Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:18, 22 March 2008

Thank you! (in lieu of cluttering other editors' talk pages)

To all who supported my recent Request for Adminship, either by voicing their support or by creating challenging questions, Thank You! I am humbled by the unambiguous consensus and if I am confident that you will never have reason to question this decision - but if you do, please let me know. My special thanks (in alpha order) to John Carter and User:Revolving Bugbear for their trust and confidence and the great weight that their nominations brought to this event. --Doug. 21:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This user advocates unified discussion, if you comment here, I will reply on your talk page and move the entire discussion to your talk page in the process; I would prefer it if you did the same, moving the thread back here for your reply. That way the discussions will always stay together and the intended recipient will see the message alert when he or she logs on. If you create a broken discussion by replying here while leaving my comments on your talk page, I may leave the discussion as is and continue the broken discussion, or I may reunite the discussion in my reply, depending on what I think makes more sense. Thanks.

Archives

2007-08 2007-09 2007-10 2007-11 2007-12 2008-01 2008-02 2008-03

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Two-factor authentication for page movers
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

Hey Doug

• Remember me? The Transylvania Portal guy.

Basketball110 wishes you a happy Valentine's Day.

Adminship?

You may have noted that we've not had people closing MfDs as quickly as we used to. :) It does evidently come across as "more official" if such discussions are closed by an admin. Would you be interested in becoming one? John Carter (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Nom is up. If there's anything you'd like me to change, say so; otherwise, John Carter is up. - Revolving Bugbear 19:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Third Party

I have re-entered my request more concisely. Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahoalton1 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Optional question on your RfA

I have asked a new optional question at your RfA. You might like to take a look when you're next online. Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 04:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt and courteous response, and apologies for not noticing the link to your contributions on your user page. I would encourage you to try working on longer articles after your RfA has succeeded, as I find this is the best way of getting to know the way the 'pedia works in practice. I certainly found it was all too easy to get lost in admin-focused tasks when I first gained the tools and not all that satisfying.

Oh, and I enjoyed the article on Moka Express, though I've never heard a stove-top espresso maker called that. My taste runs to stronger coffee -- we've had a Gaggia at home for years now, and it would be right after the cats in those items I'd rescue in a fire! Happy caffeine consumption, Espresso Addict (talk) 08:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your time. I responded on the mentorship page, our postings just crossed. God Bless; Geoff Plourde (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Internet Working Again!!!!

I'm really, really sorry that I've been AWOL. Our internet (Charter) has been refusing to work, we just got it back up a few hours ago. Looking forward to getting back into the Wikiverse!-Lee Ramsey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.1.144 (talk) 05:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support!

Hello, and thanks for your support in my recent RFA! The final result was 61/0/3, so I've been issued the mop! I'm extremely grateful for your confidence in me and will strive to live up to it. Thanks again! —Scott5114↗ 07:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Code pink

I've pretty much given up on any real discussion on the article, but I would note that 67.77.145.89 is doing drive-by inflammatory inserts. Semi-protection might help, as this individual misrepresents both sides. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Doug, thanks for the invite to continue editing Codepink article. I would like to do this anonymously, as even getting a Misplaced Pages handle (which I have), and then posting stuff even remotely critical of codepink (even if the material meets Misplaced Pages's criteria) will only invite codepinker's wrath on me. I have faced this before, and do not wish to engage with that intolerant lot again. And believe me, they never quit hounding anyone who doesn't see things in exactly their way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.51.236 (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Article importance scale for WikiProject Equine

Hello. WikiProject Equine is discussing an article importance scale here. Your POV would be appreciated. --Una Smith (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!

Hi Doug, Thanks for your welcome. I created an account with Misplaced Pages last January, and was primarily interested in posting an article about Outcomes Research Consortium (ORC), which is a world class, non-profit, clinical research organization. After writing and posting the article, it was immediately deleted – apparently because ORC lacks notability. My appeals to the deleting editor went without response. I remain interested in seeing the article posted in Misplaced Pages, and I am wondering how to proceed. Any advice or comment is greatly appreciated. Thank you. Dsessler 18:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Request with complaint

Doug,

I am dealing with an editor who is effectively vandlising my contributions to Misplaced Pages. For example his editing of the page on 'Maternal Deprivation' has made it useless.

