Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:48, 5 January 2009

Archives: Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Cogs

Given the compelling arguments to at least redirect, could you please undelete the edit history and redirect? Plus, the nomination rationale was not policy based, but were arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: WP:JNN and WP:ITSCRUFT. Even others arguing to delete indicated that the material is covered elsewhere (i.e. valid redirect location) or in their subsquent comments said they agreed with a redirect. As the article was not a copy vio, hoax, or libelous, i.e. there is nothing dangerious in its edit history, we can undelete the edit history, but allow for a protected redirect as suggested even by those arguing to delete. Thanks! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The consensus on that page clearly was against a redirect, and "cogs" is far too generic a term to redirect to Toontown Online. Kind regards, Nandesuka (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Near the end of the discussion, Prod suggested that "it should be a redirect to the Gears of War COGs" and I agreed. No one subsequently challenged that agreement. Moreover, if undeleted and redirected, the edit history remaining public does serve a useful purpose for anyone understanding the history of the redirect or should anyone who worked on the atricle run for adminship, non-admins participating in the RFA would be able to see their contributions. Thus, per that direction in which the discussion ended up, please undelete the edit history and redirect to List of Gears of War characters#Coalition of Ordered Governments .28C.O.G..29. I am not also opposed to some kind of relist with a section break that further considers the redirect suggestion by Prod. Also, the final post in the discussion prior to closing was this, I would have found it immensely helpful to have had at least some discussion as to how we might have possible used this information either in the article or elsewhere. Thus, even if the discussion had gone on for five days, the last couple of posts in it were starting to move in a constructive direction for some alternatives that could/should have been more thoroughly discussed, i.e. could we in fact use the kind of information suggested to in fact drastically revise the article to have this out of universe context or alternatively redirect to what Prod believed a more logical redirect location. Put simply, as deletion is a last resort, i.e. when all options for keeping in some manner have been exhausted only then do we redlink, in this case news ideas and alternatives were still be actively considered. Thus, at the end of the discussion when Prod suggested the redirect and I agreed or when he asked for sources and how they might be used and I indicated one and suggested a way of revising the article, no other editors had subsequently said at that point not to redirect or not to attempt a thorough revision of the article as suggested. I would accept an undeleted edit history and redirect, although I do think it would be helpful for the discussion to have continued to consider the new sources and redirect alternatives. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Female genital cutting

I'm curious as to why you chose to archive this discussion a full two minutes after my last comment? Am I to take this as a sign you are no longer willing to discuss the issue? Blackworm (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Nandesuka (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you being flippant, or are you genuinely confused? If the former, please advise me so I can stop good-faith attempts to communicate with you. Blackworm (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You should always try to communicate with others in good faith. I already indicated in our previous discussion that we could continue this conversation on the article's talk page. Instead of taking offense at my archiving my talk page when it gets too long, could you maybe try switching to decaf? I assure you your messages had nothing to do with my decision to archive. Nandesuka (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not quite what you said -- you said you would be willing to discuss a different issue than the one I raised on the article's Talk page. Once and for all, does that mean you have no response to the question of whether a consensus does or does not exist for the removal of the POV-title tag from Female genital cutting? Blackworm (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I believe a consensus exists for the removal of the POV-title tag from that article: that seems perfectly obvious to me, and I don't see how one can contest it. I am watching the article's talk page, so please direct further discussion to me there. Thanks. Nandesuka (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I have requested that User:Ottava Rima be unblocked

I just wanted to let you know, so that if you disagree with my request, you can comment at the thread I opened at AN/I. S. Dean Jameson 02:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• I've withdrawn the request, and archived it, as no one had commented on it in 15+ hours, and there was little chance of it gaining the momentum needed to achieve consensus. _D.Jameson 17:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of Cogs

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of Cogs. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Model

I just returned the "laundry list". It is an extremely useful list because it makes it clear what type of people other than artists, eg prosthetic limb designers, might need a model. Amandajm (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Editwarring female genital cutting

Well, since I could easily say that you are conducting a one-person editwar for the tag's removal as well, without addressing Talk page comments directed at you, your position seems weak indeed. In any case, I have requested page protection (again) to allow you time to debate your point that a debate does not exist. Please stop editwarring, however. You should know better. Blackworm (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Nicolò Giraud

