Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:54, 22 August 2007

Welcome!

Hello, Yilloslime, 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
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  --Dirk Beetstra 08:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Check it out

You might enjoy the new political social networking site - 20DC. Just thought I'd let you know.

Various tags

Hi, the one tag is a redirect to the other. SB will not change it again unless it visits the article for soem other reason, but if you think the two tags should be distinct, it might be worth creating or asking for distinct tags. If this happens, please let me know. Thanks for keeping me abreast of the situation. Rich Farmbrough 16:17 1 June 2007 (UTC).

3RR violation

I've noted one over at Stephen Milloy and invited the user concerned to self-revert. Now I really must get back to my Wikibreak.JQ 07:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Rachel Carson

FYI, I've posted a query for you at Talk:Rachel Carson. Please take a look when you get a chance. Thanks. Ronnotel 17:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have replied there. Thanks. Yilloslime 00:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Steven Milloy article

Hello. Given ongoing developments (or lack of development) at Talk:Steven Milloy, I'm strongly considering opening a request for comment on the conduct of User:NCdave. I find his approach, at this point, to be tendentious in the extreme, and I think that outside input might help move things beyond the impasse at which we seem to be stuck. As I realized when exploring this option, this would not be NCdave's first RfC; that would be found here, having to do with NCdave's tendentious editing on Terri Schiavo. In any case, I would be interested in your thoughts on the subject. MastCell 04:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll be sure to weigh in if/when it happens. Can you let me know if you open the request for comment? Thanks.Yilloslime 05:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I will. In order to get started, user-conduct RfC's generally require at least a few people to verify that they've tried to resolve the issue and failed (this prevents individuals from filing frivolous RfC's over one-on-one disputes). So I will let you know. MastCell 17:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

So MastCell, how 'bout that RfC?Yilloslime 23:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Demanddebate.com

I like how they claim to be "concerned about the intellectual climate" and the stifling of debate, and their response is to hire planes to drown out people they don't agree with. Perhaps irony really is dead. It's definitely got the telltale fingerprints on it. As to including it in Steven Milloy, I think it's borderline. A lot of the sourcing is either primary/original synthesis (e.g. the WHOIS records) or questionable secondary (the National Review blog posting), although as the National Review is pretty well-known, it's potentially acceptable. If anyone feels strongly about it, though, it may need to be removed until a more reliable secondary source pops up. Of course, it looks like they are seeking publicity, so it may not be long. MastCell 16:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's borderline, and if it gets removed I won't argue/revert as long as the reverter attempts to justify why it should be removed. As it stands now, there seems to be consensus that it should stay so.... The national review post is odd--I believe it is legit (why would Milloy's CEI collegue Iain Murray lie)--but it is odd. I almost think that Murray erred in making the post. What is he quoting from, an email from Milloy or an internal CEI document? As far as I can tell, Milloy/CEI/junkscience has not yet public owned up to demanddebate.com. I wouldn't be surprised if that National review post mysteriously disappears.

Anyways, I agree that's a little ridiculous (disingenuous) to claim to be "concerned about the intellectual climate" and then literally drown out their opponents arguments by hiring a plane to buzz the podium. And doing it anonymously no less! Yilloslime 17:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I also love how the site has News posts going back to December 2006, but according to whois.net, the site wasn't registered until April 07. It looks like they are trying to make it look like the sight has been around for longer than it really has been (can you say astroturf?), but I don't know enough about domain name registration to say for sure. www.archive.org hasn't indexed it yet either, leading me to believe that it's relatively new. Yilloslime 17:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

About DDT naming

"classical" naming should be avoided. A Guide to IUPAC Nomenclature of Organic Compounds R Panico, W H Powell and J-C Richer Blackwell Science,1993

I am not aware of any Misplaced Pages policy or guideline that says this. Yilloslime 02:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

