Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:43, 8 August 2009

Template:Archive box collapsible

Thanks

Thanks for the help on the deletion discussion for Mass rape in the Bosnian War. Without your experience that would have been clearly lost. I have done a lot of work on improving the article. Sorry there was no time to discuss the changes I think I just had to get on and do it and make it look more like a wikipedia article. Any help welcome, as I don't want to be editing this article for ever (too depressing). I was looking around at some of the additions made by the sock puppets and they mostly seemed good well sourced genuine attempts to add info. Oh well kill the evil sock puppets. Crazy thing fighting anti-sock puppet sentiment, copyvio, BLP, NPOV, POV fork and 'article created by banned user' all in one go. Polargeo (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Chronological order

Thanks for your comment about my edit to Sarah Palin; that certainly hadn't been obvious to me. Do you really think, though that that's apparent to most readers? Most articles use chronological order within topic areas, but don't split up topics just for the sake of chronology. --Rich Janis (talk) 07:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion on which way it should be arranged; I was just pointing out the fact that there was an existing arrangement. Anarchangel (talk) 08:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What? NPOV? What a concept! Thanks also for the exercise to which you motivated me, and indirectly for my discovering your "Factchecker" list & Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. --Rich Janis (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad to be of help. I think I will put it here too. Note that there's no rule concerning -having- a point of view. NPOV prohibits inserting that PoV into article content. Anarchangel (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage discussion

Thanks for doing some serious work on same-sex marriage. Certainly, there is work to be done, and it's good to have someone who wants to roll up their metaphorical sleeves and do it. However, your recent statements on the talk page risk coming across as WP:ownership of the article, particularly when you make statements of who will be considered toward WP:consensus. Consensus is achieved, of course, through consensus. I'd suggest clarifying your statement in that regard. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I could see that when I was writing it, but:
Quite honestly, I don't know how else to deal with the folks (specific examples I should only provide upon request) who abuse the consensus process to just put up speedbump after speedbump. Such people not only do not contribute to consensus, but their every action works against it. If I personally consider them not part of consensus, as they aren't following consensus procedure, and more, is that against WP:consensus?
I believe you are right that it gives a wrong impression. I just don't know how else to say it.
(after a few minute's reflection) I tried on one page, for three months, and failed, to get past people who only ever put up objections, without citation and almost always without reasoning, repeating ad nauseum, etc. What I finally got to in the end was to make a list of assertions that hadn't been answered, points that had been conceded or refuted, etc. Unfortunately that was just at the time when some admins came to shut the whole discussion down, and they archived the list. I have never tried it on another article, however. Perhaps it is time to see if that would work, again.
I agree with your statement. I will do as you have advised. Anarchangel (talk) 08:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Done. Anarchangel (talk) 03:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Your frustration is certainly understood. This just seems one of those cases where telling the perpetrators not to do that isn't going to change their problematic actions, and makes it easier to portray you as the unreasonable one. (It's kind of like how the first step in trying to cure a bigot is making sure you don't tell him he's a bigot; it may be true, but it ends the conversation.) So thank you for taking care of that. Nat Gertler (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Summary

here made me laugh. I've done far worse, I assure you. Good luck on the search for smoothly flowing prose! KillerChihuahuaAdvice 20:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for having such a good sense of humor about it. I had no idea you were the author; I guess it's for the best if you got a laugh out of it, but I definitely would have put it more discretely had I known. Anarchangel (talk) 12:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

re:Apology, but my concerns remain

Indeed I believe it was a thorough discussion, and I don't believe the dispute would have been resolved without more opinion, which is why I took the article to AfD. Okay, so you promised to report me to ANI; why have you not done that yet? I never withdrew the nomination. You're in no position to gauge the length of the discussion, as you did not even participate, and I believed the discussion length was adequate before decided more opinion was needed. And what is this nonsense about needing consensus for an AfD? What horrible misunderstanding of the entire process. AfD's generate consensus, one does not need consensus to start an AfD. In any case, I do not wish to argue with your belligerence. I have no reason to believe you have learned from your mistakes; I hope we will not cross paths again. Artichoker 01:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering, did you really need to notify me and leftorium, when the message was obviously directed to Artichoker? --Blake (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You both confirmed that the discussion had been ongoing. It seemed polite to involve you in my concession on that point. Anarchangel (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

while not a "thorough" discussion, i actually supported artichoker taking the article to AFD. He had said he would do so if i restored the article again, and so i did. The discussion at the project was not going to move forward, and i had hoped that if he and other editors saw that i'm not alone in my interpretations of our core policies, that they might better understand my point of view and come to a compromise. While an RFC is often helpful, my experience has been that unless they are watchlist-posted, it is sometimes difficult to garner outside attention - AFDs, on the other hand, attract a greater sampling of the community, and so are more useful and persuasive. --ΖαππερΝαππερ _Alexandria 14:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

...Art said he would take the article to AfD if you restored the article, so you did. Fascinating. It's a whole other world. Notes: The AfD and Artichoker's talk. Anarchangel (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Soviet influence on Western peace movements

I have made major changes following the decision to keep. Marshall46 (talk) 09:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

What I was trying to say about Synthesis

I see that the AfD has closed. What I was getting at by saying WP:Synthesis is that the outside world does not make such lists or distinctions. Actors are categorized in a lot of different ways, such as the Rat Pack. What I look for is reliable sources that think a category is interesting. For example, if somebody made a list of actors who started out as stand-up comedians, I would say that since various critics have noted that this is a path to stardom, such a list would be ok. Abductive (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Notice to Polargeo

Everything you write here will be reposted at the article talk page. You are not welcome to leave messages for me here. Anarchangel (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hilarious. I only tried to respond to your accusations against me. I am a 34 year old research scientist with a PhD. I work for months on end in temperatures down to nearly -50 degrees C trying to monitor how the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps are responding to global warming. Here is an interview with me on American NPR Science Friday, press play on the left, so you can see how careful I am with the public output of science. I also have a young daughter who is only 4 months old so plenty to take my mind off wikipedia. I'm just here to try and improve the place as you will note if you see my edits on Rape in the Bosnian War or Pine Island Glacier. I try not to come in at the end of AfD debates with all guns blazing without understanding what I am doing. Polargeo (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Notice to all users

Anarchangel has blanked a large section of this talk page in order to make it appear as if there are no criticisms. See here. Sorry Anarchangel but that is plain whitewashing and particularly unfathomable after you highlighted my small edit to my own comment. Polargeo (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

Please read the above link, you are very misinformed about Wikipedias policy on leads. This is in regard to this. Please don't go around cutting leads to single sentences, it will land you in hot water. Not that you have, I just don't want you getting into trouble. :) — Please comment R 01:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

'Even if it means cutting to one sentence" was a hypothetical example. I stand by it in principle, but it is the far extreme of necessity. Anarchangel (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate your help and guidance ...

... even though the institutionalized name-calling now inherent at Islamofascism is about what I expected. I pause only to point out, because I think you may find it interesting, that precisely the same basic problem existed at Israeli apartheid, though I personally believe the modern parallels with an unpopular political philosophy were much easier to document there. The outcome, however, was that the article was ultimately moved, many major feathers having been ruffled, to its current spot. Must be a feather-size issue. :)

I really appreciated your insights and your impartiality here, and I hope we get to work together again on something. BYT (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)