He has been acting in 'bad faith' and I need somebody as good as he is at using Wik to make sure the true picture comes through. Because of my lack of experience I have put the complaint up as a html page at;-

http://eventoddlers.atspace.com/WikCOMPLAINT1.html

Can you help?

kip

PS I have just completed a new video clip on YouTube, 'John Bowlby and Maternal Deprivation' at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gx5kRNb5ILs

• • There is no difference between "contributors" and "editors." You and Fainites have the same authority and ability to edit articles. He probably is more familiar with procedures, style, content guidelines and such, which may give him more de facto input, but he does not have more authority de jure. [[User

talk:Thatcher|Thatcher]] 23:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

78.149.143.239 (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Spring!

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

Legal opinion needed

A lot of images of dubiously copyrighted characters are being considered for deletion in the commons here. There seems to be a question about the real copyright status of many of these images. Being somewhat more familiar with the law than most of us, I think your input would be more than welcome. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I took a quick look and I'll try to comment but the confusion there is pretty bad, no understanding of the difference between copyrights and trademarks, etc or what can be copyrighted. Of course, if you want a real legal opinion you can only get that from Mike Godwin, I can only really comment on general definitions and how these articles mesh with our internal policies.--Doug. 18:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hi. I have asked you a few questions there based on Commons policy which I do not think, by your own admission, you take into account. Specifically, if you cannot use those images to create a novel comic book featuring the character depicted within those images, then they do not comply with Commons policy as I understand it. I would appreciate your clarification as to whether I would be infringing on any copyright held by producing a comic book using those images. If a derivative can be created which infringes copyright, those images do not comply with Commons policy, going by Commons:Licensing. Hiding T 17:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

congratulations

A consensus has been reached by your peers that you should be an admin. I have made it so. Please review Misplaced Pages:Administrators' reading list and keep up the great work. Sincerely, Kingturtle (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Many thanks Kingturtle! I noticed when I came back from a brief visit to the Commons that I seemed to have tabs I'd never seen before. I will most carefully review the reading list!--Doug. 20:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Congratulations on your successful request for adminship, Doug! For information on using your new tools, see the school for new admins; you will find it very useful. Good luck! Acalamari 20:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

A thank you note on the top of this page should be enough. And if anyone honestly deserved an unopposed adminship, it's you. The only thing I apologize for is maybe bringing you in too early to get 100 votes and be on the WP:100 list. John Carter (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, good luck. Malinaccier (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. seresin | wasn't he just...? 21:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

'Grats, man, on your unanimous RfA. I'm sure you'll do great. If you ever need anything, just let me know.

By the way, no, you don't need to thank everyone. Many people do, but it's not really obligatory.

Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 22:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thankspam isn't really looked highly on by a lot of people, and with a unanimous RfA (I'm envious), you'd have a lot of people to thank. But I think that the clear opinion of all involved is that you are more than qualified for the mop. Great to have you aboard! John Carter (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Good! I didn't want to blanket all those pages with thank you's. I'm sure I could've figured out how to do it with AWB, but what a pain to get a flashing orange bar saying you got a message only to find that it's a thank you for taking the time to participate in an RFA. At least for me, I participate in RfAs to help the encyclopedia, not to engender good feelings with everyone. So, for anyone looking for their Thank You message, it's at the top of the page.  :-)--Doug. 02:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Some advice, from AGK

Congratulations on your recent acquisition of the mop. I offer to you a few words of wisdom:

• Start slowly and carefully. There's a huge temptation to start flying through your new duties as soon as the 'crat pushes the button - resist it. Avoid close calls for your first week or two, and leave it to those who happened to get their tools a little earlier than you.
• Be sure to connect in with other users on IRC, if you can. There's a whole pool of channels there where you can get assistance in your newly-acquired buttons, and get your new colleagues used to your name.
• Be ready for criticism in your first few weeks, but at the same time don't be a push-over. If you feel worried over a decision, get another user to take a look at it.
• When blocking, ask yourself if everything you've entered into that form will benefit Misplaced Pages: is the block length sufficiently long to prevent further disruption by a vandal, or is it so long that it will put them off ever returning? Is your protection just going to be a minor hiccup in the edit warrior's grand scheme of disruption, or will it hinder the growth of the encyclopedia?

