Misplaced Pages

Talk archives 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

File:800px-PotbellySeahorse TNAquarium-cropped.jpg

Dear friend

My candle burns at both ends; It will not last the night; But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends... It gives a lovely light! Edna St. Vincent Millay To a special person, who has been wronged and mistreated, and yet has always found the strength to make a stand and fight for her ideals with pride. For inspiring me in my darkest hour with your unfailing courage and integrity. thank you, my friend! Phaedriel 07:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Need for update to RS

Per my comments on RS, I have two questions. First, as you are one of the experts and most active editrors on this issue, what do you think about my suggestion here. If you could do such a merge, adjusting the text so it reflects our policies, it would be extremly usefu. Second - perhaps you'd like to see how lack of such examples impedes discussions; one of the most recent discussions I have is here. Honestly, neither side can cite fullproof policies (as WP:ATT/FAQ is not a policy yet), and so we cannot reach a consensus on whether the sources (major non-English newspapers) are reliable or not... and we are going on and on in circles (another similar case can be seen here, I managed to find good academic sources for that one, but for the other one - no luck).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

So sorry

Brandt's unblock is wrong. The hurt to you and other who's lives he's tried to disect probably can't be undone. He shouldn't have been allowed to set a foot here. I can't believe Jimbo just went ahead and did it when he knew the community was dead against it. And I'm sorry I'm not brave enough to use my main account to stand up for you (and the others) and risk my identity falling under his scrutiny. Can't quite believe it 03:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and I think it stinks.--MONGO 05:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Right on Can't quite believe it and MONGO. I am sorry too. He should never have been unblocked. I don't have the nerve to use my main account either because of what it would bring. All the trouble Brandt has been to you and others has just been swept under the rug for no good purpose.--Don't like sour pickles 17:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Me too. As you know, I think Brandt should be permabanned. I'm disgusted that Jimbo has fucked you over like this. I've edited my userpage accordingly. Sadly, my voice is far too small compared with those of Tony Sidaway and Dave Gerard and the other KoolAiders who put blind obedience to the cult leader above human decency. Grace Note 23:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, looks like it has now been resolved. Seems like there may have been a miscommunication between Jimbo and him about his block and/or his intentions after he was unblocked.--MONGO 06:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

tags on Liviu Librescu

Why did you delete the semiprotected tag? I don't want to revert it without discussion, but I don't understand why it was deleted. K. Lásztocska 00:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. Thanks. K. Lásztocska 01:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Shirahadasha RfA

Thanks so much for taking the time to comment on my my RfA, which was successful. I learned a lot from the comments, I appreciate everything that was said, and I'll do my best to deserve the community's trust. Thanks again! And thanks for your kind words and support. --Shirahadasha 04:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA tally

Is there a reason why you keep adding the tally? RfA isn't a vote, it's simply crying out for people to think it is. What was wrong with it at the bottom, out of the way, so people could actually have some discussion without it distractingly being needed to be updated? Majorly (hot!) 19:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine, no big deal... :) Majorly (hot!) 19:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

HonourableSchoolboy

It seems rather doubtful that HonourableSchoolboy and Tsunami Butler are actually socks of Herschelkrustofsky, although I believe they fall within the remedy in LaRouche and are righteous bans using the duck test. Therefore the extension of the ban on Herschelkrustofsky seems inappropriate. Fred Bauder 22:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit war?

Chaps - I'm trying to de-fuse the animal testing articles, and I'm worried that as you two have strong anti-vivisectionist views, and I have strongly pro-medical testing (although I do not in any way condone animal cruelty or unnecessary testing), an edit war is liable to break out! I'd be obliged if either of you have MSN Messenger, if you could drop me a line at hawkertyphoon@hotmail.com to discuss this - it's easier than talk pages! if not, drop me a lin on my talk page with an arguemnt as to why we can't put percentages in? Thanks, Richard (AKA Hawker Typhoon 20:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC))

