Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:22, 14 June 2013

This user wants to see everything in its place. Green Line for Barnstars, Archives, Other Stuff
Barnstars/Kittens/et al My Cheatsheet - My Sandbox - /My Sandbox 1 - /My Sandbox 2 - /My Sandbox 3 - /My Sandbox 4 Archive I: 2006-2007 - Archive II: Jan-March 2008 - Archive III: March-Dec 2008 - Archive IV: 2009 - Archive V: 2010 - Archive VI: 2011 -Archive VII: 2012 - Archive VIII: 2013 Link to Newsletters I Need to Read

Gender bias task force

Hi Carol, something here you might be interested in. Best, SlimVirgin 00:19, 7 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)

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, June 15!

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, June 15 at 5:30 PM. All Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill  19:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

strikeouts

Strongly recommend you strikeout the rest of the comment. (Or simply remove the whole thing. It will remain in the edit history.) Nothing about competence of an (or any particular) editor in that comment is related to article improvement. Moreover, not well founded. – S. Rich (talk) 05:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it's totally founded, and he is incompetent by Misplaced Pages standards, plus a lot of other things, but will reserve for another place. Since no one's responded, guess ok to remove. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 05:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Your changes are not much better. (Indeed, worse.) You are commenting on editor behavior, and not on article improvement. – S. Rich (talk) 05:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Why not complain about him insulting the subject of the article?? CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 05:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Complain all you like -- but not on the article talk page. It doesn't help improve the article. – S. Rich (talk) 05:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

So you are telling me to take it to BLPN. Tomorrow afternoon. Beddie byes now. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 05:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Take it wherever the hell you like. I make no such suggestion! (And you won't get very far in any case.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

BLPN is a place to get comments on a) issues like whether OR is allowed in BLPs and b) whether insulting the subject repeatedly is OK. Frankly, the problem is no one went there immediately and fooled around elsewhere. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 05:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Polite comments and warnings about behavior are always relevant, including to article improvement. Of course, when other people are just mocking the subject of the article and wikipedia policies, one can get annoyed. A reminder that one has inappropriately expressed annoyance is fine. A broad statement that comments on behavior are off topic just add to the annoyance. Let's all read again Misplaced Pages:Civility#Dealing_with_incivility. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 12:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

In the present case, there is a certain amount of antagonism between you and the other editor. As a result, comments about the other editors on their user talkpages cannot be helpful. But if they are not helpful on the user talkpages, they are even less helpful on the article talkpages. In fact, as I have often seen, they are disruptive. The various essays and guidance on PA, CIVILITY, etc. have one bit of advice that you (e.g., you and any other editor reading these comments) could and should follow – ignore the remarks. See WP:SHUN for more in this regard. – S. Rich (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

User:KhabarNegar

I'm considering taking User:KhabarNegar to WP:ANB/I for a block on the basis he lacks the social skills and competence to contribute.

He was taken to WP:DRN from his behavior on Sanctions_Against_Iran, the result is here. They refused/recommended WP:RFC/U or WP:ANB/I. Every edit he disagrees with is harassment, trolling, vandalism. He does not participate coherently in the talk page. He is incapable of understanding basic concepts like the difference between an opinion piece and a news article (eg here). He introduces copyvio's into articles. He's got so far as to edit war over over archival, apparently not understanding what it actually does (edit war and confusion). I took specific opinion-piece-supported passages to a RfC and he obliged but continues edit warring over similar usages of one of the articles which is also a copyvio (article history).

Anything to add? Is WP:ANB/I appropriate? Any other comments/suggestions? TippyGoomba (talk) 05:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI faster and can lead to better results. And the DRN did mention it as an option. RfC user probably won't help.

