Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:32, 25 September 2008

Archives
/Archives

MZMBride

For beings sixth man in on the protection-unprotection-reprotection-re-unprotection fight after numerous warnings had been issued to stop and behave. Yes, that. I'd said I would do it, as had Jehochman and MBisanz, and so I did. Man of my word, or something like that. WilyD 17:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A few places, mostly ], I suppose, and it'd been stable for a while. There was also ongoing discussion at Misplaced Pages:AE#Sarah_Palin which was probably going to full protect until saturday, then try again. m:Wrong Version also applies to edit warring in all its forms. Regardless, I think if I've misstepped in this regard, we'll find out soon enough. WilyD 17:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war

The Sarah Palin wheel war arbitration case, on which you have commented, is now open.

• Evidence for the arbitrators may be submitted at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Evidence. Evidence should be submitted within one week, if possible.
• Your contributions are also welcome at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Workshop.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny ✉ 20:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly Palin Deletes

• I am new to Misplaced Pages and Kelly and a few others delete my article onctributions almost immediately upon creatoin. I noticed you seem to have a similar situation. I created articles for the two Wasilla churches and pastors just like the Reverend Wright and United Trinity Church articles. Kelly just deleted In "September 2008 the church promoted a conference to pray for the conversion of gays to become heterosexual." From the "Wasilla Bible Church" section of the only article it is being allowed to be in for coathanger. The two deleted Palin church and pastor sites were my first and only at Misplaced Pages. I can not get a meaningful response from the deleters except, "you know already". Still no responsse from Kelly. Can you explain why this sentence is a coathanger?
• I am a mathematician formerly at Stanford for eleven years and to a Lay-Wikipedian like me it seems like there is simple censorship going on, but maybe I don't just understand policy and the difference between coathangers on the United Trinity article and the Wasilla church article. Why is Kelly not attacking the United Trinity Church article? Thnx EricDiesel (talk) 06:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for response. The mathematics articles might as well be "in arabic" because they are very poorly written, in comparison the nest written stuff in textbooks. A well written article should be easy to understand to anyone. I find that the best mathematics texts have picures for everything, so that you can "see" the idea, and do not have to understand the language or think very hard. But a good picture is very hard to do, and there is an aethsthetic that resulted in a boast in an advanced graduate probability textbook written by a prof at Stanford having the "boast" that "there are no pictures in the whole book". This is associated with the idea of "rigor" and "elegance". It is a gray area as to whether using the 'idea' behind a diagram in a text would be an infringement on the original author's copyright.
• Yes, I have noticed the articles I created and edited on two churches and pastors (all four instantly deleted) are the subject of much activity, most claiming "nn" (see the deletion of article discussion on Wasilla Assembly of God). It makes no sense that so many would be so concerned about a non notable church if it was really non notable (there area hundreds of news stories about the sermons of the churches, and thousands of web pages). I wrote on the two Wasilla churches and the two controversial pastors ( a third pastor, Paul Riley, is in the news more, but is only there for his comments on Palin, so I did not create an article on him). Actualy, i am glad for the delete pressure on my articles, since it is a very good way to learn for me, so many instantly trying to come up with a new rationalle for deleting facts that might or might not flatter Palin.
• Kelly and a handful of the same editors, for the last four days, 24 hours a day, have been doing instanteneous deletes of lots of info with very little explanation other than a single expression like "coathanger", "nn", or "NPOV". They are very concerned to keep out coathangers, but do not make equivalent deletes on the Rev Wiright's and Untied Trinity church articles. Is it possible "September 2008 the church promoted a conference to pray for the conversion of gays to become heterosexual." is not a coathanger, and Kelly and a few of Kelly's fellow deleters are abusing the coathanger ideas to push a point of view, or am I missing something? Thnx. EricDiesel (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin to Film

