Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:56, 12 November 2009

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

RFCs

• WP:AERFC
• WP:Civility/Poll

We're way better at talking then doing.

--Tznkai (talk)

NB, have not forgotten about User:Buster7/Incivility, just been busy.

Minor grammatical point

In "Result concerning David Tombe", "... as well as making a thread on ANI complaining about another editor, an a science related proposed guideline ... " is slightly incoherent, and should be fixed, since it is possible that people will wind up arguing about its exact meaning. Cardamon (talk) 09:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Should "an a science related proposed guideline" be "on a science related proposed guideline"? Cardamon (talk) 08:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think so.--Tznkai (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(That has been superceceded by the topic ban afterwards anyway)--Tznkai (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice

A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. Manning (talk) 08:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom secret ballot RFC.

A project you mght be interested in

Hi. I've recently initiated an informal WikiProject which will, in theory, help to support the Misplaced Pages community and its volunteers. I'm looking for a few people to help me get it off the ground, so feel free to join up! Regards, –Juliancolton |  05:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The project now has a more defined idea of what we plan to do. Basically, we're calling for individual proposals on how to improve Misplaced Pages. Please help by posting your new ideas! –Juliancolton |  21:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC) (Cross-posting)

Will try to get to it ASAP.--Tznkai (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

General Questions for ArbCom candidates

Hi Tznkai

Thank you for contributing to the questions. We're trying to reduce the size and complexity of the list, to make it a manageable part of the electorion for both voters and candidates (unless the GQs are rationalised, voters will be presented with 36 responses times the number of candidates, plus responses to individual questions). I wonder whether you noticed the one-question-per-user instruction at the top, and whether you will consider asking just one of your two questions. Tony (talk) 09:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you don't mind Tony, could you reword and choose the one you prefer, or at your discretion, eliminate both? I trust your judgment in this matter.--Tznkai (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai, thank you; I'll try later today. :-) Tony (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

WebHamster

Wow. When they fall, they fall hard, don't they? I'm sad now. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Indirect abortion

There has been bit of back and forth on the talk page for Indirect abortion over whether to use the term "mother" or "pregnant woman" and we're trying to work something out but haven’t really arrived at a conclusion yet and could use more opinions. Please stop by if you've got time. - Schrandit (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

When I first used the term, I had in mind the concept of gestational mother (or mère-porteuse as they say in French). This means to say that even if a pregnant woman is not literally the genetic mother of the child, it is still a valid scientific usage to call that woman a surrogate mother. ADM (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I prefer "pregnant woman" because it is more accurate, as we generally accept actual motherhood to begin at birth. (That is, people say, "I am going to be a mother". We use "pregnant woman" in this article.--Tznkai (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not use pregnant person if the carrier is a transsexual or a hermaphrodite ? Would it make a difference if it were a pregnant man ? What if the abortion occurs inside a test tube, isn't that relevant somehow ? Why should we oppose motherhood to personhood, since mothers are people too ? When a fetus is over eight months old, doesn't he already know that I am already a person ? ADM (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't really want to argue the merits of the pro-life and pro-choice positions, as I try to leave that sort of thing at the proverbial door, "pregnant woman" follows both our natural and strict uses of language (a woman the first time pregnant is mother to nobody, few will call her a mother, most will say she is going to be a mother) although I suppose "pregnant female" is better, as by definition, the female of the species is that which is capable of giving birth. The most accurate term is actually "gravid" but it was considered too sterile. As for the hermaphrodites and transexual, the first group is usually sterile and the second group our language (and society at large) essentially ignores (a favorite topic of transexual activist groups I understand). It is impossible to construct language that is more accurate than not that also includes those groups without giving undue weight to what is surely a small grouping. If for some reason an abortion happened in a test tube, it would not be an abortion at all, but something else. --Tznkai (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to emphasize that medically, pregnancy is merely a stage of biological development, and that it is not a permanent biological situation, i.e. females are not merely pregnant people. Abortion is not an issue for most animal species, even though the same type of medical terminology could apply to female cats and dogs. But this is because human women claim to have special needs and rights, including the right to an abortion. ADM (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to chip in my bit - conversation, religion, medicine and the law all say "mother". Unless our source says "pregnant woman" I think our default should be "mother".User:Schrandit

