit or explicit.
3. I have been open and candid in making my own "bias" in relation to Landmark quite clear on my user page, and also in my recent peer review request. DaveApter (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You're right and I apologize, having done a quick scan of the I saw the ending comments, which in the quick read seemed to be threatening de-sysoping, and I apologize for the overquick response. My comments, however, stand regarding how I believe it reasonable for all parties to not only disclose their existing biases, if any, but also to perhaps better adhere to talk page guidelines. I can honestly say that I find your comments on the list of NRM talk page in the current bottom section of the talk page indicating numbers of opinions expressed as being the decider as being, honestly, well, counterproductive, and honestly tendentious. I believe it would be also be reasonable for you to indicate your existing opinions on the article talk page so that the closer of the RfC, if there is one, will be aware that some editors might have, at some level, a reason other than encyclopedic development for some of their comments, particularly if those comments seem to not be based clearly on policies and guidelines. And, yes, honestly, the argument that NRM is a term that shouldn't be used because it isn't clearly defined, based on the words included in the term rather than in the term taken as a whole, despite the fact that it is regularly used in the academic world, clearly seems to be to be disruptive and counterproductive. But I do wish to express my apologies for my having responded based on a quick scan of the statement and before I had read your comment out in full, which led to my overreacting to the loaded language in the end. John Carter (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you - apology accepted. DaveApter (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Fiddle Faddle 09:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment

Hi - just a quick note - after the RFC closure you said I was an admin but I'm actually not - feel free to correct for clarity- best, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I've corrected that now. DaveApter (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Homeostasis, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cell, Tissue and Organ (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) 08:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Analog and Bandwidth. 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) 09:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Landmark Worldwide

So far as I can see I've just reverted two instances of wild accusations from inappropriate sources. If somebody's concerned about an article having "guardians" in a way that's proving a problem, ask them to name usernames. --McGeddon (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Negative feedback, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Exponential. 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) 09:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Issues related to Landmark Worldwide 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,