I left some stuff on the Film article talk page, since I was explicitly told by the "Palin Deletion Hawks" to stay away from Palin's church sites (even thuogh I am the one who created them), and anything I add to them is instantly deleted, for what seem to be arbitrary reasons. I note you listed Film as a matter of pride. (The "sin of pride" is used well by Vanessa Redgrave in Ken Russel's Devils, based on Huxley's book. I am director of the Thomas Henry and Aldous Huxley Foundation.) EricDiesel (talk) 15:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith reminder

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Wasilla Assembly of God. Thank you. Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. I told you on your talk page not to revert the inclusion of sourced information or I would consider it vandalism. You reverted claiming it was WP:COATRACK, again, which clearly did not apply. I did assume good faith, the first time. The second time, after a warning, it's vandalism.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Really? Where does it say that in WP:VANDAL? I get that you may consider it vandalism, but what I've done isn't. Nor is what you've done, even though I disagree with it as well. WP:AGF is the lubrication that keeps editors with divergent viewpoints working together; while I'm convinved that I'm right and you're not, I have not and will not assert that your edits are in bad faith. Just because we disagree doesn't make either one of us a vandal. Neither one of us is randomly adding profanity to articles. :-) Jclemens (talk) 05:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Your reversion of factual sourced information is under "Sneaky vandalism": "reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages."--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing sneaky about it--I did it, I own up to it, and I told you and the rest of Misplaced Pages exactly my reason for doing so on the article talk page: your addition doesn't belong, I contend. You again called my edits vandalism, which is uncivil. Such misbehavior isn't going to get me riled up or to break WP:3RR--it's just going to make you look bad to others looking in. Jclemens (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

A spade is a spade and vandalism is vandalism. Since I warned you beforehand I don't think I was being at all uncivil. I guess we'll find out when we get a third opinion.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to seek one at WP:3O. I'd welcome it. Jclemens (talk) 05:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Dude, I did that before you reverted my edit for a third time like ten minutes ago.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I was actually thinking you'd be seeking a 3O on whether my reverts constituted vandalism, since it seems likely that the other dispute will attract people within the next 24 hours. Regardless, we'll see what folks have to say. Cheers! Jclemens (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasilla AoG pray gays to straights, coathanger policy

I created this article as my first Misplaced Pages article. All my contributions are deleted "coathanger". I am trying to understand the concept. If contribution A is a coathanger for some other article B, shuoldn't the contribution deleted from A be put on A? So if "pray gays to straights" is removed as a coathanger for Palin, shouldn't it go on the Palin article if it is deleted? Sorry if my question is stupid, but I am new. EricDiesel (talk) 14:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand of the WP:COAT argument that is being made, that would be correct. Of course Sarah Palin is Fully protected from editing and it will be impossible to enter the information. To me the Coathanger argument is faulty in the first place, it is not an official policy of wikipedia, and I don't think that this information rises to some kind of personal attack on Sarah Palin. It's just accurate sourced information that has to do with someone else, which some editors thinks reflects poorly on Sarah Palin. I took the dispute to WP:3O. If that doesn't resolve the issue, the next step I believe is to ask for WP:ARB. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Your "Unfortunate use" comment

• I am new here, and agree with your "unfortunate use" comment.
• I created Misplaced Pages:Coatrack Deletions in response to your "Unfortunat Use of Coatrack Article" comment. (And I created the back up User:EricDiesel/Coatrack Argument for Deletions to keep it pure),
• My background is as a retired mathematician (I turned 26 years old) and former political cartoonist (Bush could do himself better than I could, so I quit), as well as in the stuff at User:EricDiesel.
• Some people like to think for themselves, some like to rely on authrority, or perceived authority. For example, some people do the right thing after figuring out what it is, some like to do something because "god said so" or "Simon says". Just like Constantine et al got to write what was in the bible, now an "unquestionable" authority, and is now quoted, one can write an essay and get the same results at Wiki, like WP:COAT.
• Since I wrote the article Misplaced Pages:Coatrack Deletions, I am certain it SUCKS (no offencse meant, since I realize I wrote it after reading your comment; your comment was good). But if you know anyone else who can think, (don't let any of the Delete-Why?-"Coatrack"-Hawks know yet), and who likes MORE informaion (true and well sourced) better than less, please have them take a knife to my article, but ask that they explain themselves like in a maath class on the talk page.
• Once it is polished and reasonable, then start citing it on religeon and intelligent design sites. Soon, it too will be "unfortunately used", hopefully to keep things IN, not out.
• I am new to Misplaced Pages but always wanted a church of my own, who took my !$@%%& for gospel.
• PS I must warn you that I have a POV and am partrisan regarding political articles. I used to be a political cartoonist, so I am an anti-"take your pick" partisan. EricDiesel (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion at Talk:Wasilla Assembly of God

