Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:06, 6 August 2011

Welcome!

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, Truthsort! I am Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and have been editing Misplaced Pages for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Misplaced Pages! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. 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!

Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Mine

That article was already nominated. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

oops sorry i did not see it. Truthsort (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Guardians of the Free Republics

On April 7, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Guardians of the Free Republics, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Hey, I'm sorry, but I've declined your request for rollback, mainly because your last request was so recent and I don't see a large amount of vandalism reversion. I'd suggest you install Twinkle- it will revert quicker than undo, it enables you to semi-automatically warn vandals (with a complete index of warnings) and has a few other useful features. It also provides nice detailed edit summaries automatically which makes it a lot easier to see what you've done at a glance. If you install it and spend a bit of time on the recent changes, come and ask me directly on my talk page in a week, maybe 2, and I'll probably grant it. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism Fighting

Hey, I noticed you're trying to revert vandalism but have been recently declined for rollback permission. As you are no doubt aware, vandalism is a major problem on Misplaced Pages, and we need all the help we can get keeping it off the site. Huggle is a powerful tool, but if you don't know what you're doing it's easy to do much more harm than good. If you don't yet have Twinkle, I highly recommend installing it. It has a "Revert Vandal" function that works basically the same as rollback but doesn't require permission. Use this tool to gain experience. To find vandalism more easily, try Lupin's Anti-Vandal tool. This tool automatically searches recent edits for certain words or phrases and then displays them. You can then go to the edit and revert it using Twinkle. For more information on vandalfighting, go to the Counter-Vandalism Unit page. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Good luck, and welcome to the vandalfighter forces! --N419BH (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful comments. Truthsort (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

Constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:JCDenton2052 has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Template was used appropriately. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 23:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

RE: June 2010

Please read the article discussion for reasons I deleted the post. Emperorubby (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Well down the line do not blank portions of an article without discussing it and reaching a general agreement. Truthsort (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sharron Angle

Actually, up to twelve sources have been used for the most controversial issues. Seven sources are not too many, per past consensus. In any case, a long discussion on the talk page got to that consensus. So I reverted your edit. Bearian (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please enable your e-mail

Please enable your e-mail. I have an important matter to discuss with you. --Deskana (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Pamela Geller

Re: your rv of my edit to the PM article. The material I included was perfectly appropriate and well-cited. As you are apparently a newcomer to Misplaced Pages, welcome. However, please acquaint yourself with Misplaced Pages rules and guidelines before making false accusations on people's talk pages, including mine. This is considered bad form. The material I added was indeed well-cited. Stating as I did that her accusations are "controversial", "false" or unsupported is demonstrably true, and your attempt to remove this context from the article is singularly unhelpful to the Misplaced Pages effort. I trust you will refrain from such attempts in the future. Thank you. Arjuna (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Careful, you're at 2RR already, and if you exceed you will be reported. You need to explain how my edit was "my personal analysis". It is self-evidently true that her statements are "controversial", and that the relevant statements mentioned in the article are "false". I am at 1RR and will revert your rv. I suggest we take this to the talk page to avoid an edit war. Arjuna (talk) 05:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no it was not appropriate and was not well-cited. The MMfA source is just adding undue weight, especially given that MMfA criticism is already in the article. The Huffington Post source does not indicate false or unsupported comments and the other sources provided are primary sources. You see Arjuna it is all about WP:Verifiability. The brink for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. BTW, 3RR does not apply to removal of libelous and unsourced material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons. Truthsort (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Could both of you please take this to the talk page of Talk:Pamela Geller and stop the back and forth edit warring? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, I already did. But thanks, I agree (obviously). Truthsort, I think you are misconstruing the nature of Misplaced Pages - not every sentence can, or should be cited - that is ridiculous and so surely you aren't suggesting that. As for BLP, I don't think you have much of a case there. Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 05:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Arujuna, I'm sure you have only the best intentions, but BLP's are treated a bit differently than regular articles, and every sentence in contention in such BLP's must be cited. I would help out, but I find that topic extremely distasteful. Viriditas (talk) 06:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, me and the other user made two reverts, which does not violate 3RR (and even then I was just reverting content that was not verified.) Regardless, the discussion is on the talk page. Truthsort (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Geller

