| Revision as of 23:56, 26 April 2012 editJakr (talk | contribs)35 edits →Speedy Deletion: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:14, 15 August 2020 edit undoJayBeeEll (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers28,146 editsm Reverted 1 edit by Keninkelak (talk) to last revision by MediaWiki message delivery (TW)Tag: Undo | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{retired}} | |||
| Archive ],] | |||
| == Khoisan religion == | |||
| == Mea Culpa == | |||
| Hi Wolfie. Just some clarification on why I reverted your undo on the 'Khoisan Religion' page. | |||
| I wanted to offer you an honest apology for my behavior on the Anita Sarkeesian talk page. While I stand by my general stance, I was far snarkier than necessary (I blame it on editing while traveling, but that's no excuse). I confess I am kind of amazed there isn't more reliable critical reaction (positive or negative) to Ms. Sarkeesian and her project. I tend to think it's because the field has been so completely occupied by proxy battles that there's no room left for anything else, but that's for another day. I obviously believe your proposed text was unhelpful, but I wanted you to know that when and if you (or I, for that matter) find a reliable reaction--positive or negative--which adds to the article, I will absolutely support its inclusion. Thanks, and again, sorry for the snark. ] (]) 16:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Since the Khoi and the San are entirely separate people, but are both alike in that they're Southern African indigenes, the term 'Khoisan religion' is meaningless without the proviso that the term is only a shorthand for “Southern African indigenous religion.” | |||
| ::No worries. ] (]) 09:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==WP:Reliability== | |||
| There’s no such thing as “Khoisan religion” since there’s no cultural unit called the “Khoisan”. There’s the Khoi people and there’s the San people. They’re very different, and in current anthropology (since the 1970s) the consenus is that the term’s basically useless. The term's still used, but it is at best problematic. | |||
| Is the Secondary Sources Reliability WikiProject still active? I remember you as being one of the founding members along with the (it appears also-retired) History2007 three years ago when I retired from WP for a few years. I don't really remember anyone else, nor am familiar with the new features of WP, so, apologies for bringing you out of retirement to ask. ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 20:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| To show you what I mean, the sentence in the entry "Cagn is said to have created the moon which holds special significance to the Khoisan people; the phase of the moon dictated when rainmaking rituals were to be performed" is completely meaningless. "Cagn" is a San mythical figure. The Khoi people had nothing to do with him. The word "Khoisan" here is... well, entirely inaccurate, since the "Khoisan" don't exist in this sense. | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Also the orthography is Victorian and there's no distinction drawn between whose myth is whose of any kind. All the Khoe stuff seems to be taken from a book on one particular people from the west of South Africa, and there's no mention at all that even the San people of the south had a different mythology to the San people of the Kalahari. | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Actually, this whole entry is so very, very bad wikipedia would probably be better off without it. | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692013717 --> | |||
| == Religious explanations of gravity listed at ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''Religious explanations of gravity'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] if you have not already done so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 00:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == ]: Voting now open! == | |||
| ] (]) 14:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Neil | |||
| {{Ivmbox|Hello, Second Quantization. Voting in the ''']''' 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. | |||
| ] (]) 14:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Neil | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| == The Resilient Barnstar == | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review ] and submit your choices on ''']'''. ] (]) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" | |||
| |Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}} | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | {{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|alt|]|]}} | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52 bot@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52_bot/spamlist/17&oldid=750571901 --> | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Resilient Barnstar''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | In understanding your concerns toward the ] artcle's original unsourced stub state, and out of respect that you granted that your concerns were shown as addressable during the course of the ], I am honored to show appreciation for your consideration by presenting you with this barnstar. ''']''' '']'' 04:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| :Cheers! ] (]) 09:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Socking == | |||
| I already asked for a sock report a while back on some accounts, have a gander ]. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 22:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| : Hi, it's interesting that I'm considered a sock puppet of Algis, that one can easily distinguish between us by usage of words, IP addresses, etc. I think WLU will agree with that :) ] (]) 05:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Editing war == | |||
| Also I received your message in my profile that I'm inside an edit war (surely I am, in a general sense). My removal of non-RS materials is said as "disruptive", but I consider my actions are as legitimate as WLU's removal of the e-book published by Bentham, which is (arguably) non-RS. I think WP has a common standard of what is RS and what is not, and a guideline that we should include RS only? ] (]) 05:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point ]. ] (]) 10:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't think enforcing one of the 3 pillars -- verifiability and reliability of sources -- is disrupting WP... | |||
| ::We may be difference in viewpoints (I think the AAH is a proto-science, and you might think it's a pseudoscience), that's OK, we all hate pseudoscience. But we all work on the WP according to its guidelines. If non-RS is intolerable in WP, then we will remove the non-RS and nothing more. ] (]) 15:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have no particularly strong opinion on AAH. My opinions on AAH are irrelevant to the article. The issue is that you are attempting to remove criticism which has due weight to be in the article. ] (]) 18:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Please see ]: "Neutrality requires that each article... fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been '''''published by reliable sources''''', in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." -- also -- "Misplaced Pages aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation '''''in reliable sources''''' on the subject." | |||