They say both actually, most of the sources I've used (I linked one on the talk page somewhere) uses pregnant woman.--Tznkai (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

In point of fact by the way, abortion does occur in livestock a fair amount, and miscarriages, which are a sort of abortion, occurs naturally in all species capable of giving birth I am aware of.--Tznkai (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure they do, but I don't see how that would impact the current discussion. The one source that I could bring up (at least, in english) that uses the word "woman" only used it to describe women who were without child and did not use the phrase "preganant woman". - Schrandit (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Motion to reopen ArbCom case "Mattisse"

ArbCom courtesy notice: You have received this notice because you particpated in some way on the Mattisse case or the associated clarification discussion.

A motion has recently been proposed to reopen the ArbCom case concerning Mattisse. ArbCom is inviting editor comment on this proposed motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"Pedestrian content dispute"

No offence, but if you you were (like me) someone who cared about the veracity and neutrality of Irish history articles, you wouldn't think the Dunmanway killings case was a "pedestrian content dispute". In fact it's the culmination of years of battles to de-pov this article, which until very recently, was going out of its way to justify the murder of ten people.

It is also the leading example of systematic attempt by a small number of users to bully their POV into a large number of articles. See the following. Ulster Special Constabulary, Ulster Defence Regiment, Ulster Plantation, Battle of the Diamond.

And that's apart from trying to dismantle Peter Hart's reputation.

What's going on here is an attempt to insert Irish Republican ideology into all aspects of history articles. Most specifically, denying the existence of sectarian conflict (the British were really to blame) (Plantation, Diamond), denying, or playing down the possibility that Catholics ever did bad things to Protestants (Dunmanway), and as in the USC and UDR articles, playing up the sectarian and reressive aspects of Irish unionism. I am not a Protestant, or a unionist, but this is highly NPOV stuff. It must be brought under control, so that people can at least discuss changes to these articles again.

I can see how this may seem opaque coming from the outside, but if we're to (a) have reasonably neutral and well written Irish history articles and (b) allow people other than a small number of politically motivated users to edit them, then this needs to be sorted now.

Regards, Jdorney (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Please lift your block

Please lift your block Kittybrewster ☎ 10:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

huh?--Tznkai (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You imposed a temporary topic ban on 4 May against my editing articles relating to baronets. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Kittybrewster ☎ 20:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the lifting of the ban, but please, Kittybrewster. Now is not the time to dive headlong back into the same editing pattern that led to the ban. You have waited this long, just take it easy and let the current hoohaa settle before easing yourself back in gently and non-controversially. The last thing you want is to get caught up on the Trouble's hysteria again. Rockpocket 20:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I am going to table this discussion for about 2 days if you don't mind, while we wait for the discretionary sanctions discussion to go through? It is... chaotic.--Tznkai (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Bad argument

So if I quit now, argument over? Thats an offer I'm willing to make, if you and others will abide by it. That is a bad argument for the primary reason that if you resign now and I take the spot and then I or someone else goes inactive in 3 months, we'll be back in the same place or worse. MBisanz 00:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Then I take the seat back under the auspices of traditional resign in good standing? Or we ask ArbCom to appoint one of the complainers.--Tznkai (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This reminds me so much of my class in civil procedure. The first day we were awed by all the rules that we thought would cover every situation, by the tenth week we were convinced there were not enough rules. MBisanz 00:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There will never be enough rules. This is why judicial discretion is so important, and why people who whine about judges judging things are either ignorant or full of crap. In my un-humble opinion anyway.--Tznkai (talk) 01:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI / Giano

Please do not poke the upset bear.

He's overreacting - but calling him on that in an insulting manner is guaranteed to escalate drama.

Please remove or at least strike that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I'm not talking about him.--Tznkai (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)