Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:40, 29 August 2006

Archives

/Archive1 /Archive2

Edit this box

Juan Martin

Hi - i have decided to continue with my edits for Juan Martin - any facts that i include into the artist will be citable. I ask in the interests of good natured writing,that you simply dont delete what you feel is incorrect, my information about Juan martins texhnique for instance comes from many books and articles.Ukbn2 10:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help on the The Potter's House page. I was going through the tit for tat thing for ages and saw no hope in sight. You seemed to be the only person willing to help and I appreciate it. Nick Potters house 06:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Family Guy

You're welcome. So, do you have an opinion on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of neologisms on Family Guy? Cromulent Kwyjibo 23:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Margana

Thanks for telling me. I will ask em. --David Mestel 05:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

MedCab

I see that you're active at quite a few pages that are in the active caseload. Does this mean that you've joined us in our pursuits? Let me know. CQJ 17:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm planning to join the cabal (not that it exists) after I get some more experience. I've only been editing for two months and lack understanding of many procedures. For example, if I had taken the Lashkar-e-Toiba case, at the start I wouldn't have realised the advice in WP:WTA states the description terrorist shouldn't be used. Also, if I had more experience, I would have a better appreciation regarding the consensus of what separates reliable from unreliable sources that was the central issue of The Potter's House. Hopefully, my editing doesn't get in the way... Addhoc 17:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

CSICOP

Thanks Adhoc. I added some comments to the CSICOP talk page explaining my corrections. I also restored my corrections, which Davkal deleted. I think you noticed that my factual corrections (and addition) are not involved in the material being mediated. Nevertheless, Davkal deleted them, incorrectly claiming that I had agreed not to correct anything in the article. Hardly. I was particularly amused by his statement that he removed my "claim" about what the Robert P. Balles 2005 Prize was awarded. No, I inserted a fact that's clearly in the Skeptical Inquirer source that was cited. And then he suggests that if the information must be included, a very derogatory opinion must be included with it. Who is this guy?

I haven't participated much in the CSICOP mediation to date because I have almost no knowledge of the dispute involving the Mars effect. I prefer to leave arguing out of ignorance to the woo-woos.Askolnick 22:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Johnny Lee Clary

I have been working on the Johnny Lee Clary article for a while now. It was deleted a while back (see http://en.wikipedia.org/Johnny_Lee_Clary) and I felt that it need to be revised. I have made a draft http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Potters_house/Johnny_Lee_Clary#See_also and have also worked on Wade Wats and made Johnny Angel (wrestler). If you have any imput or suggestions it would be appriciated. Oh and by the way I don't watch much TV and have only ever seen half an episode of family guy (seriously), thus why I can't really comment. Potters house 08:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Peoples' Global Action

Hi Addhoc. As you are somewhat engaged with the Peoples' Global Action article, I was wondering if you would mind giving your opinion on a debate taking place on the Talk page between myself and User:Harrypotter. The subject of the controversy is whether or not sources support linking PGA to the concept of invisible dictatorship. See Talk:Peoples' Global Action#Invisible Dictatorship. Your opinion would add a useful third-party perspective. Thanks! - N1h1l 20:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

NikeTalk

Hello Addhoc. You recently placed a 'delete' vote in the following article: ]

You mentioned that you'd consider changing your vote if notability were further substantiated. Please check the article again, if you would. You'll find that the article has been completely rewritten by Wiki user Pixelface and all of the references check out. The included links to articles from Newsweek, Time, Adbusters magazine, the LA Times, and others are all valid and the site has independently collected webstats to verify its 85,000 unique visitor per day average.

I think you'll agree that this crosses the notability threshold, and given that the article has been completely rewritten I'm hoping you'll consider changing your vote to 'keep.' Those who care about this entry have done everything asked of them. This issue shouldn't be decided by those who haven't taken but a second to judge it. Please take the time to review the sources and make the right call. It's possible that no one else will vote, and your decision may very well determine whether this little entry stays or goes.

Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.118.30 (talk • contribs)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Human Dartboard

You asked to be found if secondary references could be found for the article. I found 2 and added them to the appropriate place. AnonEMouse 15:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks and a Reply (from alan2012, aka AEL)

You wrote, on my user_talk page: "If from outside of Misplaced Pages you have personal issues concerning persons who are unconvinced by the orthomolecular approach then either you shouldn't edit this article or you should be very careful not to consider other Wikipedians as guilty by supposed association."

Thanks.

FYI: I have no intention of editing the article. I indicated in one of my posts that I cannot possibly be objective -- at least not at this moment, and probably not for some time. I would consider it the job of someone else to sort through the talk page stuff and make changes to the article that they deem appropriate.

It is not (quite) a matter of being "convinced by the OM approach". That's not the main point of my posts. THe main point is to understand the total dynamic that surrounds this issue, and the very powerful forces that underlie the dynamic, and the way in which the pedestrian "skeptic" stuff plays-in to the agenda of those forces. In other words it is a matter of understanding what is going on, not so much agreeing with one or other (trivial) system of medical techniques. My very last posts today, I hope, outlined the bredth of the point I am trying to make. My objective was to place the (relatively trivial) "OM" issue in what I believe to be its proper, broad context.

Also, I have no personal issues with anyone, i.e. with any individual. I am talking about a social/group phenomenon. The specific individuals are quite unimportant. I hope I made that clear, but maybe I failed. I consider other individuals "guilty" not AS individuals so much as as participants in a social and group/psychic process of which they might not be entirely aware (or even aware at all). To whatever extent they ARE aware, then they do have some personal responsibility.

Hope all that coheres.

Thanks again.

aka "AEL" --> Alan2012 22:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)