| ::::That means due weight never overrides reliability of sources. No? ] (]) 19:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The sources are perfectly reliable. ] (]) 21:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The actual issue is in the part of that quote that is not bolded - "proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". There are very few actual scholars in the relevant fields who take the AAH seriously. There are numerous scholars who point out it is not credible and promoted by only a minority of practitioners. So yes, we write an article that includes proponents - but we don't let those proponents overwhelm the article. The AAH page should note that a small number of people think the AAH has merit, but in general it has little traction. The page should not attempt to prove that the AAH is true, and it should not note the mainstream opinion at the end in a single sentence. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 14:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Your conduct at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/LED-embedded glass == | |||
| Exemplary. Thank you. - ] (]) 10:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Cheers :). ] (]) 11:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Request for comment on your WikiLeaks "Out of date" tag from December 2010 == | |||
| Hello. You added an "Out of date" tag to the article ] on December 11, 2010. Would you be able to leave a comment on ] to let us know what you meant? Your edit log says "MediaWiki has not been used for some time. can someone look for updates on this? quick search turns up little" but I don't understand what that means, and it doesn't seem clear to the other editors either. Would you be able to explain what you meant and what we could do by leaving a short note about it on the Talk page discussion? Thanks a lot, and keep up the great work! :D ] (]) 23:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :*10th. It was that wikileaks used to use mediawiki for their format but then they changed style. ] (]) 23:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Donna Eden == | |||
| Are you going to add your vote to the AFD discussion? --] (]) 11:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I sometimes just add comments critiquing the points of others and don't vote. I may vote later when I've seen all the sources people dig up and then I can judge whether they help establish notability etc. ] (]) 11:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Village pump == | |||
| Hi, Wolfie! I noticed your comments from earlier this month at the Village Pump (). I've now moved that discussion to a separate subpage of the Village Pump, re-opening it there, and have also removed some of the off-topic and acrimonious back-and-forth from the thread, per WP:RTP. I don't doubt that your remarks there were very well-intended, but perhaps you'd be so gracious as to refrain from adding any additional comments to the re-opened discussion? | |||
| I've no idea who was right or wrong in the previous conflict between you and the other editor, but given that you evidently initiated some kind of arbcomm proceeding against him over it, posting additional comments to that particular discussion might not be the best plan. Especially since yours was the first comment made after he opened the discussion, and was posted just 26 minutes after he did so, it seems likely that posting additional comments to the thread could very easily be construed as wikistalking or hounding, however erroneously, by other editors who aren't involved in the dispute between the two of you. Cordial thanks, – <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 21:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Reply to your query of another editor == | |||
| Hi, on ], you asked about the meaning of that editor's userpage statement. For the answer, I direct you to ]. (Also, be sure to look at the history of the article page itself - see the article as created by Coagulans before cleanup by Drmies.) <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">]<font color="#0095c6">of</font>]</font> 01:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Cheers for the info, I was thinking it was a little odd. ] (]) 10:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Robert O. Becker == | |||
| Misplaced Pages had a 10627 char. article on ], + a 6336 char. article on his book . Total: 16963. | |||
| After you had finished editing, only the Becker article with 5044 remained. You slashed away 70%. | |||
| It is hard to assume good faith when observing this, including a systematic dismantling and removal of The Body Electric. | |||
| If you can only accept small amounts of research results, you should stay within your favourite topics. | |||
| As you have taken the position as judge and executioner of this scientist, it should be asked: Which of his books have you read? | |||
| (Becker's research must have the printed books as sources.) ] (]) 07:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Perhaps if you look at what I removed you will see why. Most of it was original research, unsourced or undue material sections based on ] primary sources. ] (]) 09:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I have now written a new version of The Body Electric ]. Notability and sources are mainly given on the accompanying Talk page. OK now? ] (]) 07:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :There are effectively zero references. The text makes many claims without taking into account ] or ]. Also, I suggest you process this page for creation through ]. ] (]) 08:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==AN== | |||
| Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "]".The discussion is about the topic ]. Thank you.<!--Template:AN-notice-->—] (]) 18:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Talkback== | |||
| {{talkback|WilliamH|ts=14:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] (]) 14:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *And again. ] (]) 15:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Dispute resolution survey== | |||
| {| style="background-color: #CCFFFF; border: 4px solid #3399cc; width:100%" cellpadding="5" | |||
| | ] | |||
| <big>'''Dispute Resolution – ''Survey Invite'''''</big> | |||
| ---- | |||
| Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}}. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. | |||
| '''Please click to participate.'''<br> | |||
| Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. | |||
| ---- | |||
