Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:11, 10 November 2010

I feel disappointed with the limitations of Misplaced Pages. The stated policies are at odds with the reality. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Booky's Crush

An article that you have been involved in editing, Booky's Crush, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Booky's Crush. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. CosmicJake (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Details and big picture

The problem with Misplaced Pages is that so many details are incorrect, and left uncorrected for - well, basically forever unless someone comes along to correct them. We need a system of fact-checking. It can't just be, "Anyone can edit any article anytime." That makes the default "No one says it's wrong." Which is not good enough.

We need to change to a system where no edit is exposed to the public until enough other writers or editors have checked it and have affirmed that it is correct. Contrary to the longstanding objections to this idea, it will actually improve both our editorial freedom and our article quality.

We have lost a ton of writers who have given up because it's so hard to maintain article quality when good edits can be reverted and bad edits inserted more easily than the other way around. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Democratically elected

An article that you have been involved in editing, Democratically elected, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Democratically elected. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Soman (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Free Teens

I have nominated Free Teens, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Free Teens. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Tjc₆ 14:40, 2+7 June 2010 (UTC)

Since you've participated in this before

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Korean Cuisine. Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Sorry, while I was away someone deleted it. :-( --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Independent review

Welcome. I think though the topic should better be dealt with at Peer review. After all "Independent review" is actually just a synonym for peer review and I don't see how we could maintain a separate article. De728631 (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

At some point the articles could be merged, but we need some way to distinguish between anonymous peer review and other ways the members of the scientific community check each other's work.

There's also the issue of the (claimed) breakdown of the system of pre-publication peer review.

Anyway, I won't oppose a merge vigorously, as long as there's a good redirect. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The Karate Kid

No prob. And I apologize if my edit summary seemed a bit more rude than it should've been. Reviewing it just now, I think I should've phrased it better.

So how is everything? Everything going well with the church? I've haven't been a regular attendee to the Meetups in about two years due to problems getting into the city (though I did attend the meeting back in May), but haven't seen you at any since that first picnic at which we met in August 2007. Anyway, have a great summer. :-) Nightscream (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wolfview (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Mel Gibson DUI incident

I have nominated Mel Gibson DUI incident, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mel Gibson DUI incident (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 23:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh? That's a red link. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It's here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mel Gibson DUI incident (3nd nomination). Dreaded Walrus 19:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, looking at that page you clearly found it. Dreaded Walrus 19:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes I don't wait for the answer but just go a-huntin'. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

As an aside for those who are reading this discussion and confused, the reason the 2nd nomination is a red link is it's Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mel Gibson DUI incident/(2nd nomination) i.e. uses a different format/name with the backslash instead of space. In fact the 3rd nomination was accidentally filed as the 2nd at first so I'm guessing the above was correct at the time Nil Einne (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Independent review

Hi, Ed, you've added a link to the Climatic Research Unit email controversy article which goes to Independent review, but that article's not actually relevant to the kind of independent review arranged for the Climatic Research Unit issues. Are you thinking of making major revisions so that independent review becomes relevant and is no longer a fork of peer review? If not, can you undo your linking edit? . . .dave souza, talk 14:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought that up, because I wasn't sure it was the same kind of independent review. Can you explain the difference? (I had thought that the sources I've been reading were talking about independent review as a check against bias, including ideological bias. If I've misread a source or left out an essential reference, please correct me.)

I think, based on the number of references to the concept of independent review I've been able to find in just an hour or so of Googling, that it is relevant to Misplaced Pages. Whether it's relevant to accusations that CRU engaged in misconduct is an editorial judgment. I won't edit war with you, if you choose to remove the link without further discussion.

I don't see how the Independent review article I've started is a "fork" of Peer review, at least not in the sense of violating NPOV guidelines. I believe it is within the rules to start a new page about something, even if it is destined to become a section of a larger article. There is already a consensus of 4 editors (see talk:peer review) that Independent review should be merged into Peer review. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Until your article is on the right lines, the link is irrelevant to the CRU article and you should revert it. The phrase may be UK specific, but doesn't relate to scientific peer review. . . dave souza, talk 15:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I certainly won't object if you choose to revert it with no further explanation. But I've asked in 2 or 3 places for an explanation, only to get a repeated assertion of irrelevance. Or have you already replied elsewhere? Sorry if I missed your answer. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI

You may or may not have noted . But attempting new discussions on Cl Ch right now might be viewed as provocative William M. Connolley (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, is that why Dave met me here, instead of there, when he wanted to discuss reverting my link to Independent review? Well, I'm not afraid of "provoking" my fellow contributors. Those who know me, know that all I want is a well written and impartial article. Who could be bothered by that? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you like me feel a right to assume that wiki will be essentially sane at all times. And look what happened to the both of us :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Robert L. Park copyedits

LOL. Thanks. That's very nice of you. Nightscream (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Cast or case?

