Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:01, 23 January 2008

If you want to find some historical talk please go here and use Ctrl F but be warned its a huge archive page and may mess with your web browser. A new search development in Mozilla Firefox is that we can search the editable html text with search. Please sign all your posts with ~~~~ and thus avoided the dreaded SineBot

This user is not an administrator on the English Misplaced Pages. (verify)

Regarding categorizing victims of child sexual abuse

You inquired in a (now deleted) edit comment about why I recreated an already CFD'ed category, i.e. Category:Child sexual abuse victims. Obviously I couldn't know about the existence of such a category as the previous one was named Category:Child molestation victims. Having updated myself on the deletion discussion, I perceive there to have been a significant minority opinion to keep that category. Since my opinion clearly is that a category of this nature is warranted and justified, I have done a little field work and compiled a table which I hope you will take some time to study. I welcome your reaction to this and hope for a constructive dialogue. __meco (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There are 2 problems. One is we don't want a list of child sexual abuse victims and the second is that they were not all impeccably sourced anyway. I'll take a look at your table when I get off work. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour and revert-warring

You are rapidly heading towards 3RR. The situation is this - a neutral admin made a determination (and to say there is consensus in *any* direction, for or against, at this time is just not in line with facts - the situation within the article and talk page is just short of war). You and a couple of other editors made some massive changes which upset that balance. I have restored it to exactly the version that neutral admin determined was the least-worst version at the present time. Should you continue to behave in a confrontational and non-negotiable fashion about your edits on this topic, you're likely to get blocked. Orderinchaos 17:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Didn't appear to be neutral to me and that was one revert I made whereas you made several. You wheel warred against another admin and used your admin powers on the article and then acted like a normal editor. I thought Penwhale was neutral but can't begin to say the same for you. I trust you won't be blocking people you engage in edit wars with, especially after your wheel warring. Anyway I have moved things along with an afd, lets hope that resolves it one way or another. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note in the above the "neutral admin" I referred to was Nakon, not myself. All I did was tried to stop an edit war and facilitate discussion which neither side seems remotely interested in pursuing, each side insisting it has consensus by some warping of the facts.
• My statement above (I did word it carefully) did not say that I intended to block you - as I said at AN/I at the time, WP:BLOCK precludes such - I was more advising you that that was a likely outcome based on actions.
• Also, please read WP:WHEEL carefully - my actions were most definitely not wheel-warring, and the actions I effectively reversed which were taken by Herostratus were a breach of Misplaced Pages's protection policy.
• When I started to see some of the "proposed edits" by one side of the debate it took everything I had to stay neutral (you can read it on the talk page of the article), and I'm more than slightly offended at your characterisations of myself on that front.

I would like this matter to rest - I have never dealt with you before and this is not my usual editing area, and like you said, there is no reason for us to fight. Orderinchaos 12:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am very happy for this to rest. I did feel yesterday that certain people were trying to provoke an argument between you and I. Best wishes. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You accused Order of wheel-warring (among other things), Squeak. I think you did more than enough to provoke an argument without any outside help. --SSBohio 06:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment on Jimmy Wales' talk page

Hi there. Thanks for the answer there. Well, I still can't believe that the contributions will be held forever. I mean, I heard, that old contributions were removed. I also heard that contributions can get deleted by an oversight if someone has a serious request for that. Well, ya like Reggae too? You got a buddy! D@rk 22:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Editor652 and the Honduras numbers

I've placed a level-4 warning on his talk page, because it is apparent that he won't stop without a pretty severe warning, and probably a block or two.Kww (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I saw. If you arent an admin you might want to post a thread about him on WP:ANI. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to go through AIV, but I put up an ANI notice. On a personal note, it's nice to talk to another English-speaking Caribbean dweller ... I'm about 2000km east of you, in Bonaire.Kww (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is, I am in La Ceiba, couple of years younger than you, and wouldn't change where I am for the world. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall listening to a shortwave pirate radio station out of Bonaire, back before the Internet... I think I got a QSL postcard from them some years ago, and the picture on the card was of a beautiful place that well fits the name "tropical paradise." --SSBohio 04:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I am half a mile from the sea but its too dangerous to go down there (gangs and that). Some paradise! But I'd rather have the internet than the sea any day, and I get to see the mountains facing south, awesome and 600 metres higher than the highest point back in Old Blighty. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I remember singing pub tunes with a guy from Southampton. Take me back to dear old Blighty // Put me on the train for London-town. Those were good times. --SSBohio 06:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Message from Editor652

You wanna Know something im living in Honduras too.So you should understand but i dont want to look for those pages again.As i said a million times the edits i did do my country of birth arent made up.There are in google and other wikipedia pages.For the black popoulation of honduras Im a black Honduran. -Editor652

Like my wife and family. Onde estas ahorita. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