IARC

Curious about your thoughts on my summary of the controversy over the 1998 WHO/IARC study at the suddenly-very-active passive smoking page. MastCell 20:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have limited computer time in front the computer today and this weekend, but I will try to look at this stuff as soon as I can. It might take a day or two though. I'll let you know. Yilloslime 02:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I just read the Lancet study (thanks for the link by the way). I think your summary in passive smoking page is right on. Yilloslime 18:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Matt Drudge. As a member of the Misplaced Pages community, please be aware of Misplaced Pages's policy that biographical information of living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article must include proper sources. Thank you. The source cited is an obscure newspaper, and is derogatory, violating WP:BLP#Sources. Crockspot 00:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• I also reverted your revert of my edit to Think tank. SourceWatch is a wiki, and like Misplaced Pages, is not considered a reliable source for article content. SourceWatch may be allowed in some circumstances as an external link, but never for sourcing article content. It is interesting that you made two reverts of recent edits in my history, to articles which seem out of the way of your normal editing pattern. Are you trying to make some sort of point, or are you just Blowing Smoke? - Crockspot 00:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• One more thing, this source is a blog, also known as a self-published source. Self-published sources may only be used in articles about themselves, per WP:V. There are three other more reliable sources supporting the claim anyway, so its loss doesn't affect the article in any way. - Crockspot 00:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The New York Press is most certainly not obscure, and has a comparable circulation to the Washington Times. The article is critical of Drudge, but no more derogatory than a WSJ editorial criticizing the Clintons. Or any liberal, for that matter.

I'm anticipating an argument from some quarters that since NY Press is a weekly and Wash Times is a daily, that the circulation numbers aren't comparable. In that case, please note the New York Press has a much higher circulation than the Weekly Standard. --Eleemosynary 03:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Eleemosynary that the New York Press is anything but "an obscure newspaper" and that article in question is no more "derogatory" than sources used in other biographies. The source meets all the requirements of WP:V and WP:BLP and therefore is fair game.

As for sourcewatch--last I knew there was no consensus about whether sourcewatch was not acceptable. I have looked for discussion on this and haven't found it--can you point me in the right direction? It seems to me that quoting an opinion from from Sourcewatch, with proper attribution in the article (i.e. "Sourecewatch argues...") ought to be acceptable, especially outside the context of WP:BLP. On the other hand, using sourcewatch as a source for facts and only attributing it them in references, is a different beast entirely. Anyways, I'm not interested in reopening any settled debates: if Sourcewatch specifically has been ruled out by consensus then I can live that, but if you're are simply applying a broader decision or policy, then I think there is some room for debate. (I'm not sure that I have the energy for it.)

Anyways' you seem to be wrong about the New York Press at least. Yilloslime 16:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm short of time at the moment, and a lot of the policy and guideline pages have had their content shuffled around, but here is a recent template deletion discussion that illustrates some of the problems with SourceWatch as a reliable source. Beyond issues of bias, the main reason that open wikis are not allowed as reliable sources is that one can never guarantee what is going to appear on the screen at any given random time, when the source page is loaded. It could be good info, or it could be "POOP". That is the main reason that Misplaced Pages is not allowed to source itself, and the principle holds for all wikis. As to the Drudge issue, I think that the arguments presented on Talk:George Soros in opposition to including well-sourced criticism from Bill O'Reilly apply here, and Eleemosynary was a strong opponent of including that information in the Soros article. The O'Reilly criticism is nowhere near as harsh and derogatory as the piece I removed from Drudge. O'Reilly is certainly more notable (as is his opinion) than the NYPress author. I really would like to see a consistent treatment of sources in all articles, and I try to apply that wherever I edit, but I already have about a thousand articles on my watchlist, so I can't fix everything. (PS. I am not opposed to all criticism in Matt Drudge, I am only opposed to this particular criticism. I also think there is an undue weight problem, since there is only one link under "Praise", and two under "Criticism", one that calls him a "nasty little faggot". Sourced notable criticism is fine, but this one is only there to bash Drudge, and to insert the "gay allegation" that has so far been kept out of the article by consensus.) - Crockspot 17:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's cut through it, shall we? There's been a long campaign to keep anything critical of Drudge off the page, and the NYPress article is not principally about Drudge's sexuality, it's about Drudge's attacks on Brock. And articles critical of Drudge haven't been kept off the page by "consensus," they've been kept off by policy shopping, ("It violates WP:RS! Oh wait... it doesn't? Well then... it violates WP:BLP! Oh wait... it doesn't? Well then... it violates "undue weight"! Oh, wait... ad infinitum). Well, we now have a reliable source, from a noted author, which does not violate BLP. An editor has tried to claim NYPress is "obscure." Wrong. He's made the claim that Signorile or Brock are irrelevant because he hasn't heard of them. Also wrong. If an editor is worried about "undue weight," he can insert another complimentary article under "Praise." But the constant policy shopping is tiresome. --Eleemosynary 19:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, responding to original wording above) It's a nice dodge to attack another editor with a charge of "policy shopping", but it doesn't explain your about turn on the principle of the argument. Why are you fighting for the inclusion of an attack article that labels the subject a "nasty faggot", while you vehemently oppose any criticism in Soros? You haven't explained that bit of apparent hypocrisy. And fyi, you should have learned by now that if you are going to make a broad-brush accusation regarding me, you had better have some diffs backing up your assertion. Policy shopping is not even a guideline, it is an essay written by one user who made up the concept, and it is a very flawed concept which discounts the very foundation of western discourse, namely the Socratic method. I have already told that user that his essay will lead to user's citing it when they cannot beat someone on the merits of the arguments, and here we are. There has been long-standing consensus developed on Talk:Matt Drudge that the gay allegations are not verifiable enough, nor notable enough, to be in the article. But here it is being slipped in under the guise of "legitimate criticism". You appear to have flip-flopped. I challenge you to find the same inconsistency in my arguments anywhere I have edited this year. I also challenge you to find anything that can be characterized as "policy shopping" as well. Until you do, any further use of that term by you relating to me will be regarded as a personal attack, and handled appropriately. - Crockspot 19:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize that I was stepping into hornet's net when I made that edit on the Matt Drudge page. If you two have a history of warring, that's unfortunate, and I would prefer to not be involved. My only point is that justification for removal of the link was spurious. The link clearly meets WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:V. I would also point out that nothing in WP:WIEGHT says that there needs to be equal numbers of links or equal amounts of words given to the positive and negative aspects of a subject. Yilloslime 20:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I hear you, this discussion should be taking place elsewhere. I will copy most of this thread to Talk:Matt Drudge. - Crockspot 20:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Some more info has come to light re Drudge's homosexuality on the Talk page. Would you mind stopping by and taking a look? It basically concerns Brock's published accounts of his relationship with Drudge in Blinded by the Right, which the Signorile article references. --Eleemosynary 00:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unwarranted changes.

