Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:19, 13 January 2009

Welcome!

Hello, Kjaer, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Khoikhoi 02:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Ayn Rand/Raymond Boisvert

As a contributor to the discussion on whether or not to included Raymond Boisvert's criticism in the Ayn Rand article, your input is currently requested at the Request for Comments on this question. Thanks. Macduff (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Overworked "such"

Your comment: (→Path to war: not all press, just "such" press (one "such" is not overmuch). Actually, it's not effective English, because it uses the word in an unconventional manner. Perhaps you will consider rewording it to avoid antagonizing your readers Tedickey (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Historical Jesus

I understand your reasoning on the reversion of the publicchristianity.org link - it does seem to be promoting some wacky ideas on its main pages. However, the essay in question seemed to me an accessible and reasonably balanced summary of the history and current state of the historical jesus issue; even the glowing reference to Luke's willingness to seek out evidence is defensible, if debatable. If you really think it's too POV, I suggest you have a look at some of the other external links. Apollos? William Lane Craig? Please. The POV gates were wide open already .... --Rbreen (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Rand - Greenspan

I think most of our edit-conflicts on this thing are coming about because you're trying to summarize something that's not actually in the source. The Washington Post article that's cited talks about one specific event - Greenspan's testimony before Congress. Greenspan may have changed his views before then, but that's not stated in the article, so if you'd like to alter the text to reflect that, you'd need another source. Idag (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Page move: Criticism of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) to Criticism of Objectivism

There is an ongoing discussion about moving Criticism of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) to Criticism of Objectivism. You may be interested in reviewing the arguments and offering your opinion. The discussion is here. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I informed SteveWolfer (talk · contribs), Newbyguesses (talk · contribs), JJL (talk · contribs), and KD Tries Again (talk · contribs) about the current move discussion. Those four participated in the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) move discussion, but Ethan a dawe (talk · contribs) didn't weigh in on it, so I didn't inform him. If you think he would be interested, you can let him know. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary

Thought I'd mention that I found this addition to my watchlist to be informative, clear and amusing all at the same time - well done! Regards, Bencherlite 20:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning

Please be aware of WP:3RR. Better still, edit in such a way as to not have to be aware of it William M. Connolley (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Gipuzkoa

LOL I can't win. I agree with you but the general consensus that was reached on various Basque pages was that the English form to be used should be Guipuscoa. However, I shan't argue if this page prefers Gipuzkia. Akerbeltz (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Akerbeltz, thanks for your good humor. I did look at the Guipuzcoa page. Frankly, the objections to using the Basque seem political. And I had never even seen the supposed English "Guipuscoa." It is almost like arguing whether the article should be Lviv or Lvov and settling on Lemberg or Edinburgh versus Dun Eideann and choosing Edinboro. The Basque spelling of a Basque name, the word "official" and the google count are enough to convince me. Kjaer (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome - sometimes only humour helps me survive wikipedia ;). I have come across Guipuscoa, including some German publications. I think it was originally formed in analogy to Biscay/Bizkaia and go avoid the soft/hard g problem in English, not entirely for political reasons though that thought never seems to be far on anything Basque related! Akerbeltz (talk) 08:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

Kjaer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have not reverted the article, but have moved a controversial and redundant statement to a more appropriate part of the article. I have accepted other appropriate changes, such as adding the word "theoretical." The complaiants additions amount to stating the same criticisms twice in different parts of the introduction. The complaining party has made the subject dispute into a personal dispute with absurd charges and repeated posts to my talk page, as if he were a third party admin, not a party to the dispute. I am happy to see the subject dispute handled by a rfeuest for comment.

Decline reason:

You clearly undid the actions of other editors four times in the last twenty four hours. If you feel an addition is "controversial and redundant", please discuss the addition on the article's talk page and gain consensus before making further changes in the future. You can file a request for comment when your block expires. Kuru 19:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This is an interesting lesson learned. It appears that hysterical complaint works in favor of some editors. I did not revert any editor's action four times. I moved, reworded, and otherwise tried to accomodate a controversial POV statement added redundantly to the lead of the Altaic languages article. I did not remove the reference. Indeed, the only action of the other editors was to revert me. Anyone who actually reads the edits will see this. Kjaer (talk) 05:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ayn Rand anon

