| Revision as of 15:46, 25 May 2013 editSrich32977 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers299,640 edits →Canvassing template: comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:49, 25 May 2013 edit undoCarolmooredc (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,944 edits →Canvassing template: just relevant infoNext edit → | ||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
| ::Your notice on the Libertarian project had the same sort of improper editorial comment that SPECIFICO had posted. I changed every one of those notices and I changed yours too. You are unduly complicating things. Adding extraneous (and incorrect) material to the RfC discussion page just complicates matters. Involved editors get to make jabs at you (and me) and non-involved editors roll their eyes. As you mention you left a "relevant" message on the talk page, but I am talking about your behavior, not the article. Please accept a word-to-the-wise, and stop fighting over these non-issues. – ] (]) 15:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC) | ::Your notice on the Libertarian project had the same sort of improper editorial comment that SPECIFICO had posted. I changed every one of those notices and I changed yours too. You are unduly complicating things. Adding extraneous (and incorrect) material to the RfC discussion page just complicates matters. Involved editors get to make jabs at you (and me) and non-involved editors roll their eyes. As you mention you left a "relevant" message on the talk page, but I am talking about your behavior, not the article. Please accept a word-to-the-wise, and stop fighting over these non-issues. – ] (]) 15:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :::Now you are really screwing up on this RfC! Nobody contacted Chris or LK. Chris saw the notice on a project and LK follows the article/editors. (Are there notices on their talk pages? No!) Adding the tags just makes you look partisan and/or POV-pushing. Remove those tags. Please just remove them. – ] (]) 15:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC) | :::Now you are really screwing up on this RfC! Nobody contacted Chris or LK. Chris saw the notice on a project and LK follows the article/editors. (Are there notices on their talk pages? No!) Adding the tags just makes you look partisan and/or POV-pushing. Remove those tags. Please just remove them. – ] (]) 15:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::::I don't think leaving the link and what they want to change it to is more than providing relevant info (since that IS what they've changed it to repeatedly, isn't it?) without charged words that would tell people come and do it. And it's obvious we don't agree on everything :-) But I think neither of us are driven by academic jealousy and a desire to destroy a person using Misplaced Pages, and that's what counts. But you can read the BLPN when I put it together. ''] - <small>]</small><big>🗽</big> 15:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:49, 25 May 2013
Please post comments about the content of a specific article on the Talk Page of that Article if it is relevant to all editors.
 Green Line for Barnstars and Other Stuff
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
Gender bias task force
Hi Carol, something here you might be interested in. Best, SlimVirgin 00:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Snyder on Hoppe
You had added the Snyder comment on the Hoppe/UNLV controversy. How about adding some Hoppe talk page thoughts on expanding Snyder's quotation? – S. Rich (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- If someone challenges it. But obviously leaving out half of what he says and then criticizing it is problematic under WP:BLP. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 05:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- You put it in, I added another sentence, SPECIFICO reverted (and I re-reverted -- shame on me). I feel the second sentence is pertinent because it is in context and explains further why academic freedom applied in that particular case. (The discussion with SPECIFICO is fairly focused.) – S. Rich (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I can't find the diff in question so not sure what you are talking about. The second half of the Snyder comment on academic freedom that I removed since first part really is most relevant? CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- You put it in, I added another sentence, SPECIFICO reverted (and I re-reverted -- shame on me). I feel the second sentence is pertinent because it is in context and explains further why academic freedom applied in that particular case. (The discussion with SPECIFICO is fairly focused.) – S. Rich (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
You're Invited: Smithsonian Field Notes Edit-a-Thon, Friday June 21
The Field Book Project, a joint effort of the National Museum of Natural History and the Smithsonian Institution Archives, invites you to an edit-a-thon on the scientific field diaries held at the Smithsonian on Friday, June 21, 10am-5pm. Activities include new editor orientation and a behind-the-scenes tour of the Smithsonian’s Russell E. Train Africana Collection. Participants will also be invited to preview and test transcribe field book materials using the Smithsonian’s new digital Transcription Center. Coffee and lunch generously provided courtesy of Wikimedia DC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitaleffie (talk • contribs) 13:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Webinar / edit-a-thon at the National Library of Medicine (NLM)
Join us at the NLM next week, either in person or online, to learn about NLM resources, hear some great speakers, and do some editing!
On Tuesday, 28 May there will be a community Misplaced Pages meeting at the United States National Library of Medicine in Bethesda, Maryland - with a second on Thursday, 30 May for those who can't make it on Tuesday. You can participate either in-person, or via an online webinar. If you attend in person, USB sticks (but not external drives) are ok to use.
Please go to the event page to get more information, including a detailed program schedule.
If you are interested in participating, please register by sending an email to pmhmeet@gmail.com. Please indicate if you are coming in person or if you will be joining us via the webinar. After registering, you will receive additional information about how to get to our campus (if coming in-person) and details about how to join the webinar. Klortho (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Canvassing template
"There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article." Just who are the specific editors? SPECIFICO posted all over the place and I have revised those postings. He complained (incorrectly) about your "canvassing" and I defended you in that matter. (As I recall I said just because people are looking at particular project pages does not mean they have specific viewpoints.) The only specific editor that SPECIFICO notified was FurrySings. (And that was proper because Furry started the whole mess.) The canvassing issue is already mentioned on the RfC. It does not need more attention as it will only distract from the RfC topic. And should there be a discussion about posting the lousy canvassing template? JFC! The talk page has got too much garbage already. Please take down the template. (Or let me do it.) – S. Rich (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- See my relevant message just left on article talk page. Please discuss issue there. And read WP:Canvass. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Your notice on the Libertarian project had the same sort of improper editorial comment that SPECIFICO had posted. I changed every one of those notices and I changed yours too. You are unduly complicating things. Adding extraneous (and incorrect) material to the RfC discussion page just complicates matters. Involved editors get to make jabs at you (and me) and non-involved editors roll their eyes. As you mention you left a "relevant" message on the talk page, but I am talking about your behavior, not the article. Please accept a word-to-the-wise, and stop fighting over these non-issues. – S. Rich (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Now you are really screwing up on this RfC! Nobody contacted Chris or LK. Chris saw the notice on a project and LK follows the article/editors. (Are there notices on their talk pages? No!) Adding the tags just makes you look partisan and/or POV-pushing. Remove those tags. Please just remove them. – S. Rich (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think leaving the link and what they want to change it to is more than providing relevant info (since that IS what they've changed it to repeatedly, isn't it?) without charged words that would tell people come and do it. And it's obvious we don't agree on everything :-) But I think neither of us are driven by academic jealousy and a desire to destroy a person using Misplaced Pages, and that's what counts. But you can read the BLPN when I put it together. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Now you are really screwing up on this RfC! Nobody contacted Chris or LK. Chris saw the notice on a project and LK follows the article/editors. (Are there notices on their talk pages? No!) Adding the tags just makes you look partisan and/or POV-pushing. Remove those tags. Please just remove them. – S. Rich (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Your notice on the Libertarian project had the same sort of improper editorial comment that SPECIFICO had posted. I changed every one of those notices and I changed yours too. You are unduly complicating things. Adding extraneous (and incorrect) material to the RfC discussion page just complicates matters. Involved editors get to make jabs at you (and me) and non-involved editors roll their eyes. As you mention you left a "relevant" message on the talk page, but I am talking about your behavior, not the article. Please accept a word-to-the-wise, and stop fighting over these non-issues. – S. Rich (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)