Edward C. Banfield published a book in 1968 that made a simple and well-documented cast that the problems played out in ghetto neighborhoods

Do you mean case? Nil Einne (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I forget whether that was a typo, or a "copy and paste" problem. If the latter, do we add sic to the wrongly spelled word, or what? --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well it's your user page so you decide :-P Anyway looking more closely, you linked to the source which does have 'cast' so a sic would probably be in order if you want people to know it wasn't you. Looking even more closely, you can email the writer and if he fixes it you can avoid the whole issue of whether to bother to add a sic :-) BTW if we were unable to check the source, you probably should have either changed it to case or let it be, since adding a 'sic' arguably has BLP issues if the writer is alive (I'm only semi joking). Nil Einne (talk) 00:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually looking more closely, it's not clear if the author wrote that himself or his simply quoting the source. I think it's the later since otherwise most of the essay is just a bunch of quotes, and the source is simply the reference he's using. Nil Einne (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Moonie (Unification Church)

Hi Ed. Cirt and I has just started a discussion on the talk page about removing some of the extra examples and trivia from the page. Please join in if you care to. Thanks. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to, if all parties concerned agree that my participation won't result in a WP:COI complaint. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Censorship at Misplaced Pages and Conservapedia

Dear Ed,

on Aug 16, 2010 you wrote And please don't think (or say!) that we are engaging in censorship here at Conservapedia, as you guys at Misplaced Pages do. Obviously this wasn't written for comical effect, as you went on: Unless you can show at least one diff, where a senior editor censored something ... merely because it disagreed with some conservative shibboleth ... than you ought to stop saying this. I address this not so much to you, as to those who follow you or travel alongside you.

A fellow traveler called you on this bluff, giving you an example of censorship at Conservapedia: a senior editor/sysop/administrator with the ability to oversight edits had left the counterarguments when archiving the talk-page of the article Counterexamples to an Old Earth and oversighted the entries.

Of course, it's not easy to get meaningful diffs of such an action, but when you demanded so eagerly: Now show it to me; I'd like to take a look, evidence was given, in form of an screencap of an oversighted comment.

As you are an senior editor/sysop/administrator at Conservapedia yourself, you should have no problems to get the proof for the blatant censorship in this case for yourself: you could have a look at the deleted/oversighted pages before and after "archiving".

But all the eagerness to see the evidence for yourself suddenly vanished, and you decided not to have look...

This doesn't change anything on the fact that an example of blatant censorship (and convincing evidence) was shown - though maybe not seen by you. Therefore, I'd like to state for the record:

Conservapedia does engage in censorship, in contrast to wikipedia.

In the light of this little episode, I think you will agree with me.

DiEb (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Server breach

Feel free to peruse the archives on this subject and use the talk page to express your concerns. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ed, please don't jump into highly controversial articles and do stuff like this . Monckton is not a reliable source for anything other than his own opinion; and manifestly his personal opinion is of no interest in this case, other than to him William M. Connolley (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Doc, I think you have a conflict of interest, so I'm going to disregard your advice. --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Shape of the Earth Merger Discussion

Your comments are welcome at the discussion of the merger proposals involving Flat Earth, Spherical Earth, and Shape of the Earth. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Dc crime.png

Thank you for uploading File:Dc crime.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Misplaced Pages's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I created the file myself, based on statistic I found here. If you'll look at the Misplaced Pages page for this image, in the lower right hand corner, you'll see this message;

• homicide in Washington, D.C., 1960-2005 based on statistics at http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

So what's the problem? --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey Ed

Hey Ed. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 06:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

the Public Policy Initiative Assessment Team wants You!

Hi Ed Poor, I got your name from the Editorial Team participant list, and wanted to tell you that we will be testing out assessment metrics in the Wikiproject: United States Public Policy, and I was hoping you would be interested in assessing articles with the Public Policy Initiative. There is more info about assessment on the 9/13/2010 Signpost. If you're interested or just curious you can sign up on the project page or just contact me. Thanks! ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Nukespeak for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Nukespeak, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nukespeak until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yay, not yet

Not yet :P NativeForeigner /_Contribs 05:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Mental and emotional sex differences

I recently read the book Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine, which I recommend if you're interested in the question of whether there are innate psychological differences between the genders. I learned from that book that there are some physiological differences in the brain, but they're slight and the significance of them and whether they actually contribute to any psychological differences at all is totally unknown, because we don't understand the brain well enough and it's difficult to know how much it is affected by environmental factors.

