Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:58, 26 December 2005

Welcome to Misplaced Pages

Hello and welcome to Misplaced Pages. You may want to take a look at the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, avoiding common mistakes and Misplaced Pages is not pages.

I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers such as yourself:

• Be Bold!
• Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
• Meet other new users
• Learn from others
• Play nice with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us about you

• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 22:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Florida State Route 869

Is there a reason you copied the text of Florida State Road 869 here? I have replaced it with a redirect. --SPUI (talk) 08:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

To coin a phrase, SPUI -- interesting. By the way, did you replace the picture that disappeared from the Florida State Roads page? If you don't intend to do so, the template should be deleted. B.Wind 19:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

There's a current problem with display of some images - if it's not fixed soon I'll work around it. --SPUI (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Stubs

Thanks for the classification of the WV articles! It saved me a lot of time! (since I would have had to do it, and I'm swamped right now) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 07:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Glad to help out, but there is quite a bit of work ahead of you there... Several of your state route pages have ONLY the templates - no information about the roads themselves. B.Wind 08:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Penthouse models

They all came up in one hit because I found them all in one hit, splintered off the List of Penthouse Pets, where all the information that can be merged already is located. I apologise if the mass of nominations worries or confuses you. Saberwyn 09:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

No confusion here -- between the 1970 Penthouse models and the Hong Kong students, this morning's collection of AfDs resembled a theme package. Thank goodness for Mr. Cut and Ms. Paste for easy repetitive voting! B.Wind 09:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

One dollar Federal Reserve Note

I noticed the deletion debate here has fizzled somewhat, but I made some changes to the articles that may further illustrate the points I had been trying to make. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Paul 23:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Gladly! As a child, I collected coins and paper currency. I'll follow up both here and on your user page. B.Wind 03:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Here goes....

Hi Paul, I see what you're doing with U.S. one dollar bill. Your additions enhance the article, but I suspect that you'll (metaphorically) paint yourself in a corner with the different type of notes (USN, FRN, SC,...) here... and, most likely, a similar repetition with each of the other denominations. May I suggest the following (I think I mentioned it in the AfD discussion, but my short term memory isn't the greatest, either):

Set up a section entitled U.S. currency types (or more appropriate name). In it put the description of the red seal USN, blue seal (or brown seal) SC, Hawaii notes, yellow seal GC, etc. with a general description of the various types (after all, do we need detailed repetition between the $1 US Note and the $5 US Note?) and representative pictures of various denominations.

This will cut down on the duplications, and - more importantly - "free up" U.S. one dollar bill (and others) for sections dealing with the evolution of the design over the years. Ditto the other denominations. It will be more challenging for you, but in the long run the results will be far more rewarding for you and more interesting for the so-called "average" reader (I'm partial to the large notes that were circulated prior to 1920 myself).

I hope this helps. Good luck! I'll stop by from time to time and check (I'm in the middle of the Florida State Roads project myself - thank goodness I can write about my local streets!). B.Wind 03:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

FRNs

Your idea might be the best of all, as much as I liked my own idea it is a) cumbersome, I admit and b) not going to be popular, ever. I might give that a try when I get back into heavy editing (tomorrow or the day after - I seriously have no life and edit all day, but I'm taking a day off.) Anyway, I'm not sure what the best title would be...Issues of United States paper currency might be the best, to describe USN, FRN, FRBN, etc. Thanks for the idea and keep in touch. Paul 04:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry about popularity, Paul - just write the best article you can think of. If it's worthwhile, people will like it. B.Wind 04:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Incivility on a AfD page?

At Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/People reported to be born in the Kaaba you said that I had personally attacked Striver. I thought I'd succeeded in keeping my temper. Could you explain wherein I failed? Zora 19:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

For the most part, you were fine, Zora - compared to some of the name callers, you were downright civil (and if this were a different forum I'd be blocking or suspending some of the name callers for the ad hominem attacks). On the other hand, they are responding to something that they viewed as an attack (and, no, I don't wish to step into something that has clearly been going on for awhile). I phrased my objection so that I can both remain neutral in this religious food fight and also ensure that I could be percieved as neutral. On the other hand, it does seem that when a valid objection is being made, there appears to be no conciliation or compromise with you (I based this on the talk or AfD on at least two three articles, if I remember correctly... and one thing that I've learned the hard way over the years is that when you see someone with a flaming torch headed in your direction, you don't douse him/her with gasoline/petrol).

