| Revision as of 17:47, 28 February 2010 editLokiiT (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,259 edits →Terrorists← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:40, 20 May 2018 edit undoTheRealWeatherMan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers728 edits Notification: listing at articles for deletion of Glutamate permease. (TW) | ||
| (671 intermediate revisions by 93 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| --- | |||
| {{busy}} | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ==Ref flag== | |||
| You may think that I was stalking you at the ] article, but I just went there from ] to read on etymology of "red". But I stand by my assessment of your last addition of a joke there. It just does not fit the spirit of the rest of the article and, honestly, it looks like vandalism. (] (]) 15:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)) | |||
| :This example was taken from an academic book about Soviet popular culture and literature. I even left another example at the article talk page in case that someone objects.] (]) 04:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Your opinion is needed == | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692040667 --> | |||
| == Nomination for deletion of Template:Pfam domains == | |||
| ]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 18:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
| The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. | |||
| I want to confirm whether ''Current Psychology'' a peer-reviewed journal or not. Sources say ''Current Psychology'' is a ] academic journal. Founded and originally published by the ], the journal is now published by the ]. According to ], "from volume 1 (1981) to Volume 2 (1982), this journal was published as ''Current Psychological Research''; as of Volume 3 (1984), the journal merged with ''Current Psychological Reviews''; and from Volume 3 (1984) to Volume 6 (1987), this journal was published as ''Current Psychological Research & Reviews''." The journal is subscribed by university libraries like the of the ]. But a discussion at ] discredit it. If it is discredited as RS, there will be problem because it is used as a major source in the draft ] which I will take to the mainspace after some days. The reference is: | |||
| Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> ] (]) 23:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {{citation|last=Louis Horowitz|first=Irving |date=December 3, 2007|title=Cuba, Castro and Anti-Semitism|journal=]|volume=26|number=3-4|pages=183-190|format=PDF|url=http://www.schaler.net/Horowitz.pdf|issn=0737-8262|oclc=9460062|doi=10.1007/s12144-007-9016-4}} | |||
| A discussion is going on in ]. Your valuable opinion at the RSN will be much appreciated. Thank you. --] (]) 02:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Started the article ]. Please try to improve it if you have sources. Thanks! --] (]) 04:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::I responded. You are very welcome.] (]) 18:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| == Terrorists == | |||
| I have a question. Why do you try to whitewash and dilute articles about terrorists and criminals? I know you have problems with Putin and the Russian government, but that doesn't mean you have to be an apologist to the other extreme. Removing well sourced info like in edit and is just bewildering to me. Who are you serving? Certainly not the wikipedia community. ] (]) 16:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| * I do not see an extreme need to make changes this way or another. Your questions contain unfounded assumptions. I have good faith in other editors as long as their edits are within policy boundaries. --] (]) 16:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| **I don't think my assumptions are unfounded, but that's besides the point. Removing info from an article for the simple reason that you don't like it is disruptive. He doesn't even attempt to explain himself anymore. ] (]) 16:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *** By "unfounded" I meant "formally unfounded". For example, you suggest that the editor has conflict of interests but do not offer evidence that he is formally involved with the events or people described in the article. Your only arguments are ]s, but this is shallow. As for removing, I could not figure which references and their rephrasing were removed as there were too many changes in the first link. The second link has a potentially libelous claim from a single source without much explanation. But since the target of the claim is a public figure, such claims may have a chance slightly above zero to remain. --] (]) 17:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I think you mistook what I originally said. I'm not suggesting some conspiracy here. I would never accuse anyone on wikipedia of being part of some internet brigade or whatever. Such accusations would only make me look paranoid. Regarding the edits, you bring up some valid points worth discussing. And if Biophys had brought up those points himself, per wikipedia policy, we wouldn't be having this conversation. ] (]) 17:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *You said: ''"Why do you try to whitewash and dilute articles about terrorists and criminals?"'' and provided two diffs that you think support your assertion. ''First of all'', the both segments are now included in the articles, and I did not object them to be included, because I do not care about minor issues in your diffs. ''Second'', the personal opinion of non-notable criminal ] (second diff) does not belong to BLP of another person, and ''it does not add any new information'' (it was already noted in the article that Berezovsky transferred ransoms to kidnappers based on his own words). ''Finally'', the series of edits by IP (first diff) included a number of points which we might debate at article talk page.] (]) 18:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *You said: ''"Who are you serving? Certainly not the wikipedia community."''. Well, I am serving to humanity and knowledge, and wikipedia is only a part of this.] (]) 18:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :*I don't think it's a minor issue to remove the specific crimes someone is wanted for from the intro, especially when they amount to murdering civilians. Like I said in my edit summary, "crime" is a very vague word. He's not merely an alleged car thief. | |||