The section for Sanjay Gupta was debated at length and it was decided by all sides that the section on the Moore controversy was too long. Please refrain from making unwarranted changes in the future. --Rotten 00:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I checked the Talk page and didn't see anything, but admittedly, it was a just a quick scan--I must have missed it. Yilloslime 16:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

RFM:Passive Smoking

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Passive smoking, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Misplaced Pages:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

I did initially think that User:71.72.217.102 might be a straw sock of yours, but I don't really think that anymore. Bbut that IP does appear to be a sock of someone's, and it appears you believe so too. Hunting sockpuppets is an inexact science at best. Even WP:CHECK has its limitations - Crockspot 19:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I just replied to your post over at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Passive_smoking. I am happy that you have no longer think I'm a sockpuppet/sockpuppeteer, though I deeply resent the accusation, and definitely do not appreciate your behaviour--discussing the matter with other users (then deleting the discussion), rather than being up front about it and coming to me directly, or at least posting the accusation on a page I have a history of editing. As I noted over at the RfM, you seem to have a history of this... FYI 71.72.217.102 is Chido6d, though i don't think Chido is sockpuppetting, I think he/she just forgets to log in. As I previously noted on Talk:Passive Smoking, 71.204.186.153 and 69.181.208.181 are MickeyKlein, and again I think he/she just forgets to log in. Now its certianly possible that there may be some real sockpuppetry happening, too, but I don't think so--I haven't seen anything suspicious.Yilloslime 19:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

My apologies for editing your user page, I thought it was your talk page.--Rotten 21:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Yilloslime, I believe you have violated WP:3RR on the Steve Milloy article , , , please read the policy and do not break the rule in the future, thanks. --Theblog 03:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I know what WP:3RR says; I've read it many times. These reverts are not of the same thing, and therefore I have not violated the rule. If you think I am in violation of the rule, I invite you to report me. Otherwise, please refrain from making false accusations.Yilloslime 04:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the reverts are of the same thing or not: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." I was warning you as a courtesy. --Theblog 05:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Point duly noted. I have never seen the rule actually applied that way, but none the less, I cede the point. Thanks. Yilloslime 05:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Just self-reverted (begrudgingly.) Yilloslime 05:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

cool! --Theblog 06:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Ya. Regardless of what WP:3RR actually says, I'm still not convinced that the rule is ever applied in cases like these--I just spot checked about ~15 reports over at WP:AN3 that resulted in bans, and all of them were cases in which an editor reverted the same material. Meanwhile, it seems like editors often make 3+ unrelated reverts to the same article, without being reported or even warned. And it even kind of seems like an illogical policy that "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor different material each time." What if an editor dropped a POV-tag on one section, then I reverted it, then he dropped it on a different section, and then I reverted that, etc. Pretty quickly I'd be in violation of WP:3RR, meanwhile the insigating editor would have zero reverts. Futhermore, had I waited until all the tags had been dropped, then reverted in masse, that would be only one revert. So, while well intentioned, the policy doesn't seem to make any sense. But whatever: I'd rather be on the safe side, and edit warring is bad and so is wikilawyering, hence the self-revert. I'm gonna see if there's anything on Wikipedia_talk:Three-revert_rule about this.Yilloslime