I'd like to add a lot of the studies and information I learned about from this book into the articles on Misplaced Pages, but the subject is all kind of spread out in different articles. I worked on Biology of gender#Brain. Also there is Gender role#Biology, Sex-related differences in spatial cognition, sex and intelligence, Genetics of gender and Sexual dimorphism. Also, Testosterone is related to this issue. And there are probably more. --Aronoel (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems that book has already examined the question of whether there are innate differences between men and women and decided that there aren't. I suppose the basis for this conclusion is (A) the assumption that biology is all there is, since nothing supernatural is possible, or capable of being studied (see Methodological naturalism) and that (B) since environment is the only other cause worthy of consideration, that must be the place to look.

However, this doesn't seem scientific to me. We only attribute causation to genetic or "other" causes after ruling out the factors we've studied.

So, it sounds like the answer we should be putting into WP article is, "We don't know." Unless you or I stumble upon some research indicating significant innate differences. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it should definitely be "we don't know," though it's still useful to include information about the studies and experiments that have been done, even if they haven't come to any definitive conclusions. --Aronoel (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The two different viewpoints are (1) that there are no innate differences and (2) that there are innate differences. I'd like to see both viewpoints included in the series of articles you plan to edit. Using a source with the word "Delusions" in its title is good for presenting the first POV, but let's make sure not to assume that this is the only viewpoint, or that we should give it primacy because it's "scientific" or anything like that. NPOV policy requires us to describe all viewpoints fairly. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Fairly, but nowhere near with equal weight. An important distinction. When we talk about sex differences on Misplaced Pages, we are talking about science, not religion nor the supernatural. Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I think there's still some debate among scientists as to whether science necessarily excludes religion and the supernatural.

• “The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired.” - Stephen Hawking

It's not official policy at Misplaced Pages to assert that the supernatural is non-existent or otherwise incapable of being studied, is it? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages NYC Meetup Sat Oct 16

New York City Meetup Next: Saturday October 16th, Jefferson Market Library in Lower Manhattan Last: 05/22/2010 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference NYC 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Misplaced Pages Ambassador Program and Misplaced Pages Academy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Misplaced Pages and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom Discretionary sanction on Climate Change articles

Hi Ed. I'm somewhat disappointed by several of your recent edits on climate change articles - they seem pointy, and sometimes pointless to me. You have been here long enough to know that this, pure opinion without a single source, is not acceptable. The whole area has just been through the ArbCom wringer. One of the results has been the imposition of Discretionary_sanctions. Please be careful and discuss edits that are possibly contentious on talk. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for cluing me in; I had not paid any attention to the Arbcom "wringer". I will avoid making any further climate-related edits until I've studied the Discretionary_sanctions. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Notice

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Climate change if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Climate change#Final decision. Specially, I was not impressed with the way you chose to wait till the end of the Arbitration case to begin making edits you know to be controversial. NW (Talk) 17:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for this indiscretion, and as I mentioned to Stephen above, I intend to avoid this area until I understand what the committee deem to be appropriate behavior. Although I felt that I was only indicated or describing a point of view (which I think NPOV encourages), clearly my edits are not impressing anyone as being unbiased or in compliance with WP goals.

I don't think a block is necessary at this time, as I intend to pull back and think about what is required of me before getting into climate again. I appreciate the warning, and I hope when I've had a chance to study it all, I can consult you before I contemplate any additional edits in this area. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Love this one

"This New York driver is holding two cellphones at once, violating a state law."

Seriously, if holding even one cellphone while in charge of any vehicle is legal, then there is a problem with the law. He might as well be juggling hand grenades. The law says a maximum of one? Dumb law. --TS 22:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I took that photo in my own car, with my friend driving. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Horrors!

I once walked down one of those narrow side streets in the City of London, the financial district where the old walled city used to be, and encountered a very busy-looking lady in a car. She was trying to turn the car round in this narrow street while simultaneously talking on a cellphone. I don't think she even noticed me. I kept my distance until she had completed the maneuver, which took several minutes owing to the difficulty of operating the manual gear shift, the clutch, the brake and the accelerator, and the steering wheel while holding a mobile phone and trying to keep up a conversation.

She was as mad as a hatter. --TS 23:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Heteroflexible for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Heteroflexible, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Heteroflexible until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Request

I request that you voluntarily stop editing climate change articles for the time being. The fact that you plagiarized Wegman's report and then reported astonishment about the self-same plagiarism at ice cores makes me very concerned. Your article talkpage argument that this somehow justifies your hope to include more climate skeptics in science articles is all the more concerning because of this.

Relevant diffs:

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry that I forget I was the one who copied that public domain quote from the Wegman report. My "astonishment" should have been about my own poor memory.

