Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:05, 4 June 2007

Please post questions/comments/whatever under the appropriate heading or under a new heading. Thanks!

Archived content can be found here.

Thank you :-)

Thanks very much for reverting unhelpful edits from Calculus; i know this message is somewhat superfluous but it's always nice to be thanked for doing a nice thing! ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ 20:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

One of them wasn't "unhelpful" as you say. 86.31.70.128 20:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-universal religious notation of years is not helpful at all. This article has no religious content, and includes primarily historical information outside the Christian tradition. Use of BCE and CE are highly appropriate, and I'd thank you to stop introducing bias and Christian-centricism into the article as if it were neutral. Cheeser1 20:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree; i'm not a christian myself, but i dont want to have to have the whole debate of "what do you mean exactly by "before christ"?", yadayada. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ 21:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see the appropriate Wiki policy which states that both BC and BCE are OK, and that the preference of the first editor should be acknowledged. In Calculus the first use of era terminology used BC, so that should stay. And what on earth are you talking about when you say "no-universal religious notation"? It's BCE that's non-universal. There are many non-religious articles on Misplaced Pages where era notation is used. BC is undertstood by everyone; BCE isn't - especially not in North America. 86.31.70.128 21:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "up" on wikipedia policy, but in the interests of neutrality.. BCE just sounds better and doesn't evoke controversy. BC evokes the idea of Christianity as Cheeser has said, hence his revert. There's nothing wrong with it -- there are a lot of people who resent the use of "BC" because it implies that human history is based entirely off the account of biblical events, rather than just recounting the events. Besides, there is no reason to argue about this; it's a Calculus article and not a historical one! ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ 21:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

If there's no reason to argue about this then why did you and Cheeser revert my original edit, which was only replacing first usage? Even if BCE sounds better, and that's debatable, no one knows what it means. 86.31.70.128 22:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Generally, it's just an anti-vandalism knee-jerk reaction. Secondly, we're restructuring the article via talk page chats, and really.. (sigh) it was a knee-jerk reaction. Done; let's go home. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ 22:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

If someone comes to an encyclopedia, I'd prefer we not verify and validate any bias, regardless of how ubiquitous you might think a term might be (BCE is well known to people, in my experience, but that is actually irrelevant since one may simply type BCE and there's an explaination). BCE is relatively neutral, BC is not. This is an article about science, and the history of this aspect of science - primarily outside the Christian tradition. It makes sense to use BCE; if for nothing else, there's no reason to use BC (although that argument may be more germane here, I would assert that it applies everywhere). As for "first usage" I'm not sure what you're talking about - the article seems to have used BCE notation for quite a while, which is actually the most relevant point in this debate (regardless of how appropriate I can argue it must be). Cheeser1 22:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Emo (slang)

"I'm glad we've established that emo is not the same as goth."

Then don't bring back information which has already been proven beyond doubt to be false on the talkpage before. - The Daddy 13:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Listen, your sarcastic, uncontributive work on that article is not appreciated. Like I said, it's not the SAME, but the statements about goth are properly sourced and the you reverting my clean-up turns appropriate, well-sourced statements into utter nonsense with insufficient sources. You've violated the three revert rule, and I will be reporting you. Furthremore, you're seriously messing up an article that was starting to actually be well-sourced, tidy, and neutral. I don't appreciate the lack of sincerity, thought, and good-intentions you have. Cheeser1 03:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Listen, its been proven on the talkpage that emo is not the same as and did not come out of goth subculture. It came from American hardcore punk related movements, and the slang term is associated with skate punk events like Warped Tour. If you are too lazy, ignorant, to read through it or even try disprove the facts then that is YOUR problem not mine.

You seem to have a lack of understanding on Misplaced Pages policies (please learn how to count, if you're claiming to be a "mathematician") and really only seem to be content with acting snooty towards me here, when my edits have only been constructive; claiming my comment was "sarcastic". Also what is "neutral" about you blatantly deriding and pushing factual inaccuracies about the gothic and punk subcultures and its connection to emo, when its already been disproven?... compromising factual accuracy is messing up the article. If you actually read the changes, the last one was just reinserting the non-defamatory intro, the rest of your alleged "clean-up" was untouched. - The Daddy 19:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The reference to minor influences of goth on emo are sourced. I'm glad you think you can "prove" something by repeatedly and firmly stating your opinion of such a thing on the Talk page, but you can't. Furthermore, your idea of a "non-defamatory" introduction is really an inaccurate one. "counterculture"? I don't think so. "comes from the word emotional"? Nope, comes from the words "emotional hardcore." let's try to be accurate here. "it is suggested that"? Those are weasel words if I ever saw any. "the culture continued to develop"? it's well documented, in Emo (music) for example, that there is a huge disconnect between early emo and later appropriations of the term. As for counting, you performed 3 reverts within 24 hours (one, two, three). Let me be the mathematician, you can stick to being a self-proclaimed "guru" of music. See how much credibility that buys you. Cheeser1 01:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There are no references at all, where even "minor" influences are cited by emo kids themselves stating gothic rock musicians and the subculture which is associated with it has influenced them. If there was an influence, these would exist; but they don't. The only so called references in existence are not reliable as they were derived from a false piece of information on Misplaced Pages itself from a while back, that somebody like you who doesnt seem to know a whole lot about alternative subcultures perpetuated in viol of WP:OR.

As far as this its "my opinion" garb, you're claiming here;

Its "my opinion" is it that not a single band associated with the term emo (slang) has played any of the goth subculture festivals such as Whitby Gothic Weekend, Wave-Gotik-Treffen, etc?

Its "my opinion" is it that gothic subculture is not related to American hardcore & skateboarding fashion?

Its "my opinion" is it that the most famous gothic rock journalist Mick Mercer makes not a single mention of the "emo (slang) subculture" or any of its associated bands in any of his writings or books on the goth subculture (not even "21st Century Goth").... no, these are what we call "facts", not "opinions".

And as for your counting skills, those 3 edits aren't exactly the same as one and other for a start, so they've not all full reverts, and its a max of 3 in a day... 3 itself is not a viol of WP:3RR (even though I did not even reach that) please learn the policy before you try to defame an editor, regards. - The Daddy 02:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Listen fella, your attitude is way out of line. First of all, read policy. WP:three revert rule states that any reverts, be they partial or full, are counted. Secondly, all of what you've just put forward as "your opinion" is in fact, exactly that. I'm glad you've come up with random examples, but you generating random examples is 100% original research, despite your self-conferred title of "music guru," you carry no authority and you have no place making assertions without reliable and accurate sources that explicitly state whatever it is you're trying to put into the article. I'm sorry if that part of Wikipeida policy escapes you, but I'm done discussing this with you; I shouldn't have to spell it out any further. Any additional nonconstructive comments you leave on my user page will be removed (although I'd like to think at some point that you'd start discussing this reasonably, or at least look up some sources for your "contributions" to that article). Cheeser1 03:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)