Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:09, 21 December 2015

Archives

/Archives/2009 /Archives/2010 /Archives/2011 /Archives/2012 /Archives/2013 /Archives/2014 /Archives/2015

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Misplaced Pages Women's Health Information Edit-a-thon: Tuesday, May 12 at OHSU

You are invited!

• Tuesday, May 12, 2015: Misplaced Pages Women's Health Information Edit-a-thon – 1 to 4pm
• Misplaced Pages Edit-a-thon hosted by OHSU's Center for Women's Health in honor of National Women's Health Week
• Location: Biomedical Information Communications Center (3280 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR 97239)
• This edit-a-thon is intended to address some of these important differences and to generally improve women’s health information in key articles and topics. Areas for improvement have been identified in cooperation with WikiProject Medicine. Prior Misplaced Pages editing is not required; assistance will be available the day of the event. Attendees should bring their own laptops and power cords.

Hope you can make it! If you have any questions or require any special accommodations, please post to the event page.

Thanks,

Another Believer

To unsubscribe from this newsletter, remove your name from this list.

Your comments on the page of City Montessori School

@VQuakr, the content was not intended to be posted as promotional material on the page of City Montessori School. It was intended as a resource in reply to several users' addition of the 'Controversies' section and as such was a clarification issued to remove that content that was intended to malign the reputation of a well-known school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishi.khanna05 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the kunduz hospital air strike / International humanitarian law

Why do yo remove my text explaining shortly the the relevant parts of the Geneva conventions with the links to the articles in Misplaced Pages regarding them?Jochum (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH and WP:PRIMARY. I explained in my edit summary and on the article talk page when I made the revert. VQuakr (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The references to the appropriate documents are there. I am not removing your contribution you are removing mine. I made a contribution to the talk page to that article before I changed anything. You again are changing my contribution without any discussion. For an edit war you need more than one person. Show me an reason why mentioning the content of the Geneva Conventions is wrong. Stop throwing out my text out without prior discussion. Welcome to the Misplaced PagesJochum (talk) 05:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

As discussed in the notice I sent you, you are edit warring by trying to "force through" an edit by repeating it. Multiple other editors have contested insertion of your analysis into the article. I am not sure why you think I have not edited the article talk page. VQuakr (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

How dare you. I used a secondary source, the most serious secondary source you can find, the commentary by Jean S. PICTET, read up on him. Did you read what I wrote? I must assume that you did not, if you accuse me of not using a secondary source. I give you some time to revert what you did to my argument on the talk page.Jochum (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The source does not mention Kunduz. It is not usable for analysis of the Kunduz attack. Read WP:CIVIL please. VQuakr (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The source tells that every, and that means every armed conflict falls under GC IV, if that does not include Kunduz, than the USA can not be participant of a armed conflict in Afghanistan and than it could not have attacked the hospital. Your argument with collapsing said use a secondary source and I used a secondary source, so I revert your collapse.Jochum (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

You are synthesizing the connection yourself. Do not analyze sources this way. Instead use analysis by sources specific to Kunduz (which by definition will be published after the attack). VQuakr (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I bet you have not even bothered to read what I wrote. That is the guy who wrote the commentary The man who wrote the rules of war. As the attack has already happened I have a difficulty to understand how we could be more after the attack. And all the same, I do not make a judgement, I talk about what rules apply and that does not change with time.Jochum (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Bet all you want. The article you linked was written 15 years ago and is about a commentary written 50 years prior to that. Kunduz occurred this year. Sources about the Kunduz attack will have been written since the attack occurred. VQuakr (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I have left some time now when I tried to put into the article what the Fourth Geneva Convention says about the attack of a signer nation of the said convention. I am still of the opinion that I am right and you are wrong. Your argument that the secondary source, the original commentary to the 4GC would be too old, is nonsensical. It is exactly what you ask of an legal commentary, original intent with producing the convention. If you find a newer one producing a different view, produce it. The argument that no news article or other secondary source shows that THIS and this only attack on a hospital falls under the 4GC, is again nonsensical. If a renowned secondary source tells, that every armed conflict a signer nation is involved in falls under the 4GC, than every includes this armed conflict.85.246.105.55 (talk) 12:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The commentary to the 4GC was written prior to Kunduz. By definition, it was not written about Kunduz. There has been lots of legal analysis done about the attack, so we will use those. VQuakr (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, if you want to look at the rules, it would be idiotic to talk about rules that are formed after something happened, the rules are set and you judge according to the rules in place when something happens and those rules are in this case written in the 4GC. You seem to be desperate to not talk about the rules. How does anybody plan anything, depends on anything if the rulebook can be changed after the fact.Jochum (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I am having trouble parsing this into anything meaningful. VQuakr (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

That I do understand. If you do not want to talk about the rules that apply in war and want to make new rules after the fact, fitting to your needs after the fact, I can very well understand that you do not want to talk about the rules of war. That does not change the fact that there are rules in place that MSF should have been able to rely on and the USA military should have operated according to. I well understand that that is quite uncomfortable to contemplate. And that is why you like to censor any mentioning of the rules that apply.Jochum (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I am having trouble parsing it because it is badly written not because you have shattered my worldview. VQuakr (talk) 05:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

autocite

hello just trying to understand.the change that autocross is making. the article has 17 references. but.not.certain why they.are.dropped when autocite is applied Prospectresearch (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Banned editor

a 'banned editor', yes, but a good faith editor , just got a shorter tolerance level for obvious pov pushers and idiots than you. good luck, it seems an awful uphill battle for intelligent people , wikipedia , sometimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayerslle (talk • contribs)

It goes with the territory of editing in current events (not that I am endorsing your characterization of other editors). But you can't have it both ways: if you want to edit here, you need to do so in a way that does not involve block evasion and remaining unblocked requires, in part, behaving civilly with others even if they irk you from time to time. VQuakr (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Revert

If he has another run-in again before February 1st I'll revert it again. Thanks :) --RThompson82 (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

...or you could discuss on the talk page. Geez. VQuakr (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

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

This message is being sent to 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 are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Talk:Campus sexual assault. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

@TransporterMan: thank you for the ping. I do not think my participation in this one is necessary as my only contribution was reverting a change to the lede that did not summarize content in the body. My concerns, , are not really central to the larger dispute and are easily incorporated into any solution. Please feel free to ping me again if you think additional input would be helpful. VQuakr (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)