Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:04, 18 September 2012

Welcome!

Hello, Psalm84, 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
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Any help I can offer, just get in touch. HJMitchell You rang? 18:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Reasons why you should join WikiProject Christianity: Obtain answers to your questions about Christianity on the noticeboard (watch) Work side by side with friendly and welcoming editors who are passionate about Christianity Free subscription to our informative newsletter Explore Christianity in depth with one of our 30 specialty groups Get recognition for your hard work and valuable contributions Find out how to get your article promoted Featured class at the Peer Review Department Choose from a collection of over 55,000 articles to improve Join today!

Human Rights in North Korea

Hey, just wanted to let you know that you probably should not be marking changes/revisions to articles as 'minor' when they are as substantial as the ones you made to the Human Rights in North Korea article! You should really only label revisions as 'minor' when you are doing something like fixing a spelling error or a capitalization error. As a general rule of thumb if you are adding or altering more than two words you shouldn't be marking your edits as minor! The Way (talk) 06:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Roman Polanski

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#section name and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, (UTC)

I posted a reply on the Roman Polanski matter in Arbcom: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Psalm84 Psalm84 (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

Your request for arbitration has been declined. The Arbitration Committee rules on conduct, not on content. You may persue other forms of dispute resolution, such as seeking a third opinion or starting a community request for comment. For the Arbitration Committee Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Motion to Revoke Bond

It's here and here. Could you put my entry back and make the citations for me? I don't know how to make a citation yet. Oops. He reported it missing in 2004, not two weeks after the shooting. That will need to be corrected. Thanks.ArishiaNishi (talk) 08:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah... if it's being reported that way in multiple RSs, then we should just skip it. Thanks. ArishiaNishi (talk) 09:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Lol, I've been perusing numerous RSs this morning regarding the MRB, and they are not in agreement as to the court's response to the passport(s) allegation. Good call to withhold my entry. ArishiaNishi (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

More reliable sources for you

I suggest you undo your last edit, (cur | prev) 04:00, 18 June 2012‎ Psalm84 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (188,670 bytes) (+37)‎ . . (→‎Zimmerman's initial detention and release: added a phrase saying the info was from an ABC report because there doesn't seem to be any other evidence of it), and include some of these sources if you feel they are needed. More reliable sources for the investigator wanting to charge Z with manslaughter on the day of the incident ArishiaNishi (talk) 05:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

See your Talk page, if you haven't. All the articles refer to the one ABC News article so it's still one source. Psalm84 (talk) 09:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

sources

We (meaning the wikipedia community) don't consider Answers in Genesis, Creation worldview, evolution news to be reliable sources, please do not use them in articles. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Hello User:Psalm84, are you the creator of this account? If so, you are now able to edit there. I hope his helps. With regards, Anupam 20:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Would you please consider defining your position?

I appreciate your comments regarding inclusion of more information about Martin, in particular the information about his recent suspensions from school. Am I mistaken to observe that you seem more in support of including such information than opposed?

Shooting of Trayvon Martin June 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Shooting of Trayvon Martin. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. You have violated the 1 revert rule on this article by reverting the same edits twice in a short period of time: and . There is a discussion about these edits taking place on the talk page, but you have continued to edit war without participating in the discussion. Please self revert to correct your 1RR violation. Thank you. Minor4th 23:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

This is what occurred, and my latest edit:

You made major changes to a section, including removing a phone call transcript and revising text. The section had been the way it was with only minor changes for months. I reverted and said it should be discussed first on the talk page.

Another editor partially reverted my edit, leaving the text changes but restoring the call transcript. You had started the talk discussion, and you reverted that editor, saying it should be discussed first. Your original edit is what should have been discussed first, however. The other editor removed what might be questionable, the text (even though it's been there months), and Talk discussion showed that the transcript was acceptable and another source, Mother Jones, could be given. Since the transcript wasn't objectionable I reverted to the version of the other editor. The consensus on the page seemed to be that the transcript should stay. One editor mentioned that some text added to the transcript, such as noting when sounds of a car door opening are heard, could be removed, but that is the only mention of it. And those things could just be removed, if you object to them. Psalm84 (talk) 02:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to post this also to your Talk page. Psalm84 (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I've addressed it on the talk page. You reverted the same info back in twice. The fact that there was an intervening edit does not matter. If 1RR is no longer the rule, so be it, but you made these reverts when other editors were right in the middle of discussing it, and you did not even bother commenting on the talk page. You should anticipate that such editing behavior is going to escalate the dispute. Take the time to actually consider my points about the transcript, rather than quickly reverting to your preferred version. Minor4th 03:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I did not revert the same info twice. I reverted to Avanu's version which is only the transcript and which left your edits. And all the other editors have been for keeping the transcript, saying it's helpful and it isn't OR but WP:TRANSCRIPTION. One said that some added text could come out, but that isn't the same as removing the whole transcript. Psalm84 (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The other editors who were discussing this were in agreement that a different transcript without the commentary and timestamps should replace the one that was in the article. While this was being discussed you reverted and reinserted the same unacceptable transcript in 3 times. By anyone else's definition, those are reverts -- even if one of them was a partial revert. Now you're reverting basically every edit I make -- what's the deal?Minor4th 02:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