The purpose of WP:3O is to get the perspective of an uninvolved party, sort of as a sanity check during a dispute. Of course, it is just another opinion, is confined to the question asked, is not a statement of policy, and is certainly not binding - not even remotely - so you can do what you want with it! --Regents Park (count the magpies) 18:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Unsolicited advice

I'd like to ask you not to do stuff like this. It's one thing to exchange less-than-optimally-civil words with another editor in the heat of a content dispute. But if another editor has disengaged and is clearly frustrated, then please don't follow them to their talk page to poke them with a stick. Let it go. There's plenty of editing to be done. MastCell  22:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right. I will try to be more copasetic.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Coatrack Deletions

Essay regarding use of WP:COATRACK is here Misplaced Pages:Coatrack Deletions. I wrote this essay incorporating your comments. I would appreciate it if you checked and see if you have any other ideas as to how to avoid disputes like are occuring on the Palin church pages. Thnx

Some who deleted things are trying to have essay itself deleted. You can weigh in here Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Coatrack_Deletions EricDiesel (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Sarah Palin's drug use

Alright, thanks for the heads-up. –Juliancolton 20:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Good catch

Good edit, scaling back my "trimming" of the expression/religion/speech thing. I have been so used to seeing stuff not about her official positions that sometimes I get a little simpleminded. Due to the McCain pict at the top of the Ontheissues source page, I was worried it was, er, nonneutral, so wanted to avoid having the material sounding like "motherhood and apple pie" rah rah. But it's just one page of a whole spectrum of candidate pages, so perhaps I was overvigilant (if not, feel free to correct me!). Do you think it still sounds perhaps a little too cheerleading? If so, we could paraphrase, yet keep the verbatim in the footnote. Nothing lost. Feel free to copy and reply on the talk page, but I wanted to express my appreciation of your actions. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin - Baptisms

I responded to your question. There has alreayd been extensive discussion that perhaps you may have missed regarding the topic of her religious experience. We created a new section to accomodate that at Sarah_Palin#Religious_perspective. The personal section is mean't to be a brief, tight, high-level discussion of aspects of her "public" private life, such as that she is married, has kids, hobbies, gies to church, etc. The mre mentioning of her religion was not an open door for all religious discussion into that section. The new section is specifically for discussing the events you are concerned about covering. Atom (talk) 06:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I see. Well, wherever it ends up, I don't think the information should just be removed from the page. It's sourced, relevant, and I believe important to understanding who Sarah Palin is. Finding a consensus on those issues can't hurt.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 06:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a vote over at Sarah Palin

Please visit. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Jclemens Edit wars

I note that there are three unrelated edit war sections on Jclemens talk page. Jclemens just did a second (or third) revert of Balloonman's extensive contrib at Wasilla Assembly of God. Do you know what the outcome was of the previous recent accusations of vandalism for Jclemens repeated deletions? EricDiesel (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Sarah Palin

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:Sarah Palin for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked. Grsz 03:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking for clarification. Can anyone tell me why the material here that's being repeatedly removed by various editors doesn't belong there? --Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly is relentless

She has declared war on me because I have fought her consistent pro-Palin POV-pushing. She may well be a sockpuppet of Hobartimus and Collect. I tried to make peace with her, but she has insisted on making it personal and is determined to destroy all editors that actually want to tell both sides of the story. I suspect she, Hobartimus, and Collect (if they're not the same person) all work for the McCain campaign. Please delete this after reading.