I was wondering if you could weigh in here per our recent discussion on a similar issue with Byron. I feel that I might be able to clean up the page some, but it will take time. If you think that it wouldn't be worth it, and that he doesn't deserve his own page, please advise and I will take that into consideration. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I commented. I'm still thinking it over. If the only thing that's really of note about him is "He had sex with Byron," I don't see how that warrants his own page. But maybe there's more about him that I don't know. Nandesuka (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, some of the information I can find so far - he apparently saved Byron's life in Greece, taught Byron Italian, Byron paid for his education, and he was given money in Byron's will (7,000 pounds according to some sources - "To Nicolo Giraud of Athens, subject of France, but born in Greece, the sum of seven thousand pounds sterling, to be paid from the sale of such parts of Rochdale, Newstead, or elsewhere, as may enable the said Nicolo Giraud (resident at Athens and Malta in the year 1810) to receive the above sum on his attaining the age of twenty-one years. here). I'm trying to find more information, but a lot of it relies on Byron (the whole sun vs stars problems). Ottava Rima (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well done

Amandajm (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Nandesuka (talk) 04:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

SPAM: Content fork about to be spooned

I've stated at LDV's personal life talk that I'm going to redirect and merge back into the parent article as it is a clear content fork. I'll be leaving this notice for all recent editors to the article and its talk page.
brenneman 02:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Female genital cutting photo

• good afternoon the photo that u have deleted is a real photo and could be placed in the article and it dosenot violate WP:NPOV. so i hope that u will understand my point and keep the photo .--Elmondo21st (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• • I certainly believe that it is a real photo, I'm just concerned that it seems a bit emotionally charged and, as such, is advocating a point of view in a manner not compatible with Misplaced Pages. I have, however, raised the issue on Talk:Female genital cutting, where I hope you will join us to discuss the issue. Nandesuka (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking

I'll unblock with the condition that he accepts the previous caution as a restriction. Good? MBisanz 16:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Given how this played out, I don't think that's appropriate, but opening an RFC to figure out such things to avoid this happening the next time might be. Nandesuka (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Check the block log :) MBisanz 16:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Pagan Insult?

Hello, I see that you reverted my edit on the Kathie Lee article, claiming WP:BLP. I am reviewing it, but I don't really see how it is in conflict. The section deserves to be there, it was a verifiable incident. "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." I used a video of the incident in question as a source, from the nbc website, reported what happened, and what the reaction was, using several sources. I also presented the other side of the argument, in keeping with NPOV. I really have no bias in this issue, however noone seems to be willing to attempt to help me fix the situation, rather they simply delete it. I am willing to work with you to fix it. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Will reply on your talk page. Nandesuka (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope something will come up, i feel that the issue does need to be in the article. Maybe we'll find something. Sephiroth storm (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Re Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles

Please note that he chose to delete your warning on his talk page. I know that there's nothing that prevents that, but his behavior is becoming extremely problematic. Deor (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Deor, I do not know what is with your fixation on me, but I request that you kindly leave me alone already. I have had to contend with your magically showing up an any ANI thread I participate in, making it a point to discuss me with others as in the above, and personal attacks by reworking my username (, , etc.) despite my various efforts to be nice to you (, , etc.) and that I stay out of the various disputes you get into with others and otherwise generally avoid you. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 06:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

He can delete the warning. I know that he saw it, and it will apply if he ignores what it says. That's all that matters. Nandesuka (talk) 11:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

