Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:52, 5 November 2017

Welcome!

Hello, TheDarkOneLives, 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:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --barneca (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've answered your question at the help desk. --barneca (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Why did you turn blue

Why did you turn blue honey? You were much sexier when you were red

New Arbitration Request

A request for arbitration has been filed with the Arbitration Committee that lists you as a party. The Arbitration Committee requires that all parties listed in an arbitration must be notified of the aribtration. You can review the request at. If you are unfamiliar with arbitration on Misplaced Pages, please refer to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment that TallNapoleon deleted from his talk page

I left this on TallNapoleon's talk page related to the "debate" regarding his Anti-Rand paper seen on either TallNapoleon's or TheJazzFan's page and he subsequently deleted it with the comment "not interested". Yes, he does seem to be averse to the truth.

"You pedantically assert that words have meaning and then proceed to dance around to avoid defining them. Jazz completely outed your fallacious methodology.

Your analogy of "faith" in God & in the sun rising is beyond absurd. One is observation of an event involving observable bodies with measureable properties and interacting in a known, observable fashion - even if the mechanism isn't completely understood there's nothing to suggest they'll interact in a different manner during a given period. You most certainly can prove the validity of the assertion that "the sun will rise" (i.e. the Earth will rotate) - you can see it happen. The sun never *stops* rising.

So-called "faith" in God is an amorphous urge that doesn't even rise to the level of a valid assertion given that it's related to some equally amorphous pseudo-entity you've failed to define, thereby rendering impossible anything that can be called a "belief" that's worthy of serious consideration. You're trying to avoid that evidence requires a criteria against which to evaluate it.

Reason an evil idol? You're just another in a long line of folks trying to use reason to disprove the validity of reason, and as is always the case, utterly failing." TheDarkOneLives (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:Wikiquette_alerts#User:TheDarkOneLives

This is a courtesy note notifying you that I have brought your recent posts to WP:WQA. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That's nice.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 01:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Noting with some amusement TallNap's current topic ban.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

On verifiability

Misplaced Pages's reliance on published sources isn't an "adage" that is "tossed about", but has become one of the core policies of the project (see WP:V for the full explanation). It is necessary because, while any one individual may be capable of discerning for him or herself what is "truth" and what is "total crap", one cannot rely on the community of anonymous Wikipedians with their diversity of skills and motives to make good judgments for everybody without appeals to trusted authorities. The reliability of any particular source certainly can be put up for discussion on an article's talk page. What is of no use is discussing edits for which one can cite no reference. When engaging in such discussions, age and circulation are only two of many factors which can help gauge a source's reliability.

If you do not agree with the policy on verifiability, my suggestion would be to post your concerns at Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability. Since a general consensus has built around the importance of verifiability as it has been stated, any actions you undertake contrary to it are likely to be reversed. --Dystopos (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not saying it's perfect. I'm saying it's Misplaced Pages (which is, by the way, not an academic project aiming to produce new knowledge but a popular project aiming to index and distribute existing knowledge). If you are privy to greater truths than those accepted here, the easy solution is to publish them independently. (i. e. "get a blog"). --Dystopos (talk) 14:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Vote needed

Votes are needed on the Thomas Jefferson talk page, (1st section) Gwillhickers (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson

Hi, you appear to feel strongly about what Reliable Sources say about TJ's paternity of Sally Hemings' children, but are arguing against them rather than providing sources that support your personal opinion. It does not appear you have thoroughly read the Annette Gordon-Reed book or the material on the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (Monticello) website about this, nor the strong criticisms cited in the article about the minority Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society Scholars Report, which has demonstrated weaknesses. You are looking for DNA evidence from TJ that does not exist. Please stop insisting on the TJ TAlk page that editors support your personal views on this issue. Misplaced Pages is supposed to reflect the scholarship, and that about Jefferson has changed in the last decade.Parkwells (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

What I feel strongly about is that Misplaced Pages is supposed to state what the scholarship actually says, not offer an interpretation some would like to make. The conclusions are all qualified. "You are looking for DNA evidence from TJ that does not exist" That the evidence doesn't exist is an unalterable fact and it's improper to treat the evidence that does exist as if it is just as conclusive. It isn't and shouldn't be treated as if it is.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson

An editor has moved most of the historiography content on the "Jefferson-Hemings controversy" to a new article, Debate about paternity of Sally Hemings' children, but it has been recommended for speedy deletion as duplicating material in the Jefferson DNA data article and not having included the Talk page discussions on this topic.Parkwells (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Opinions/wide range of consensus needed

Hi 'TheDarkOneLives', we are presently trying to decide where to place various sections on the Thomas Jefferson page. If interested please join us on the talk page to help resolve the issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson-Hemings controversy

Hi, I'm trying to understand your position on the section on Current Scholarship, and what you are looking for. I understand you disagree with scholars who have accepted the conclusion that Jefferson fathered Hemings' children, but new works deserve coverage. Fact: There are scholarly works which have been written since 2000 that include conclusions that Jefferson fathered Hemings' children (which I referred to as the consensus, as it has been referred to in other cited works.) Fact: Another scholarly effort that asserts this position is the current exhibit at the National Museum of American History, a collaboration by the Smithsonian/Monticello, which is considered ground-breaking for its treatment of slave families and Jefferson as slaveholder (I can give the cite). How would you treat these works and the exhibit? They are facts in the academic world; the scholarship of the last decade is part of the academic work on Jefferson and his life. Do you have specific works that you want to add to the discussion? The scholarship doesn't end with sources published in 2000 and 2001. Parkwells (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I've stated it in the talk page at the article. You've repeatedly inserted editorializing, assessments, etc. that are yours, not that of any referenced RS.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 07:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Among other deletions, you deleted a cited paragraph that stated the existence of the 2012 Smithsonian exhibit on Jefferson and slavery. That is not my POV or editorializing, but yours. You seem to be interested in removing anything you don't agree with. When I added cites of reviews of each history noted, you deleted all that. That's your own POV and inappropriate. Why don't you add sources that comment on current scholarship, or don't you think that 12 years of scholarship has to be accounted for?Parkwells (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2012 (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) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, TheDarkOneLives. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2017

Welcome to Misplaced Pages and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:White pride are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. SummerPhD 02:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:White pride for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Article talk pages aren't a forum where you can comment on Misplaced Pages or its editors. Use Jimbo's talk page if you must. Doug Weller talk 12:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Damn, I hadn't noticed the earlier warning. Consider mine a final warning in that case. Doug Weller talk 12:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at Talk:Stand (R.E.M. song), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Your deletion of an editor's comment here was obvious retaliation for the warning you were given by that editor. Doug Weller talk 12:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)