I don't think the anon plans to participate in anything in the talk page. I left repeated messages on his personal talk page and he ignored all of them. Idag (talk) 05:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The anon's at it again. You seem to be more knowledgeable about the Branden thing than I am, so would you mind looking through his edits? Idag (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Please learn to respect citation and agree contentious issues on the talk page. Some of your edits are approaching POV pushing and/or vandalism --Snowded TALK 19:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It is you who simply revert edits. Each of mine has offered a different attempt at a reasonable wording Kjaer (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page to this. However I have just had to for a second time insert the actual text of the citation on Objectivism over your revert saying I had not read it. This is getting really silly as is your attempt to reduce the credibility of any critic of Rand while accusing other people of POV pushing! --Snowded TALK 19:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Replacing the exact words of a citation with your own paraphrase (which alters the meaning) is not acceptable behaviour. Especially given that the first time I insert it you revert with the statement "did you even bother to read the source?". A mixed economy is not the same thing as socialism by the way, your qualification on that is both confusing and poor English. If you revert cited material again I will issue a warning for vandalism. --Snowded TALK 06:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Ayn Rand. Thank you. --Snowded TALK 08:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Ayn Rand. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Misplaced Pages. --Snowded TALK 06:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Please learn to discuss disagreements rather than just reverting with POV accusations at the drop of a hat. You know perfectly well that using objectivism as the description of randism without some qualification is controversial. I have suggested a compromise on the talk page of the list of schools. Please engage. --Snowded TALK 17:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This wrangle is now over and finished. The article has been fully-protected for one week. Please take the time to stop perpetuating the silly edit-warring with warnings, posted on users' talk pages and discuss the matters under dispute on the talk page of Ayn Rand and other pages, all the time assuming good faith, and striving to reach consensus. I do not expect to see a perpetuation of this dispute by templated warnings about 3rr or other matters whilst the dispute is being discussed.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. This is a very welcome new year's gift. Kjaer (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me.

But if you think CABlankenship is puppeteering, I think you should report him. Zazaban (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I am in the midst of seeing how to do that. Kjaer (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked by an Admin with an Admitted POV

I think the fact that DDStretch, who has expressed his disdain for Ayn Rand, has blocked me for expressing my disdain for people editing that article based upon their POV speaks for itself. Forgive me if I title this section myself.Kjaer (talk) 06:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the block against Idag was hardly fair. I perhaps should have understood that any response by me, whether or not I avoided using whatever specific language it was you wanted avoided, DDStrectch, would seem objectionable to you. But Idag did not call anyone any names, and it is hardly necessary to block him while blocking me to appear fair. I suggest you unblock him. Kjaer (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Kjaer, for contesting my block. For what its worth, I do not believe that Kjaer is pushing a POV, as he correctly noted that, in the past, he has defended anti-Rand edits. While I disagree with him on this particular issue, I believe that it is unreasonable to block someone for 24 hours for expressing an opinion on a talk page. Especially considering that the opinion was expressed in a civil manner. Idag (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ryukyuan languages

Regarding your edit on the article Ryukyuan languages, you compare CMG Greek to other dialects; however, I've looked at Greek language, Varieties of Modern Greek, and CMG, and found no explanation of what CMG means or stands for. It would be great if you could please link to an explanation, or rephrase the section in Ryukyuan languages to be clearer. Thank you. LordAmeth (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The abbreviation is for Common Modern Greek. It would probably read better as "standard modern Greek". The difference between it and Tsakonian is explained at Tsakonian language. Kjaer (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Ayn Rand

Thanks for the message. I've made some comments on User talk:Peter Damian, which I hope will resolve the problem for the future. Can I suggest that you talk with him directly if you feel there is more to discuss? If you are still concerned, then asking for help on WP:Wikiquette alerts or even WP:AN/I may be a useful way forwards, but they do generally like to see an attempt to resolve these kinds of things by discussion between the people in dispute first, which is why I suggested you contact him directly on his talk page. My time may be taken up with other matters, but I happen to know that other administrators are watching the page, and so they may act without prompting if they think things are getting too out of control, but please feel free to take the steps I've suggested if you think you need to sort a similar matter out yourself.

I will also suggest to User:Snowded that, although WP:REFACTORing pages is acceptable, it can sometimes cause some confusion, and so care should be taken to inform people clearly about what is being done, and special care must be taken to avoid distortion by refactoring.