The problem I have with this is that the BBC article says about 750 dogs - a percentage derived from the infobox in the article, which has percentages. We shouldn't be 'leaning' them either way, pro- or anti-, or if we have to leabn them, we should lean them both ways at the same time - that is, percentages and derived figures. Hawker Typhoon 21:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That's excellent - over the next few days I might make one or two more edits, but i won't try and hide anything! I can't express my beliefs on this much (I'm in the forces, and they never ever approve), but I feel that hiding facts or even giving one viewpoint precedence only hurts the image of the organistaion. Thanks for listening, regardless! Hawker Typhoon 21:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for input

I'm asking you and a few others for input. I'm moderating a debate on an article. Seems there is a dispute as to whether secondary sources are valid and that hinges on whether the source's characterization of the following quote is accurate. How would you rate the following quotation, on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being completely neutral, 5 being completely anti-semitic:

The reason behind this whole charade of Jewish ecumenism is one, and one reason only: It is so the Jews can rebuild the nation of Israel that was lost after the time of Solomon. Everything the Jews do today is motivated by that single thought, and they are shrewdly using the Catholic Church to help them accomplish their goal. Prelates in the Catholic Church think that by helping the Jews they are fulfilling the mandate of neighborly love. In their perversion of the Gospel, they have convinced themselves that this mandate cannot include converting the Jews, for that would cause "offense." . They have deceived themselves, and the Jews of today are feeding off this deception in an effort to build their long awaited "nation state." The Jews have no interest in Christ or Christianity. They are merely using Catholics as pawns for their own self-interest. When they have succeeded, then they will persecute the very Catholic Church that helped them gain their land, for Judaism, as has been historically true, can have no competitors.

If you need more context, just look in my contrib history. --Otheus 21:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

copied from my talk page, Otheus 12:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Hi Otheus, I'd need more context, and I can't see from your contribs which article it's about. SlimVirgin 21:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is on Robert Sungenis. More context can be found here, which labels the text as "blatantly anti-semitic". The full text of the source is not available from Sungenis' site, without purchase. However, the question is whether the reviewing website is useful as a reliable source. Relevant discussion is here.

For Creol

Regarding the Simple English Misplaced Pages, yes it's me. :-) SlimVirgin 00:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much Creol 00:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"Jewish descent" versus Jew

See the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Judaism#"Jewish descent" versus Jew concerning the problems of using the term "Jewish descent" versus "Jew" as well as the related proposal. Thank you, IZAK 09:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on Poppers

Could you please take a look at the vandalism going on on Poppers? Thank you. --91.89.5.107 14:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Writing

Hi. I read your message on Tony's page; I agree. It seems that the FAC standards are lowering because of the sheer amount of entires compared to the handful of reviewers. Feedback is inconsistent; some articles get plenty, and other articles get hardly none. My template (right) has a laundry list right now. — Deckiller 20:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin

Hi SlimVirgin,

I'm responding to your questions to me. I couldn't figure out how to reply from within the message you sent, so I went to your talk page. Hope this is okay.

Here is the message you sent me:

"Hi Munatobe, your editing of Poppers has been reported as vandalism, I think because you seem to be removing large amounts of referenced material. I'm having difficulty judging whether the removal is justified because I don't know anything about the topic. Could you explain why you've removed the material that was referenced? Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)"

I'm working in the poppers article to help clean it up. You'll notice in the talk page that there have been discussions about how best to do that. Anything I've removed has been either unsourced/un-cited or is redundant and was combined into another section. I have been careful not to delete anything that was sourced, cited or supported by credible back up.

There is someone from a German IP who seems to be mischievous and trying to cause trouble. I suspect this is the person who has reported my contributions as vandalism. If not this person, then it may have been a similarly mischievous person using an IP in San Francisco.

I'm not a vandal and have no intention of vandalizing the article.

I hope this is helpful. If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Thanks for looking into this matter. Munatobe7 21:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

My BLP argument

I've been thinking of responding to your request for BLP clarification all day and this is it I think we shoudl be heading in the other direction and allowing much greater BLP facilitation. There are a lot of good people out there whereas DB represents the privacy obsessed minority and while we definittely should give him space here we shouldnt buy into his arguments. Regards, SqueakBox 02:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)