So long as these standards apply to those who repeatedly renominate articles for deletion that decisively closed as keep only to be snowballed in the second, or third, etc. AfD. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not a matter you can negotiate over. You will stop raising DRVs that are disruptive, or you will be blocked. There's no "So long as..." about it. Regards, Nandesuka (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I will as I always have only raise DRVs in good faith when I and others have legitimate concerns. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You will, of course, act as you think appropriate. I'm simply making sure you understand that nearly everyone who looked at the Commander Dante DRV felt it was specious, and if you file another DRV like that, you will be blocked. I can't stop you from making your own mistakes, but I can make sure that I have clearly communicated the consequences of making them to you. Regards, Nandesuka (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, if you are saying this to me, then to avoid coming off as hypocritical, I hope you will apply it to those who repeatedly renominate articles for deletion that decisively closed as keep earlier and then end up in snowball or speedy keeps the second or third time around. Because if that isn't "AfD round two", traying again because they disagreed with the earlier close, etc., then I don't know what is. As far as "nearly everyone" goes in my DRVs, per this thread, "Somerandomadmin" admits, "One of the problems is that you have some rabid inclusionists (Le Grand Roi de whatever springs to mind) whose arguments at AFD and DRV are so frankly ludicrous (see this for an example) that they actually attract people who vote delete purely to try and oppose their stupidity. Personally, when I see such inane crap at AfD, it spurs me to close those AFDs as delete regardless." Thus given that off-wiki remark by someone claiming to be an admin, I am justifiably curious/suspicious if some are indeed actually showing up at and even closing DRVs I start just because I started them, i.e. regardless of the actual merits of my arguments and thereby making the results look skewed. I even came across a page (User:Stormie/DRV notes) made by one editor who also seems to find my DRVs and oppose them that for whatever purpose only lists DRVs I started. As far as the Commander Dante one goes, the closer was okay with me writing an article on the historical figure (I am a professional historian, by the way) and all I was asking for was what I had added to the article about that figure when I wanted to see how it looked as a disambugation page to instead refocus it on the historical figure using the information I had compiled. Ultimately someone went ahead and userfied that content anyway. It would not have been so hard therefore for that to just have happened right off the bat as if no one was opposed to an article on the revolutionary leader then voicing hyperbole opposition in the DRV rather than saying, "okay, let's undelete, but you have to only focus on the historical figure" just seemed weird. And as far as taking that approach, well, given that a day or so earlier it had tremendous success at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Arathi, I was naturally encouraged to see what I could do similarly with Commander Dante. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope you have learned a valuable lesson here: when you ask the community what they think of your actions, you run the very real risk that they will give you an honest answer. In this case, the community has given you a sharp and unambiguous answer that they want you to stop using specious arguments. Whether you take that criticism constructively, or continue down a more troublesome path, is entirely up to you. Nandesuka (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

What I saw from a large number of editors was a great deal of dishonesty, mischaracterization, hyperbole, and hypocrisy. I take and will always take honest and fair criticism constructively, but I also consider when it is and is not being made in good faith. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Survey request

Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Misplaced Pages. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, BCeagle0312 (talk) 02:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

ANI

This was said at ANI. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Nandesuka (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Le Grand Roi and bogus AfD arguments again

He's got a new toy; now, any article with X page views per month is "overwhelmongly" a consensus to keep. Third time I've seen this one in a week. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I can argue for whatever reason I want. Maybe you should take a look at your own bogus AfD arguments instead of taking the ad hominem approach. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Semen images

If you have time to participate and offer your honest opinions regarding the images in the semen article, we would appreciate it. Although one editor seems to have the view that having no image would be beneficial for the article, I don't think that he consciously has censorhsip in mind. Another editor things that four images of semen may be more than necessary -- he may be right about that. Atom (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Characters of Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines

Greetings! I'm not trying to cause problems for any user, but I thought that the manner in which this page was saved was improper. (I'm contacting you as you were the closing admin for the AfD.) If an editor wants to userfy the page to work on it, then s/he should do it properly (i.e. ask an admin to do so) to save the edit history, not perform a cut-and-paste job as was done here. I only noticed this page as it was still in the category. Thanks. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fine for this to stay in user space. There's no sense in getting too worked up over a minor process issue. Nandesuka (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, no worries. --Craw-daddy | T | 16:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify why that page was deleted, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.185.118 (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. It was deleted pursuant to the discussion here: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Characters_of_Vampire:_The_Masquerade_-_Bloodlines_(2nd_nomination). Kind regards, Nandesuka (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Um... okay. If you feel it's okay for a page like this to remain in a user space, why are you now telling me you're going to delete the page? If it's in my user space, it shouldn't be anybody else's concern. -FeralDruid (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Fethullah Gülen

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Fethullah Gülen ‎. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Toddst1 (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to clean up the article now. The editor who was acting consensus has been ejected. --Adoniscik 14:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:SANDWICH

How on earth did you find my sandwich essay? I'm delighted it's actually used somewhere :) WLU (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent sockpuppet ban

Hiya. I just saw your ban of User:Lansbargh. You may also wish to take a look at User:FullestInfo, who was making the exact same edits to the Pretender article. Prince of Canada 13:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone's request