At least I remembered to credit the source then, because (as you hinted) plagiarism can rely hurt this project.

But I don't want to include more climate skeptics in science articles. I'm only asking how much climate skepticism we need, in light of WP:NPOV, so that the mainstream views on global warming are shown in proper contrast to the minority views. I wouldn't want anything unscientific to be added to a science article, but rather a dissenting scientific view if it's in accordance with our project policy.

For example, if even one scientist published results which contradict the mainstream, and enough other scientists felt that his evidence and arguments merited study, would it be okay to include these? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Please don't take this the wrong way, but you should make sure that you understand precisely what plagiarism means. 50% of American graduate students haven't go a clue and think it's acceptable to incorporate a sentence almost literally into their text so long as they add a citation to the source. 4 years ago you made that mistake with an entire paragraph, and it's not clear from your above response that you now understand it was wrong. There are some good explanations at WP:Plagiarism, and many universities also have helpful documents on the topic, precisely because their students find it so counterintuitive. Hans Adler 22:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Not to pile on, but why do you think the Wegman report is in the public domain? It may very well be, but there is no obvious reason for this assumption. In particular, it's not been created by the US government or government employees in their official capacity. Unless it has been explicitly released into the public domain, the copyright is with the authors. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for those clarifications. You are saying that Misplaced Pages policy and/or the free license concept, as applied to collaborative writing, does not permit incorporating public domain text. It must be quoted. Do I understand you correctly, Hans?

And Stephen, you are right about my assumption that the Wegman report was in the public domain. I did not check. I assumed that since it was a product of the US government, but I failed to check this.

Good catches all around, and I've really learned something today that will help me be a better WP contributor. Thanks, guys! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries (well, no new worries ;-). Just to clarify: We do agree now that the report is not a product of the US government, right? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

To be precise, I agree to trust it to be whatever you've already found it to be. It's not facts we've ever disagree on, you realize. ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. From the POV of our licence incorporating text that is really public domain (that text probably wasn't) would be fine. But doing it in a way that doesn't make it obvious that it's copied literally and maybe superficially rephrased still makes it plagiarism, which is much less critical than a copyvio but still not allowed. Hans Adler 15:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, Hans. This means that my use of a quote from the Wegman report - which I summarized as from public domain ) - was not plagiarism, because I did make it clear that I copied it literally. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No, that's wrong. If that's the diff that I remember (I don't want to hunt down the Wegman report again to compare the text and see if that's the diff that lifts entire paragraphs from it without quotation marks), then it's definitely plagiarism in addition to the copyvio. A reasonable reader seeing that passage would think that you have written it on your own and the reference is for a document part of which you summarised or at least put in your own words. Readers cannot be expected to guess that you copied literally if you don't say so. If the document were a work of the US government and you wanted to copy part of it literally into the article, you would have had to use a template such as Template:US government or equivalent text. Hans Adler 16:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, my! You're saying that the Edit summary from public domain and the link were insufficient.

So the next time I will use quotation marks, or a quotation template, or something like that. Are we on the same page now? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was trying to say. Since it didn't seem clear to you, I reiterate that you should read a bit about plagiarism. Obviously Misplaced Pages is a bit more tolerant in that respect than academia, but still not as much as most people believe, and as I said in the beginning most students aren't even aware when they plagiarise because they don't understand the concept. But I am glad everything seems to be cleared up now. If you remember any specific other cases in the past it would be nice if you could fix them, but so long as there are no further copyvios it's not a big deal at all. Hans Adler 17:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Deprecation of Template:Newbie

A template you created, Template:Newbie, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. Bsherr (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Edge motion for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Edge motion, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Edge motion until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Alfred Kinsey

Hi, I've reverted your edits on the above page. I've said why on the talk page. Please feel free to respond, but please put all comments on the talk page so they're gathered together and available to all. --Simon Speed (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Starrquacks

Template:Starrquacks has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay to delete, Thanks, Ham. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of pro-Communist bias in your edits

An editor has claimed that you are among communists "freely roaming in wikipedia to disseminate their studies unchecked". You may comment here. TFD (talk) 00:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge

I've just suggested merging True Family into List of Unification Church members since the information in the first is mostly aready in the second. Please discuss if you like: Talk:List of Unification Church members#Merge in True Family. Kitfoxxe (talk) 09:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate being asked for input, but I got zapped with a prohibition against editing or commenting on UC-related articles, due to some idea that I have a WP:COI.

Ironically, in the old days I was considered a model of neutrality, even on my own church, and my fellow contributors were begging me to write more about my church's teachings and so forth. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement - Violation of topic ban from Unification Church articles

Please see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Ed_Poor. -- Cirt (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."