Hi, thanks for the message on my talk page. I appreciate that rather than speaking civilly to another editor, it's more fun to slap a BLP violation template on his talk page and treat him like a vandal. My edit was not a violation of BLP, and I invite you to bring it up at whatever forum will turn you on. Thirdly, you've been easily played by a . Cheers. — goethean ॐ 13:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Goethean, you are the local wikituggee. You think Wikpeidia and it's articles are your personal blog, and any one who edits and challenges you, is a "Joe Hazelton". Your long history of contentious, and tenuous editing speaks volumes for the kind of thug you are.

First off, Goethean, there is no Misplaced Pages policy or guideline that says you can't template the regulars, and yes your edit was a violation of BLP as you decided to wikify contentious material in the article. I also advised this ip address to take his differences to Goethean's talk page instead of mine. Truthsort (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

See history of Goeathean here...http://www.strippingthegurus.com/stgsamplechapters/integralcensorship.asp76.203.2.26 (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Please don't make unfounded accusations of other editors, linking off site will not help your case. Best, ValenShephard (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? How about actually looking in this archive and actually reading the discussions before you just show up on my Misplaced Pages page and somehow suggest that my accusations are "unfounded". Truthsort (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that ValenShephard was replying to 76.203.2.26. — goethean ॐ 21:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure he was talking to me given that I had just posted on a talk page discussion that he was in. Truthsort (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Koch article

I thought your edit to the David Koch article was a good one. The material you added was perfectly appropriate, and thanks! Arjuna (talk) 01:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Mansford RFA

Look at the time stamps closely, it was from almost two years ago. Secret 18:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

As recently as this month, a user accused him of harrassment. Nevertheless, this is a moot point because his adminship is successful.Truthsort (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Rand Paul

I placed in a news item that had four sources. I stand by all my edits, although some may have typos or be too trivial to remain. I agreed with the person who reverted my edit that, while sourced, it probably was too minor a news story to be kept in. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, four unreliable sources... Truthsort (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it gets better: the Rand campaign is trying to cover up dirty tricks, and they were caught red-handed. Are you a concern troll, or a wikilawyer? Bearian (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC

I am simply trying to help the Misplaced Pages project and not hurt it. The content you added was a violation of Misplaced Pages:BLP#Reliable_sources and WP:NOTNEWS. Truthsort (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries

PLEASE use edit summaries, especially when editing BLPs. They will at least explain why you're removing sourced information. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Why all I'm trying to do is reduce the WP:QUOTEFARM that is all. Did you really have to note this on such a minor edit? Truthsort (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider this a minor edit. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

First off, "gay affair" should not be wikified to "homophobia", second off, I just removed a quote, and third, the source I provided should not have been removed simply for being a blog. There is no blanket ban on all blogs. Truthsort (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Coons

Hey thanks for putting my edit back in. I think your wording is much better than mine too so thanks for that as well. Dwightschrute1010 (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome :) Truthsort (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Talkback

James O'Keefe

What was proven false about the 2006 Forum Controversy? Perhaps you could discuss this on his talk page? 12.69.130.210 (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Nir Rosen

Have you read WP:EL? Your recent addition of an external link to this article appears to break this particular rule. Please remove it. Tentontunic (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

How does it violate WP:EL? Truthsort (talk) 05:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

O'Donnell

"A Hill Hack Goes Prime-Time Wacko": Hardly a neutral source. And it gives no more detail on his life and career than what is already in the article. You added it simply because it was critical of O'Donnell. The "Baltimore Sun" source is a blog (replete with grammatical errors), not a reliable source. And the Irish Central source does not describe O'Donnell as "focusing a lot of his program on verbal attacks" on O'Reilly; you imposed your own POV interpretation. It's a matter of opinion that he has focused "a lot of is program on verbal attacks": your opinion. In short, you did a bit of POV-pushing, which is OK if most Wikipedians agree with you. So get consensus on the talk page before restoring. Cresix (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