I've been asked to look into your blocking of a group of allegedly related people. Personally I suspect the person who asked me that might be a sockpuppet of the blocked user, but I have to give that person the benefit of the doubt and, as an admin, take the request seriously. I, of course, give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you probably did the right thing. I just need to ask: Why did you block User:TanjaFleischer indefinitely based apparently on a single talk page edit? If he/she was an obvious sockpuppet of somebody, it would have been helpful if you'd mentioned that. Otherwise, I do have trouble understanding an indefinite block over those particular talk page remarks. (Believe me, I'm sorry to bring this up, but I did get a request.) Doczilla _STOMP! 11:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And now Jquandar is blocked for the obvious sockpuppetry. Thanks. Doczilla _STOMP! 08:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Picture from Labium article

Where should I post this picture which you removed from Labium (genitalia)? I put it to Vulva but it was removed again.--Boombak (talk) 12:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

FPaS RFC

As a participant in the recent discussion at WP:ANI, I thought you should be informed of the new RFC that another user has started regarding FPaS's behavior.

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Future Perfect at Sunrise

Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 16:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Byron

I copied the Byron page over to my sandbox temporarily to work on it. I needed to constantly flip through the wiki preview to see the effects, and I felt that was easiest. I am mostly planning to fully work on his first years until he started wandering. I restructured it and the rest. The reason why I am mentioning this to you right now is that I would want your input when I put it up, since you can help figure out notable things I left out, things I may have missed, help me track down some controversial/poorly sourced claims, etc. I only have 11 books on Byron, and then some more generic books that have discussions of him, so my resources are not as plentiful as I would like in this situation. However, I have a classic biography which can account for all the basic stuff. Leave me a note or a word when you will be around. There are some others who would love to help with the clean up, and I think it would be good for us all to work together and produce something nice, instead of having to watch the current article degenerate from lack of a carefully planned structure and bad referencing. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been bogged down with some rather pointy complaints lodged against one of my pages that is going through an FAC review, so I couldn't devote as much time to Byron. However, this is what I have so far. It is about half way done. If you have any suggestions, ideas, etc, I would appreciate it a lot. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

William Armstrong Percy

I'm wondering whether to put Percy's theories in my list of official crank theories. I read some of his stuff in the encyclopedia of homosexuality and it was frankly laughable. I looked at the areas I know best such as medieval philosophy and it was stuff like, St Anselm was clearly a pedophile, St Peter Damian clearly wasn't because he persecuted them, Aquinas might have been a pedophile, all on the most tenuous basis, and there certainly wasn't any philosophy that I could see. Percyism. Consists of looking through the main characters of intellectual history and attributint some form of pedophilia on the basis of almost nothing at all. You mention on the pederasty talk that Percy has been accused of fabrication. Sources? Peter Damian (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ashley MacIsaac

I happen to agree with your assertion ], but a source might be found later. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Fallout from recent rollbacks

Hi,

Looks like there was some unintentional fallout from the recent mass-reverts to get rid of {{Abandonia}}. Might want to watch that it's only mainspace edits that were reverted. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. There were so many of them that that one got caught up accidentally. Nandesuka (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I'm sorry if this sounds abrupt, but I noticed your comments about being a big System Shock 2 fan. I have listed the System Shock 2 article for FAC, but I'm having trouble with the prose. I was wondering if you would care to look over the article and tell me what you think. Is there anything that can be improved? Please do not feel like you have to do this, I'm sure you have projects of your own. Thanks -- Noj r (talk) 05:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

D&D articles for Misplaced Pages 0.7

Hi there!  :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Misplaced Pages DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk page edits related to pederasty

Hi Nandesuka, I have been observing many of the interactions on the various talk pages of pederasty-related articles, and see your posts on several of them. I note that many of them relate to the adequacy of reference sources for the various articles; however, several of them appear to be personalising the content disputes. Commenting on the content and the reference sources while leaving aside suggestions of motive would help to keep the pages less dripping with tension. I have reinforced that concept with Haiduc somewhat more forcefully today, and had posted on your page as well; unfortunately, due to one of the server glitches, it seems not to have been saved properly. My apologies for not having ensured you received this comment earlier. Risker (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Drakes logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Drakes logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Giraud again