On the matter of the page protection, I will merely suggest that greater efforts be made to strive towards WP:CONSENSUS by negotiation, and that in negotiation situations, it is expected that all sides in the dispute are expected to be willing to make reasonable concessions to reach a resolution which, if not totally acceptable, is at least capable of being tolerated by all reasonable sides and which abides by the key wikipedia principles which apply to the situation. At the moment, I see no compelling reason to vary the protection period, but if after it stops, edit warring begins, steps will be taken to stop it, if not by myself, certainly by other administrators.

I trust that is acceptable.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Kjaer, these kerfluffles come and go. Best to maintain a sense of humor about it. That people would spend so much time arguing ridiculous absurdities instead of improving the articles of their "philosopher" kings is a testament to the accuracy of George Orwell, Ayn Rand and Ray Bradbury's works. Trying to diminish and smear subjects based on political and personal bias goes against everything Misplaced Pages stands for. Dressing these desperate actions up in a guise of academic rigor, is the height of irony. These "academics" are the keeper's of the flame, don't you know. But life goes on just the same. It's not really worth bothering over. People will still be talking about Ayn Rand a hundred years from now and they still won't know who hosted some quiz show back in 1989. Don't hold your breath for an expansion of Quinn's article, even those who cite him as an authority to attack Rand can't be bothered, or so it would seem. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Truly I was hoping Quinn's arguments would be quoted. Check out his "short definition" of philosophy. Terrific stuff. You couldn't make this kind of thing up if you tried. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

Misplaced Pages is communal. As such it's a fascinating and sometimes maddening experience that many of us are unfamiliar with. Personally, I've enjoyed getting a unique perspective on how a communist utopian system works. There are upsides and downsides. If you are going to be upset or frustrated with inane and sometimes absurd outcomes on article subjects you care about, avoid working on articles you have an emotional attachment to. There are lots of articles on all kinds of subjects here, but dealing with contentious issues in a communal approach is interesting to say the least. Facts and the truth, unfortunately, are not always respected or valued. So take it all with a grain of salt, water off a duck's back and what not. It's not worth getting blocked over and editing here should be fun. As with any community there are all types of people and in dealing with them there are joys and agonies. Such is the craziness of life. A week from now the present discussion on Ayn Rand will be irrelevant. As such, it shouldn't be taken too seriously. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

While your recent edit is amusing to me personally, it's not helpful. Please, if you're going to be pointy your adversaries are going to relish blocking you. Cool off. Have a glass of water. Take a look at some other articles. It's not worth it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you think of the intro that was last edited by me? It seems more comprehensive and pretty reasonable to me. As far as content other places in the article, has a lot been removed? I think it best to move forward. It's easy to add back any good content that has been lost from older versions using the history. But trying to roll back to the end of December, I don't think is going to play well. I'm happy to join an effort to include the word philosopher in describing her as it is well supported by sources and allows the overly long lead sentence to be broken up. No one has provided good sourcing suggesting she is not a philosopher. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Reversion

See DDStretch's comments on the Talk page. And also, Misplaced Pages does not work by voting, and 7 to 5 does not a consensus make, especially when many of those who !voted in favor of revision did not take part in the extensive discussions on the talk page. Find a neutral admin to assess and close the RFC--which has only been open for a day, because I reject your closure of it and your decision. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer, when you put a section title on my page that says "please work with consensus," it comes across as a statement that I have been doing otherwise. If that's what you think I dispute it. I have tried to collaborate and compromise as much as possible on a hotly disputed article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. Thanks for your response. Just something to keep in mind though, because if I get a lot of what look like warnings, it may make people think I am acting in some sort of renegade fashion, which I don't think is accurate. I appreciate your frustration and there are definitely some agendas at work. I don't know if it's possible to achieve general reversion, but I support reasonable changes to promote a balanced and accurate portrait of her life story and notable perceptions of her work including the best and most notable criticisms. I have tried to trim some POV from the intro and to include her opposition to communism which is at the core of her arguments and covered extensively in the article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

RfM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Misplaced Pages, please refer to Misplaced Pages:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, SlimVirgin 02:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I would respectfully urge you to agree to mediation, Kjaer, as it's the only way this article is going to get sorted out. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

AN/I

You may like to comment on WP:AN/I#Urgent action by uninvolved admin required at Ayn Rand and its talk page.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 00:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

A request for arbitration has been filed with the Arbitration Committee that lists you as a party. The Arbitration Committee requires that all parties listed in an arbitration must be notified of the aribtration. You can review the request at ]. If you are unfamiliar with arbitration on Misplaced Pages, please refer to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration. Idag (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)