| <small>You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated ]. <font face="Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></font> 23:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
| |} | |||
| ==Please comment on ]== | |||
| Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the ] on ''']'''. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see ]. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from ].'' <!-- Template:FRS message -->— ] (]) 11:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Shiatsu== | |||
| LAST DELETION | |||
| You claim that "Your addition to Shiatsu has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Misplaced Pages without permission from the copyright holder." | |||
| Curious, because it is EXACTLY the same source and material as included in the article right now, RIGHT NOW. It seems that you do not take seriously copyrights violations by people who write what you agree with. That's exactly what it seems. I would like mediation ASAP, because you either remove those words and source or you accept mine.] (]) 23:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are not allowed to copy text, that is a copyright violation. That means copying the exact words, you must paraphrase sources in your own words. ] (]) 23:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I have to appeal to you again, because yobol has undone my last editing on shiatsu without giving any reasons. I have used EXACTLY the same article (http://cancerhelp.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/treatment/complementary-alternative/therapies/shiatsu) that is given in wikipedia as a source. I just felt that choosing just the part of the article that yobol likes, without mentioning the rest, was not impartial at all. So now I need mediation -formal if possible - between you and me (you haven't replied to my last comments) and between yobol and me.] (]) 17:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Since you are not more specific in your accusations about the article not supporting what I edited, when I have explained in detail that it does, and you insist on undoing my editing for apparently no good reason, I have asked for informal mediation to begin with: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/11_April_2012/ ] (]) 07:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I don't think this is the case. Both sources menrion the lack of clinical trials. I explained that in my previous editing of the talk page but for some reason you have chosen to ignore it. I have just read WP:BRD as you suggested and it says "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes." It seems to me that you are the one not following wikipedia guidelines. If you don't like my changes because they don't agree with your opinion, that is not reason to undo them. I'll repeat it again. Both sources say there are no clinical trials, from whichever angle you want to look at it, it means there is no evidence for the efficacy or inefficacy of the technique, which is what I was trying to convey. Now, I'd like to see how neutral you are - and sure of your point - by starting formal mediation for this issue. Informal mediation hasn't worked because nobody has volunteered for it. If you refuse, as you have done in the past, I'll request it. ] (]) 21:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Stop wasting peoples time. There are other editors on the talk page. Go get some consensus for your changes. ] (]) 21:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Shiatsushi == | |||
| I will leave Shiatsushi a message on his talkpage; basically, I'm going to ask once if he'll voluntarily restrict himself from the topic. If he will, great, and it not I'll reblock with an unblock contingent on accepting a topic ban. We'll see how it goes. ] (]) 14:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Cheers. ] (]) 14:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == FYI: moved your post == | |||
| Hi, just wanted to let you know that I moved your RFC closure request to ], as (1) AN/I is more heavily trafficked and (2) closure requests fall more under the scope of ] than ], based on past experience. --] ] 04:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh ok. ] (]) 09:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Talkback == | |||
| ] ] 16:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Posting unwanted messages on my talk page == | |||
| Please stop posting your views on my talk page and put them where they belong - the talk page of the article under discussion. I find your attitude offensive and your intransigence irritating. I'm sure that you will manage to get the article deleted with a little help from your friends, but I certainly do not intend joining your witch-hunt. ] (]) 18:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Self publishers== | |||
| Hi, FYI, at ] a drive to slow down self-published book references is getting started. Would you like to join that project? Membership is free. ] (]) 21:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Speedy Deletion == | |||
| Please respond to the discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Quantum_Bayesianism | |||
| 77.89.233.54 23:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 01:14, 15 August 2020
Retired This user is no longer active on Misplaced Pages.Mea Culpa
I wanted to offer you an honest apology for my behavior on the Anita Sarkeesian talk page. While I stand by my general stance, I was far snarkier than necessary (I blame it on editing while traveling, but that's no excuse). I confess I am kind of amazed there isn't more reliable critical reaction (positive or negative) to Ms. Sarkeesian and her project. I tend to think it's because the field has been so completely occupied by proxy battles that there's no room left for anything else, but that's for another day. I obviously believe your proposed text was unhelpful, but I wanted you to know that when and if you (or I, for that matter) find a reliable reaction--positive or negative--which adds to the article, I will absolutely support its inclusion. Thanks, and again, sorry for the snark. Dumuzid (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- No worries. Second Quantization (talk) 09:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:Reliability
Is the Secondary Sources Reliability WikiProject still active? I remember you as being one of the founding members along with the (it appears also-retired) History2007 three years ago when I retired from WP for a few years. I don't really remember anyone else, nor am familiar with the new features of WP, so, apologies for bringing you out of retirement to ask. St John Chrysostom τω 20:30, 7 November 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) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Religious explanations of gravity listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Religious explanations of gravity. Since you had some involvement with the Religious explanations of gravity redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Second Quantization. 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)