Theblog is correct; any reverts count toward the 3RR, but that is a little-understood part of the policy. Most cases do involve making the same revert over and over, but (to take a recent example), NCdave had reverted a number of different edits and thus violated the rule. The only real safeguards to the kind of gaming of the system you describe are that admins who review the report generally try to take such things into account (which is why enforcement is not automatic). MastCell 18:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I only did two reverts within 24 hours. My other two so-called "reverts" were both actually the insertion of warning tags which had never before been placed there, and so were not reverts.

But Yilloslime's violation was very clear: four pure reverts within just over two hours. I did not report this for a month, Yilloslime, because I prefer to seek consensus rather than bludgeon other editors with the rules. But since you and MastCell are now trying to get me banned from contributing to the Steven Milloy article, and MastCell and Raul have just banned Peroxisome, it is clear that you don't care about consensus, you are out to take no prisoners. So, reluctantly, I have reported your violation on the 3RR noticeboard. I'm sorry that it came to this, because you prefer edit warring to consensus building. NCdave 06:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

DLTN

Thank you for that information, YS. That account has now been blocked indefinitely for doing the same kind of thing elsewhere, and for a BLP violation. Cheers, SlimVirgin 02:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Organochoride pesticides and causes of autism

Could you please elaborate a bit further in Talk:Causes of autism#Organochloride pesticides as to (1) what's wrong with laysummary= and (2) why the two pesticides are not teratogens? In particular, why would fetal alcohol syndrome mean that ethanol is a teratogen, whereas a causal relationship between pesticides and autism would not mean that the pesticides are teratogens? Eubulides 00:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I've replied over there. Briefly, endosulfan and dicofol are not recognized human teratogens like, say, DES or thalidomide, therefore it's incorrect to discuss these insecticides under the subheading of "Teratogens." As for FAS--I don't know, I haven't followed that. But the word 'teratogen' is generally understood to refer to agents causing physical birth defects, and, as I recall, there are characteristic physical birth defects associated with FAS. My problem with the reference format is that it makes it look like the Cone article and the EHP report are the same thing. When referencing two different works it's costumary (at least in the scientific literature) to give everything it's own cite, and was just trying to do that here. Also I wanted to give the Cone article a proper citation (author name, date, title, etc.) Yilloslime 01:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Political correctness

I wonder if you'd mind taking a look at political correctness. From my perspective, this article was in pretty good shape until recently, but has come under attack from a couple of determined POV-pushers, similar to problems encountered in Passive smoking and elsewhere. Of course, YMMV. JQ 08:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look. FYI I have limited internet time these days... Yilloslime 19:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

NCdave

I have proposed, on the community sanction noticeboard, that NCdave (talk · contribs) be banned from the Steven Milloy article and talk page for long-term disruptive and tendentious editing. As a participant on said article, I am notifying you of the thread. MastCell 22:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I'll take a look. He's seems to be turning his attention to the TASSC page now too. Yilloslime 22:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yilloslime, I refrained from reporting your 3RR violation for a month, because I prefer to seek consensus rather than bludgeon other editors with the rules. But since you have joined MastCell, Raul654, etc. in trying to get me banned from contributing to the Steven Milloy article altogether, and Raul has just banned Peroxisome, it is clear that you don't care about consensus, you are out to take no prisoners. So, reluctantly, I have reported your violation on the 3RR noticeboard. I'm sorry that it came to this. NCdave 06:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. However, note that in addition to being rather stale, this has previously been dealth with: User_talk:Yilloslime#3RR & . Yilloslime 06:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Yilloslime, I came here after reviewing the AN3 notice regarding your edits to Steven Milloy one month ago, and intended to remind you of the 3RR, but I see from the above that the entire issue had been dealt with long ago. Hope you guys are able to find a solution to the article. Take care -- Samir 06:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey. Thanks for reviewing things. Yilloslime 06:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)