I've updated Nicolò Giraud to quell problems about his notability. It shouldn't surprise you that Haiduc appeared on the page after I started working on it like I promised during the original deletion review. Regardless, I've kept all the neutral information in the biography, and limited the critical argument/speculation to its own section. Could you look it over for neutrality, as this is a extremely controversial topic? Also, Haiduc attempted to put this in the topic of "Historic Pederasty", which I find inappropriate for something that even the critics who say there may have been a relationship no actual proof one way or another and the fact that he would have been, if the speculation is correct, older than 16 at the time of anything actually happening, which would go against the common definition of pederasty. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw your changes. I think they certainly clear up any lingering notability questions, as far as I'm concerned. Nandesuka (talk) 02:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay good. Now the pederasty controversy? I put up all the various accounts that deal with it, except for a handful of other biographers, and I hope that I treated each side fairly. I strongly feel that the historical pederasty lacks an appropriate inclusion standard with its vague terminology, lack of criteria, and the main contributor to it wishing to put in speculated couples as if they were certain or more than scholarly speculation. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

To be frank, I no longer know what "pederasty" means in Misplaced Pages articles, since the definition appears to change every day. So I dare not speculate. But generally speaking I am in favor of using the words of reliable sources rather than assigning our own labels to things. So if the reliable sources describe Byron's love of Giraud as "pederastic", that's good enough for me. If they don't, then I agree we should avoid slapping the label on it. Nandesuka (talk) 02:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Satyr has tried to argue that you support the inclusion of Giraud in the "History of Pederasty" category based on one of your comments. I really don't think that you would have supported adding in a figure as obscure as Giraud, without any physical data beyond some notes in Byron's letters, to be someone who would fall in that category, especially when there isn't any clear inclusion rules, a clear definition of pederasty, proof beyond speculation that there was such a relationship, and without proof of the specific definition of pederasty that the sources relied on are actually using. Perhaps I'm wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Matching edit summaries to edit content

It would be better if the content was not quite so pejorative. Perhaps a rewording? Risker (talk) 01:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I was simply using Haiduc's proposed description of Misplaced Pages editors as "internet nobodies" because I figured it would help him understand. Nandesuka (talk) 01:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I like to follow discussions passively more than join in the fray so to speak partly because I'm more comfortable remaining in the background and also because I find things on wikipedia an interesting read. I noticed your and Ottava Rima's entry here ] where Ottava Rima writes "The user is persisting in promoting a fringe theory as something that is more than a fringe theory" in speaking of Haiduc, that's a pretty bold claim. Wouldn't that get an automatic ban? If someone's using wikipedia to promote a personal agenda and in doing so obscure the facts and provide misinformation? That's gotta be a pretty serious concern if you ask me. Sure somethings inevitably get presented correctly so long as they fit the agenda, but much more often things don't fit that agenda and have to be twisted to do so.

I've taken a look through his history of edits and have happened upon some of his edits by happenstance when looking up an article of personal interest and it's a pretty consistent picture. It doesn't matter your sexual orientation; to have someone misrepresent others as being part of your orientation is a disservice to all involved. I for one would prefer an accurate representation than an exaggerated but false one. I for one find his edits concerning.

Here's just two examples of what I mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:The_Happy_Prince_and_Other_Tales http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Poliparis&diff=243852117&oldid=241651311

I'm sure many more can be found. I only thought to make a mental note of them half way through my random search. But what I notice is he adopts as general and fuzzy a definition of pederasty to include as many people as possible within it, despite how non-mainstream his definition is. There are times when he clearly includes examples of pedophilia within it. There are others when he includes relationships between two teenage boys. There are times when he uses references that do not even discuss anything remotely to do with sexuality. Encyclopedias should be to share information, not to as a platform for a personal agenda that comes with the cost of misinformation. I can go on and on but thought I'd bring this to your attention so you know you're not the only one having this experience--Jyngyr (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Trivia sections on One Piece character pages

Hello, you undid an edit on the page Usopp. I'd like to ask you to consider undoing similar edits by the same user on the pages for Zoro, Sanji, Nami, Chopper, and Robin. Thank you. -- Goodraise (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:SANDWICH and this edit

Thanks for using the edit summary that you did for the above edit. The page you were referring to was good for a laugh. :) Rockfang (talk) 05:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc

Another problem. The reason why is that this source is not a mainstream source or from a mainstream literary analysis publication. Instead, its information can be found here. The "fact" is conjecture and is not stated as such, but described as fact, in the lead, not even sated where the scene exists, and by the same person who has a habit for doing this. Plus, I really think it is a stretch to make ths argument of Wood (which is why its not in a true respectable publication where normal Wilde criticism is found). Ottava Rima (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on your last point ("it is a stretch to make this argument of Wood?") I'm not sure i understand. Nandesuka (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Wood is saying that a kiss = pederasty, without proving that the kiss was sexual, erotic, etc. It seems that this is one of many of Haiduc's authors who use "hidden" messages that exist in "codes" that give a secret meaning to an author's work, without any proof, historical or biographical, for such a claim. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

But in this case, at least there is an actual author making the claim, which is generally where I draw the line. Is Wood an inappropriate or fringe source, and if so, what makes her so? Nandesuka (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The work is too tiny to really be anything that is explanatory. It is intentionally one sided and in an obscure journal. The lack of any mainstream interpretations means that there is undue weight regardless. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Targ.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Targ.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Misplaced Pages's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 05:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons#BLP prod

I thought you'd be interested in and might like to comment on the above. RMHED (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Giraud

How can he get away with these comments when it is clear from the Douglas excerpts that he 1. was removing directly quoted material from the page, 2. inserting directly misquoted information, 3. unable to acknowledge the multiple quotes from Douglas (on the page and talk page) saying that there is no certainty and that people disagree with Crompton's approach, and 4. claiming that my quote at the very bottom somehow legitimizes what he says even though the quote makes it apparent that they are not influenced by Crompton's claims of pederasty, and they are equally influenced by three biographies that do not accept there being even a sexual relationship between Byron and Giraud, let alone a "pederastic" relationship? Can't we ask for a topic ban already? This is out of control. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to add that he also completely miss-cited the material he tried to add in also, which is a common problem with his edits to various problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI

I don't know if you know about this page. In case you wanted to introduce actual medical terms into the mix. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Abortion/Comments

The log says it was deleted, but it seems to still be there. Baseball Bugs 07:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Another admin got it. Baseball Bugs 07:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; our paths have crossed and I've found your comments amusing, helpful or thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which!

Nandesuka - I haven't seen you about lately, but thats probably a good sign. I hope your holiday goes well, and that there will be fewer problems and hassles next year. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 05:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Childbirth photo

G'day Nandesuka, I hope you had a good break. But please I am not getting on my high horse about the caesarean picture and I am hardly doing WP:SOAP. I simply do not believe that a caesarean photo is a good illustration of childbirth. 95% of the world population do not use caesarean as a method of birth. Therefore it should not be illustrative of childbirth. It is illustrative of caesarean birth. Gillyweed (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason the article can't illustrate both of the two most common forms of childbirth. Nandesuka (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

caesarean POV

The way it is written is definitely slanted. How would you feel if I switched it around like this?

Rises in rates of caesarean sections are a cause for concern, and may reflect changing healthcare patterns. Louise Silverton, deputy general-secretary of the Royal College of Midwives, says that not only has society’s tolerance for pain and illness been “significantly reduced”, but also that women are scared of pain and think that if they have a caesarean there will be less, if any, pain. It is the opinion of Silverton and the Royal College of Midwives that “women have lost their confidence in their ability to give birth."

Nonetheless, some institutions have tried to generate theories to explain the rise. The US National Institutes of Health says:

Would that be none POV as well? 98.114.95.32 (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a crack at rewriting it to make clear that it's the NIH that is making the statement, not Misplaced Pages. Nandesuka (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You're still pushing your own viewpoint, but I don't care enough to argue. You must really love caesarean sections. 98.114.95.32 (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You think? I was fascinated to discover that the Guardian article that was cited to support the premise "Women choose C-sections because they are wimps" actually was a balanced treatment quoting a number of different sources, but that only one of these sources was mentioned. So maybe what's at issue here is that you misunderstand what "neutral point of view" really means. Nandesuka (talk) 02:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Old Acquaintance!

Hey Friend, I didn't say that I would stay away from that article for all eternity. Feel free to file an arbcom case to settle the matter. Justforasecond (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)