| Revision as of 18:25, 8 October 2006 editStokerAce (talk | contribs)238 edits ACT← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:49, 8 October 2006 edit undoShotwell (talk | contribs)3,697 edits →ACT: yes and noNext edit → | ||
| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
| You seem to know more about Misplaced Pages than I do, so I thought I'd ask you this directly. It seems crazy that the ACT page has been written almost exclusively by anti-ACT people (those who call ACT a "fringe" group, or have specific disagreements with ACT members, as shown by the various links I posted on the ACT talk page). The resulting bias in the article is obvious (as you have noted). Is there a mechanism for bringing this situation to someone's attention, and perhaps getting these people excluded from editing the page? ] 18:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC) | You seem to know more about Misplaced Pages than I do, so I thought I'd ask you this directly. It seems crazy that the ACT page has been written almost exclusively by anti-ACT people (those who call ACT a "fringe" group, or have specific disagreements with ACT members, as shown by the various links I posted on the ACT talk page). The resulting bias in the article is obvious (as you have noted). Is there a mechanism for bringing this situation to someone's attention, and perhaps getting these people excluded from editing the page? ] 18:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :Yes, there are such mechanisms but they can sometimes take awhile. I've already made an rfc for this article, asked the mediation cabal for help, and brought the attachment therapy related pages to the attention of the psychology wikiproject. All of these problems would be fixed if there was more attention on these articles -- sometimes it just takes time. | |||
| :As for excluding them from editing, I'm not really aware of the procedures. I don't think that such an attempt would go very far or be helpful. The fact that ACT opposes their specializations may suggest the possibility of a slight bias in their edits, but it also means that they can offer a unique point of view. However, I believe that those who have a direct and demonstrated personal interest in the article about ACT should probably voluntarily refrain themselves from making controversial edits. | |||
| :The larger issue is that all of the "attachment" articles have a similar bias and we can't very well make a flood of rfcs or mediation requests on all the articles. Ironically, I feel that these bizarre warnings on my talk page will also help because they may perk the interest of other editors. | |||
| :I have also responded on your talk page. ] 18:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:49, 8 October 2006
WikiProject Wikify Alert: Check out the backlog cleanup taskforceThe Ashes of Eden
Nicely done! I think you could go ahead and remove the cleanup tag. EdJohnston 15:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. Now I am one step closer to fitting in at a Star Trek convention. shotwell 15:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
System Accident
Sounds good. I will review and vote later.Dudeman1st 05:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
'WARNING'
Please assume good faith and stop engaging in personal attacks and wp:uncivil behavior. Furthermore do not begin an edit war. All changes in Advocates for Children in Therapy should be listed on the talk page for discussion and comment and consensus building. The article as is represents a previously built consensus among divergent opinions. I have not added a warning message here, but if your behavior continues I will be foreced to do so. MarkWood 14:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- Personal attacks? What are you on about? shotwell 15:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Grading mathematics articles
First up, thanks for your contributions in grading mathematics articles. Could I request that you record the results of your work in the relevant section of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Mathematics/Wikipedia_1.0? That way it prevents other editors from duplicating your efforts.
Many thanks, Tompw 14:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- On the above page, you'll see a navigation box, which has links to the dozen or so "Assessment pages". These each cover some major division of mathemetics. When grading an article, decide which area it belongs to. (Some articles could go under several categories... just pick the one you think is best). Go to the assessment page, use the example {{maths rating}} template at the top on the talk page of the article your grading. Then edit the "Assessment pages" to include the article you've just graded. Use other articles' entries to help you with wikicode etc.. Make sure you inlucde any comment you left. Hope this helps. Tompw 15:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- No problem. Always happy to help :-) Tompw 15:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The Collegian (Walla Walla College) merge proposal
Are there any other college newspapers which have pages, if not I would support a merge and redirect. Ansell 21:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- I have responded on your talk page. shotwell 02:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Importance of Functional Analysis
Sure, no problem. The importance ratings I give I only ever intended to be initial ones. Inevitably, the importance reflects my own mathematical knowledge and experience. In some areas (such as analysis or number theory), this is likely to lead to someone more familiar with the area coming along and correcting the results of my ignorance. I never mind people correcting my ratings, providing they give a good reason (like you did). :-) Tompw 11:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
'WARNING REGARDING GOOD FAITH'
Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this.
Your placing tags, comments, and related edits that now appear retailatory are probably a violation of Misplaced Pages policies, such as not personal attacks, NPOV, etc. Please stop. DPeterson 17:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sick of these ridiculous warnings. I suggest that you carefully read the wikipedia guidelines before leaving another baseless warning on my talk page. Articles need references and that is that. If you're concerned with my motivations, please look at my contrib history. You'll see that I sputter around wikipedia around cleaning up articles. The ACT article led me to the others. I've also replied on your talk page. shotwell 17:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I am very familiar with Misplaced Pages policy and procedures and practices. Consider this your 'SECOND WARNING'. If you disagree with me and continue, I'd urge you to bring this matter to the Mediation group as that would be more appropriate than your vandalizing pages. DPeterson 17:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Asking for references does not constitute vandalism in any sense of the word. shotwell 17:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, putting the after nearly every other line, particularily when there are clear references and sources Template:Verifiable at the beginning, in, and/or at the end of each paragraph to support the material is considered vandalism. Please read the Misplaced Pages policy on this. DPeterson 17:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
ACT
You seem to know more about Misplaced Pages than I do, so I thought I'd ask you this directly. It seems crazy that the ACT page has been written almost exclusively by anti-ACT people (those who call ACT a "fringe" group, or have specific disagreements with ACT members, as shown by the various links I posted on the ACT talk page). The resulting bias in the article is obvious (as you have noted). Is there a mechanism for bringing this situation to someone's attention, and perhaps getting these people excluded from editing the page? StokerAce 18:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, there are such mechanisms but they can sometimes take awhile. I've already made an rfc for this article, asked the mediation cabal for help, and brought the attachment therapy related pages to the attention of the psychology wikiproject. All of these problems would be fixed if there was more attention on these articles -- sometimes it just takes time.
- As for excluding them from editing, I'm not really aware of the procedures. I don't think that such an attempt would go very far or be helpful. The fact that ACT opposes their specializations may suggest the possibility of a slight bias in their edits, but it also means that they can offer a unique point of view. However, I believe that those who have a direct and demonstrated personal interest in the article about ACT should probably voluntarily refrain themselves from making controversial edits.
- The larger issue is that all of the "attachment" articles have a similar bias and we can't very well make a flood of rfcs or mediation requests on all the articles. Ironically, I feel that these bizarre warnings on my talk page will also help because they may perk the interest of other editors.
- I have also responded on your talk page. shotwell 18:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)