¿Qué significa "onde estas ahorita"? Gracias, SSBohio 04:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Where are you right now? Onde is donde (pronunciation) and ahorita is ahora. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me see if I follow: Donde is replaced with Onde (why is that?), tu is understood, and ahora is replaced with ahorita (Por que?), yielding where are you right now instead of donde estas which asks where are you. I think I have the basic structure down, but it's easy for a little change (donde > onde, ahora > ahorita) to derail me. --SSBohio 19:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It should strictly always be written donde, it would be a bit like writing waer for water, though obviously it makes more sense (Spanish people here know what written onde would mean), the first d just gets dropped and its just the local accent (I have heard it on Mexican tv but not in Spain). Ahorita for ahora is more slang, kind of like buenisimo instead of bueno, if I had been writing to a Spanish person (and they don't say ahorita in Spain) or someone not from here (South America etc) I would have written "Donde estas ahora?"I can well imagine the local idioms I am using would easily derail you, it wasn't that long ago that I was in the earlier stages of learning Spanish and it was the hardest intellectual thing I have ever done in my life. But at your age I didn't speak a word of Spanish or any foreign language and never imagined my life would unfold as it has, so there is plenty of time for you to become really good, and best wishes in doing so. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Moving content at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex (2nd nomination)

Why did you move a portion of the AfD's content to the talk page? Tijuana Brass (talk) 05:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(later) ...okay, I see what you were trying to do here. I'm going to remove the content in question from both the AfD and talk page, since this AfD is not the appropriate forum for such a discussion. Tijuana Brass (talk) 05:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I put it on the talk page as a compromise but fully agree it had no place on the project page or its talk page. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Noted why the discussion is important (and Squeak should be happy that I'm voting for him and his Crusade. VigilancePrime (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The only crusade I am on is an NPOV one. While I think abusing children is unacceptable I am not on a crusade against pedophiles and welcome pedophiles editing both wikipedia and the PAW articles as long as they edit the latter in an NPOV way (as I try and do around cannabis, Rastafari, offshoring and other issues I am passionate about). Thanks, SqueakBox 18:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. NPOV wouldn't require the kind of tactics you've used here. NPOV asserts itself; If anything, it requires hard work to keep a particular POV in an article, as editors like Rookiee and A.Z. have found out. There have been pitched battles to keep out or remove practically every character that anyone wanted to add to this article, battles that you, me, and many others have been involved in. Where has it gotten us? The article is once more the subject of admin protection and a contentious AfD. After all the effort expended, we're just about right back where we started. For every possible reliable source supporting a fringe theory or systemic biase, there will be ten (or 100) refuting it. The marketplace of ideas could work, if allowed to. --SSBohio 19:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I will say my NPOV crusade goes beyond just the pedophile articles, I think it is very important in the bios of living people too, I really regret that A.Z. ever started the article, I was looking the other day and an editor (who participated no further) redirected it within 14 minutes and all that did was to trigger massive edit wars over where to direct it to until I rfd'd it, which was the only solution I could see at the time, but A.Z. disagreed and came up with another solution, ie to create the article, and so it has gone on. For me its the title that io find unacceptable, I honestly believe that allt eh material that has ever been in that article should be in other articles including CSA, AoC, age different relationships, etc. And to be honest i think the onl;y thing will achieve is to clarify that there is no consensus whatsoever re this article. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the ongoing AfD...

SB, if I can make a suggestion, it would be better to not respond to comments such as those which you've identified as trolling or personal attacks over the past few days. I don't mean to suggest that it's right for anyone to take shots at other editors, but given your involvement and personal interest in this AfD, it tends to provoke stronger responses than if third parties step in to deal with them.

Just a suggestion. Thanks. Tijuana Brass (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That is fair enough. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't continue with this thread. It's not beneficial for either of you and just agitates the situation further. Another admin decided that canvassing took place and reverted it. Let's leave it at that. Tijuana Brass (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have no problems with stopping, I'll stay away from this one right now, other than on my talk page, until the DRV closes. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. As you already know, the strong opinions revolving around this article aren't mixing so well. I don't want to see the DRV descend into another flame war. Tijuana Brass (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I think I can set a good example by following your advice, and I mean a good example for the encyclopedia, and for other, perhaps including younger, editors. I have plenty else to be getting on with, I am definitely here for the encyclopedia overall and the more editors as a whole learn to take a step back from thorny issues the better. I did so recently at Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia which, God knows, is a subject I actually care much more about. Que le vaya bien, SqueakBox 04:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding PPA at MedComWiki

When you have a few minutes, please visit MedComWiki and provide your assessment of the version of the introduction now under consideration. Many thanks, Welland R (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I heard it through the grapevine you're intending to leave?

Squeak, you have now publically said that you'd "wager your right to edit" that I must be a sock puppet of a banned user. Is this official? I hereby ask you to abstain from editing Misplaced Pages any longer. --TlatoSMD (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)