See here for examples of my edits your reverted today. Minor4th 02:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

How familiar are you with the different transcripts? As I said on the Talk page, the About.com transcript is taken from Mother Jones. No other editors have objected to its accuracy for as long as it's been in there or since you have been addressing it. No one is objecting to it being back in there now, too. What was agreed with was switching the source to Mother Jones, and it was done. And I re-added the transcript while removing the commentary and the timestamps which you objected to and which aren't part of the Mother Jones transcript.

"While this was being discussed you reverted and reinserted the same unacceptable transcript in 3 times."

As I mentioned above, it's not an unacceptable transcript. There haven't been any objections to it. The first revert was when I undid your original edit, explaining that it should be discussed since the transcript and a lot of text were removed and both had been acceptable for a long time. There wasn't any discussion at that point. The second time I restored Avanu's version which you had reverted, and which had only the transcript. And the third time, after you had removed the transcript again, I said that I would re-add the transcript after making the only changes that had support from another editor, about the extra commentary and timestamps, although another editor said they were acceptable.

On the more recent edits, one was a mistake. It also removed my own edits, too. The other two changes included false information. Another editor has just removed the whole paragraph involving it. In the other case, as I see you know now, Lee didn't take over in January 2011. I also don't agree that how he got the job is irrelevant. It's been reported a lot in connection with this case for a number of reasons. Psalm84 (talk) 04:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal of talk page text

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Talk:James Eagan Holmes. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. TerriersFan (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring that. I don't know what happened that my edit removed it. Psalm84 (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Misplaced Pages username.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Misplaced Pages better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Christian Right

I see your editing the Christian Right. Have been doing some reading and wonder if its worth mentioned that those from the Christian Right are generally from rural areas and are less educated. Is this something that is general knowledge?Moxy (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• John A. Clark; Charles L. Prysby (10 September 2004). Southern Political Party Activists: Patterns of Conflict and Change, 1991-2001. University Press of Kentucky. p. 18. ISBN 978-0-8131-3742-1.
• Nicole Mellow (9 April 2008). The State of Disunion: Regional Sources of Modern American Partisanship. JHU Press. p. 110. ISBN 978-0-8018-9646-0.
• Ellen Reese (29 July 2005). Backlash against Welfare Mothers: Past and Present. University of California Press. p. 147. ISBN 978-0-520-24462-7.

Disambiguation link notification for September 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Christian right, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

DRN

I'm on record saying DRN is basically worthless, and while I don't blame you for it, the DRN about Christian right has gone off the tracks. I'm done with it and I will not be bound by it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I just posted a comment there. I don't see any reason to give up on it. This isn't an easy place because people often have very strong views and they're often not polite. It's often not easy to ignore that but it's the best thing to do. Editing won't work any other way. since this is a shared project Experience here so you start to really understand all the rules helps too. Even if something is true it's got to meet all the guidelines to be included. I think in this case the GOP connection is very obvious and strong, it's already strong in the article, and it's well-reported in sources, so it should end up being included. Psalm84 (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm unwilling to go into a good-faith discussion when so many have shown bad faith, not mention incivility and personal attacks. If they want my participation, they can redact their nonsense. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that will happen. I know what you mean about incivility here, but it's actually not so bad as discussion sites on the internet, where people really say terrible things. One difficulty here is that Christians and probably conservatives too seem to be outnumbered, but at least there are rules here. And many times by discussing things with people you disagree with, even if it's not always polite, you learn things you wouldn't have. Psalm84 (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

No doubt, there are discussion sites where members are more foul-mouthed. The problem here is that there is selective enforcement of rules against incivility. That's why they spoke elliptically about me instead of just using my name. That's why I can't speak bluntly about their sordid history. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I told you so. DRN is absolutely worthless. The moderators don't prevent personal attacks and they don't follow WP:CLOSE. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 11:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it didn't go as I hoped, but as I wrote there, not that the matter is unimportant, but it's not all-important either. And I gained more experience from it. There are some things I would have done differently myself before and during the DRN, and some things I could have done better, but now I know. Experience does matter here, from what I've seen. And, it isn't like the GOP isn't talked about throughout the article. If it wasn't, that would be a very different matter. It's also not that for many people that the GOP link isn't stated more plainly will matter that much, too, because the connection is in the news so much. All in all, it's not a make or break thing, so the thing I see to do from it is learn and keep going on.