"There are a bunch of sources that document O'Donnell criticizing O'Reilly. Given the brief time he has had in the new time slot, the fact that there are quite a few sources on it, indicate that he has used a good portion of his show criticizing him": First you haven't cited anything claiming that O'Donnell is "focusing a lot of his program on verbal attacks" on O'Reilly. And your finding "a bunch of sources" and then concluding that demonstrates an increase in O'Donnell's criticism of O'Reilly is synthesis of material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. You're not a newcomer; I don't plan to go back and forth with you over basic policies. Your edits have been challenged. The burden is now yours to either find sources explicitly stating that O'Donnell is "focusing a lot of his program on verbal attacks" on O'Reilly, or get a consensus. That's the way it works on Misplaced Pages. Have a good day. Cresix (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

"WP:SYN means taking two different things and combining them to reach a conclusion. That's not being done here": It's exactly what you're doing. Nowhere does a source explicitly state that O'Donnell has been "focusing a lot of his program on verbal attacks" on O'Reilly since the timeslot changed. The source says "last week". The time slot didn't change last week. And even if you said, "Last week O'Donnell ...", that's a violation of WP:RECENT. It's you who "doesn't seem to have a full grasp of Misplaced Pages policies". And one policiy that I don't intend to repeatedly remind you of is WP:CON. This is the last time I'm saying this: find a source that unequivocally (beyond your own conclusions) indicates that O'Donnell is "focusing a lot of his program on verbal attacks" on O'Reilly, or get a consensus. I feel that O'Donnell has displayed some inappropriate behavior on air, and that information is included in the article in a balanced way. But you are stepping over the line continuing to try to push this O'Reilly claim into the article. This article is a BLP and requires a very high standard for sourcing and following policies. Please don't continue to message with me the same lame arguments. It's more than a little obvious you are intent on pushing something critical of O'Donnell into the article. Cresix (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Protest

Regarding why I'm reverting your edit to the Wisconsin protests: Firstly, citing what someone wrote on RedState is not really newsworthy any more than what someone wrote on DailyKos. (And yes, this was covered by CBS, but still... it's like that NYT article citing literally "one person on a blog.") And secondly, there is exactly one news article about this (via google). If perhaps a bunch of newspapers start covering this or similar stories then this might be worth including. As it is, this really isn't newsworthy as is. And I don't feel that the actions of a few supporters are really relevant to the protests as a whole any more than the Indiana assistant Attorney general who wanted the protesters to be shot. Your edit seems to gives undue weight to this. Feel free to respond here. Seleucus (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

How is something not newsworthy simply because it was written on a blog? Here are more sources if you want. This is not a violation of undue weight, as this was just a two sentence mention in the article and is not giving that section as much of a detailed view of the protest as the more widely covered events. BTW, there have been more mischievous behavior from these protest. Truthsort (talk) 05:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Political activities of the Koch family

Howdy, I started a discussion on Talk:Political activities of the Koch family related to your recent edits. I'd encourage you to join the discussion. Thanks for the work! --TeaDrinker (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Bryant

Noah

You have reverted Joakim Noah 3 times in the last 24 hours. If you revert the edits again, you will be in violation of WP:3R and will likely be blocked. I'd advise you to discuss the issue on the talk page instead of edit-warring.--TM 18:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if you bothered to look, but I have given an explanation on the edit summaries. The content is a violation of WP:NOTNEWS and User:Arkanian33 readded it without a reason and then reverts making an argument that violates WP:NOTNEWS. Truthsort (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I did, but that doesn't mean you can endlessly revert. Read the policy.--TM 01:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism broadly construed. Lionel (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Weiner sexting scandal