| :::Was he ''convicted'' of the crimes? If he was, the specific crimes should be mentioned in introduction. But if he was not, but was only ''accused'' of crime, listing a long list of unproven crimes in introduction would be against ] policy.] (]) 19:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :*My main gripe is only that you don't explain all this in the first place. As for the IP edits, I originally reverted him blindly, and that was a mistake, but I later re-added the parts that weren't original research or just format fixes. Generally when anonymous IPs add original research or change words around to better fit a POV, it's grounds for a revert, especially in BLPs. And I haven't checked, but you might have re-added some of that original research in your last edit. ] (]) 19:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::OK, I will check this later.] (]) 19:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's a fact that he's wanted by authorities for alleged acts of terrorism etc. How does this info being in the intro go against WP:BLP? The policy states: ''"If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."''] (]) 20:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Not that a counter-example should be taken as a guide, but ]'s article does not even mention that he was tried for ] in 1952. My point is that a person's intro is his or her own profile, and accusations against Berezovsky in Putin's Russia do not mean much to be included into the intro. On the other hand, it is not that these accusations denigrate Berezovsky's personatlity. On the contrary, the state's multiple accusations only underline his position against the governors of the state. --] (]) 23:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::We shouldn't really be worrying about how certain pieces of information might effect people's perceptions of the subject. Our job is just to present whatever important information there is, and let readers interpret it as they will. ] (]) 00:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Guys, please debate these questions at the article talk pages. LokiiT, I do not want to discuss anything with someone who asks me: "Na kogo rabotaesh', gnida?" as you did in the beginning of this thread. I consider this discussion closed.] (]) 15:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::If you don't want to discuss your edits with other editors, then I suggest you don't edit in the same articles as them. Also, once again, I wasn't accusing you of "working" for anybody. I meant in a moral sense, ''who are your edits to the benefit of''? You, however, once accused me of working for the GRU, and yet I'm still trying to cooperate here. ] (]) 16:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I am ready talk with anyone who follows ]. When and where did I blame you of such a thing? This is outrageous. Please provide supporting diffs.] (]) 17:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::You posted it at ] and deleted that page after my IP was confirmed by checkuser not to even be in Russia. I'm sure an admin could get that page back if necessary, I know I wasn't when the page still existed. ] (]) 17:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==Do not post sources of terrorists== | |||
| Or should we start to post the casualties of the Talibian, claimed by them in Astan? | |||
| No we don't do this. | |||
| Cause your terroristic web-space is claiming a lot of s***. | |||
| Do not provide anymore terroristic propaganda on wikipedia! | |||
| Or should we start to post the things like this: "Mujahideen released a summary of military operations..." | |||
| This claims are just ridiculous! | |||
| And why you delete my contribute to your talk page ? | |||
| <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :It was not me who initially included this reference to ]. But I checked it and found fully consistent with our policies. It is common practice to indicate the losses as claimed by the respective combatants in the war/battle boxes. For example, the losses by Russian side are indicated as claimed by Russian side. But the same applies to any other side of the conflict. Kavkaz Center was an official site of the Chechen side during the wars. | |||
| :Now about . I am sorry, but this is ''forgery''. You refer to a source (whatever it is) and give numbers that the source claim to be wrong. This is something indeed inconsistent with out policies.] (]) 16:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 23:40, 20 May 2018
---
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) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Pfam domains
Template:Pfam domains has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Nomination of Glutamate permease for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Glutamate permease is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Glutamate permease until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TheRealWeatherMan (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)