Best of luck with your new buttons, and don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any queries.

AGK § 21:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Useless user pages

...note that I think it's mostly only the "nothing but userboxes" pages that I have any real issue with .

And what, pray tell, is the difference? One set is dreck using text, and another is dreck using userboxes -- and there's not the slightest qualitative difference between the two, on any level from policy through intent. Userboxes are not "Get Out of Jail Free" cards indicating Serious Editors, they're tools for social networking, and if there's no actual editing/creating going on, then it's simply someone's substitute for MySpace. Your distinction is completely arbitrary.

And as for {{temporary papges}}, as far as I'm concerned, I'm using them exactly as intended: as a housekeeping tool to mark pointless pages for eventual cleanup. Simple as that. --Calton | Talk 12:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Do you understand this?

Somebody reuploading a deleted image? Absolute madness! east.718 at 10:07, March 22, 2008

By the way, congrats on the mop - don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page or on the admins' IRC channel if you need help with anything. Good luck! east.718 at 10:08, March 22, 2008

==Fanities is a charlaten== COPY

Dear Jean,

(Fanities has changed the page again as a result of my posting above.)

Thank you for your comment regarding 'Deprivation of Maternal Care. A Reassessment of its effects' which I believe goes a long way to explaining my complaint.

I should like to take this opportunity to outline how I think things have gone wrong, with a copy to Doug, an independent editor, who I have enlisted to help.

It is clear from your comment regarding the above work that you are not really aware of the controversy surrounding Bowlby's writings.

Let me make it clear that you are not alone. A great number of people come to the subject of 'attachment' through the work of Bowlby. Not surprisingly a great number of institutions use his 'Attachment and Loss' trilogy to teach about the subject. But what a great number of these people do not realize is that the trilogy would not have been possible without his earlier work 'Maternal Care and Mental Health' which went on to be a best seller. Even if they have heard of this book they assume it contains basically the same ideas as his later works. These individuals for the sake of this discussion belong to the 'Bowlby School' of Psychology. They have no reason to question their teachers or the work of Bowlby. In fact their opinion is reinforced by the governments of the day which adopted Bowlby's earlier ideas as social policy. This is a know fact which you will need to check for yourself if you are not aware of the controversy.

So what is the problem?

The problem lies in the fact that the significance of 'Deprivation of Maternal Care' is that it shows that the research community was not happy with Bowlby's initial theories so much so that he had to change his ideas. You do not understand this fact because you have altered the definition of 'monotropy' to a 'small number of people' on the Misplaced Pages page on 'Maternal Deprivation'. But part of the original controversy was precisely about this issue. What you have tried to do is 'iron out' an aspect of Bowlby's work that everybody else found controversial in the first place.

Why have you vandalized the page in this way?

You have vandalized the page because you are not aware of the controversy in the first place. You do not know about it because you belong to the 'Bowlby School' of Psychology. How can I be sure of this?

Because in your other posting you also query how Bowlby "diffused" the theory of 'maternal deprivation' into the 'attachment theory'. If you knew about the controversy you would know this is the accepted explanation of how Bowlby 'reformed' to become an accepted part of the academic community. This is how Rutter describes the process.

I have had a look at your books and it is clear Fanities knows even less than you about this controversy. However his 'speakers' are working and he has seen and heard my video clips. Therefore he has used every trick in the book to try and stop my voice being heard in Misplaced Pages, so I have enlisted Doug's help.

There are many people who belong to the 'Bowlby School' of Psychology who would like to see him crowned 'father of the attachment theory'. But as my latest video clip on YouTube called 'John Bowlby and Maternal Deprivation' shows he was proud of the theory of 'maternal deprivation' and never claimed to be the 'father of the attachment theory'.

I knew nothing about you before coming to Misplaced Pages. But it is because there are many people like you that I put up the page called 'Maternal Deprivation' on Misplaced Pages.

Fanities is a charlaten who has relied upon your criticisms of me to make his edits. If you check my sources and see what I am saying is true I should be grateful if you would distance yourself from Fanities. With the help of Doug I want to restore the damage you and Fanities have done to these pages. If you intend to continue editing these pages I will be forced to take my complaint against yourself further.

78.146.192.194 (talk) 11:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)