Gym photos

Hi I am surprised to see you replace this trivia, its been removed again - please open a discussion thread on the talkpage rather than reinset and revert again - thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Trivia? You are seriously calling this trivia? Truthsort (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Spencer

Please stop accusing me of "adding" something that I didn't myself. I reverted one change that you made, and once only. A passing glance at the history will demonstrate this. Secondly, I think you're selectively reading the discussions that I referred you to. If it is guilt by association, then you need to demonstrate it. I pointed you to specific comments that describe a reason for specifically leaving in the reference on Spencer's article alone. The wording is also very limited.

Perhaps you would like to address these specific points made rather than smugly assert a de facto statement as proof of fact? You need to make an argument in defense of your position, and are in no position to issue an absolute dictum. Again, you might like to review the WP:BLP Noticeboard and reply there.Jemiljan (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Breivik

Could you tell me what your conclusion is on this discussion? It appears that you say that anyone cited in his manifesto should not have it mentioned in other BLPs. However, another user keeps that you think the Robert Spencer article is an exception. Truthsort (talk) 04:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't commented there about specific articles, including Spencer. Jayjg 05:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you believe, however, that this should be included in these BLPs? It just seems like the conesensus there was not to include, but the user who created section above this one says you did support inclusion and that there is no consensus. BTW, would you consider this canvassing? Truthsort (talk) 06:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at most individual cases in detail, but I haven't stated any specific mentions of Breivik should be included, and in general the consensus is that it's just guilt by association. That does look like a bit of canvassing. Jayjg 16:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

No, not canvassing - a sharing of common concerns about what appears to be an attempt to impose a consensus that has not been achieved, with an apparently determined disregard of the arguments advanced against the "consensus" position. the repetition of the claim that those opposing the "consensus" are pushing "guilt by association" is offensive and improper. Opbeith (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

First off, I was incorrect about Jayjg's conclusion. It was off2riobob who specifically mentioned not reverting the Spencer page, not Jayjg and I apologize for my confusion. Nevertheless, the issue that I am addressing is whether Breivik's quotation, mentioned together with Spencer's response, constitutes a assocation fallacy and is in violation of WP:BLP or not. I believe that if it is carefully worded, refers to reliable third-party sources, and is very brief, that it doe not constitute such a violation. Understand that I am not advocating for inclusion in articles of each and every person that Breivik has mentioned, only this one. You have continually evaded that part of my argument, Truthsort, and citing a consensus regarding the general mention of Brievik, which I am not advocating, in no way effectively addresses my point. Jayjg, I have asked you to respond to this specific point on this discussion, which you have yet to do. I think you are being a bit too sweeping in your consensus, and like Truthsort, you have not addressed my point about allowing for a very specific exception, in a very specific way, with a very specific wording. Note that I am not endorsing mention of Breivik in general, only when and where the persons so named have publicly addressed the incident.

Finally, I am absolutely not canvassing. It is very clear that I in no way asked the few individuals contacted to affect a specific outcome. These editors all participated in the last comprehensive overhaul of the "criticism" section, after it was the subject of edit warring and vandalism, and have spent considerable time building consensus before. That is the only reason that I contacted them, and I have made no attempt to persuade them one way or another regarding the inclusion of any mention of Breivik or support for my position. I merely asked for their input as long-term editors of the page in question. Jonathan Wallace in particular expended a considerable amount of energy reformatting the page in question a few months ago after a series of incidents comprised of edit wars and vandalism, and the present format was achieved through a carefully achieved consensus. You can observe this for yourself, by looking at the most recent talk archives of the page. All of this is well within the WP policy that "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus."

Also Jayjg, I note that you have now warned me for edit warring in a 48 hour period, but I find this is bit incredulous, for you have not provided a similar one to Truthsort, who has taken it upon himself to unilaterally revert the article numerous times, claiming that there was some sort of consensus, without actually citing it, and well before one had been achieved. Jemiljan (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)