In either case, I'll add a few specific diffs/issues in exactly the same vein. Would do it myself but have been there too often lately on other issues. NPGuy needs to be contacted too; he and I may have different POV on nuke issues, but he's a reasonable editor. Still waiting to see if thunderstorms will zap my connection and/or the power... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 05:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

There's no rush. I still wouldn't mind seeing if he stops participating in the talk when I stop edit warring with him. Let me know when you want to move things forward. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

We can always think positive thoughts :-) Really frustrated today in general by WP. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 02:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

"racialist science"

On the Rothbard article, if the "racialist science" bit is what is irking you, do chop it out. I didn't mean it as a pejorative, but if that is how it looks and is coming across, just chop it out. "similarities and differences between ethnic groups" is pretty neutral, so if the "racialist" aside comes across as something otherwise, just cut it.

As another aside, I honestly don't know why libertarians, of all stripes, don't form a joint political party as a Phase 1 booting out of the rentier-owned governing class we have at the moment. Imagine it! Government diminished! Businesses having to face the consequences of their actions! No more bank bailouts! No more rent-seeking masquerading as "privatisation"! Actually having genuine markets keeping costs down for everyone! etc. etc. Save for obvious exceptions, anything is an improvement on what we have at the moment. Well, such an effort at unity would have to fall apart at some point, but initially we might perhaps achieve a lot by working together, no? Maybe I'm a dreamer... Hugs, kisses.

LudicrousTripe (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Given the second paragraph, won't move this back to article talk page. Either interpretation really is WP:OR on primary source, so I figured might as well be explicit about what he was saying. I was in a hurry to get out of the house and didn't have time to figure out what seemed best thing to quote on the racialist science (yuk) topic. (Especially given wikipedia seems fine with Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence.)

Just to soapbox on my own talk page: It seems ridiculous to stress any minor genetic differences that may exist (and I have not studied that area at all), given that environmental, health and cultural factors are so much more important that they easily can outweigh whatever minor genetic differences may exist. But Rothbard's personality too often was as much about getting people roused up (for better or worse) than being nuanced, not to mention sensitive! And obviously his Misplaced Pages article could reflect that overwhelmingly, which would outweigh other aspects of his life. I can imagine the article he would have written on film Idiocracy in which everyone gets really stupid 500 years down the road. :-) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Corrected my indent error at Libertarianism

My indent error on my 15:07 29 May post in the "Bad Article" was a doozie. I was reinforcing your response; the "view" I referred to was that in the prior post. I just noticed and fixed it. Sorry! North8000 (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Missed it, though looking now probably would be good to say which you you are referring to :-) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

BLPN notification

FYI, I have posted a {{Please see}} re the BLPN on SPECIFICO's talkpage. – S. Rich (talk) 05:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see that we had to do it on BLPN page which just mentioned the article talk page, where I put two. Since I'm banned from his page, only want to do it when explicitly required. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

ad hominem remarks

Your repeated article talk page remarks about POV, which are gratuitous, feckless, and antagonistic, amaze me. Everyone – you, I, and he – has a POV, and such POVs tend to skew edits. Well, so what? If the edits need fixing, then fixing the edits or commenting about the edits is appropriate. At the same time, if those particular edits are so abusive, that fact will be evident without your comments regarding any particular editor's POV. Throwing in such observations about editors on article talk pages only obscures the discussion. They are ad hominem, nothing more. And in accordance with WP:TPNO policy, they are disruptive. – S. Rich (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors So interpret to me what "publicly means"? This isn't only place I've seen such advice, just one that came up first this time around. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 19:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems you have a dilema. You can't post stuff on the editor's talk page and the level of POV editing does not justify a NoticeBoard discussion. (Indeed, I have not seen (or I can't recall) administrative action resulting from any of the Noticeboard postings that you initiated. And the particular editor did not have to defend himself on the postings.) At the same time, you can't make specific remarks about particular editors on the article talk page because doing so violates TPNO. In other words, the FAQ which advises a public remark does not give license to post ad hominem remarks. Well, you are not stuck – some of the WP:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Other NPOV resources might help. Try this: tag specific sentences with {{POV-statement}}. Then, with a well-crafted specific remark, justify the tag on the article talkpage. You say "This sentence unduly promotes hedonism (or whatever)." But don't mention who added the specific sentence. – S. Rich (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)