And reading the articles in question gives me the impression that they're being inflamed. They're provoking you, of course, but I had to say something at this point before it goes far beyond edit wars.

Do I think that you engaged in a personal attack with/in the articles in question? Not really, but at the same time, you are engaging in a religious "battle" spanning centuries (not unlike some of the gems over which the various denominations of Christianity have battled over the years). After all (if the accusation is true), you don't just say that you're going to present both sides of the controversy and then misstate or misrepresent the position of the other side, and I get the impression that more than one person thought that this happened. B.Wind 20:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that I'm a Sunni? I'm a non-Muslim, a Buddhist. My horse in this race is the academic version of events (which dismisses the story as a myth). If you see anger and contempt leaking out (and I admit that they are there -- I have a LONG history with Striver) it's of the evolutionary-biologist-arguing-with-creation-scientist order.

I don't see this story as essential to Shi'a Islam (for an academically solid, thoughtful book by a Shi'a, see Reza Aslan's No God But God) and that's why Striver's position just baffles me. I don't understand preferring myth to what is scientifically or historically demonstrable. I don't understand religion that's based on believing contrafactuals. As a Buddhist, all I have to believe is that there was a guy named Buddha and he said stuff, which I find useful <g>.

Nevertheless, I'm trying to present the Shi'a position fairly. I tend to go head on with Striver when he insists on writing the other positions as well -- in this case, insisting that Sunni believe the birth-in-Kaaba story. I'm not sure that this is demonstrated, though it's possible I could be proved wrong. Zora 21:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no conclusions as to your religious affiliation, nor do I wish to entangle myself in such with anybody. As for your other points, I'll simply mention here what I mentioned on Striver's talk page: you two should get together and try to write ONE article... and document the stuffing out of everything you assert. There's nothing wrong with "agreeing to disagree": other religions and denominations have been doing it for centuries. My suggestion is to look for commonality first and then the both of you to acknowledge each other's position whenever (and wherever) there is an irreconcilable difference. The last thing we want is to draw a Misplaced Pages reader into a raging battle. B.Wind 21:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's a thought from my 20 years of teaching experience and other observations -- strong emotions preclude analytic thought. That's why people who reduce stress do better on exams than those who cram up until exam time. I sense a similarity in the science-vs.-religion debates going on: true scientific analysis precludes faith (an emotion), and anything based on emotion tends to preclude scientific analysis. B.Wind 21:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Answer

You wrote:

I am dismayed at the lack of civility that was displayed on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/People reported to be born in the Kaaba. Regardless of the validity of your objection to the position of another editor (or vice version), personal attacks have no place in Misplaced Pages -- period. This includes calling him/her a liar, a "dense dick," and/or a bigot. Such attacks actually reflect more on you than on your target -- and it can persuade people to take up positions against you. I'm sure you don't want that.

Asking someone to not be a dense dick is in accordance to WP principles, just in case you didnt click on the links.

Asking her to stop lying is not a personal attack, it is a resonable request, considering what i proved and presented.

Calling her a bigot is a personal attack. a very accurate one in Zoras case, but you have right, i will discontinue calling her for what she is.

It seems to me that you and Zora are continuing a centuries-old battle between two denominations.

I am Shi'a. Do you see any several Sunnis opposing me? Do you see some Sunnis opposing me? Do you even see one single sunni opposing me? No?

look closly, it is only one person, the one i called with the "accurate description" that is opposing me, despite a sea of evidence contradicting her. Take and look at the talk page of any random Islamic article and you will see her, and often only her, opposing me without any good justification.

It is really simple: I give evidence, she puts her fingers in her eyes and shouts "SHI'A POV, SHI'A POV, SHI'A POV, I DONT CARE, SHI'A POV, I DONT CARE, I DONT CARE, I DONT CARE, I DONT CARE, I DONT CARE" no matter what i do, no matter what i evidence i present, no mater how good my arguments is. For her, the frase "Shi'a pov" equates "I dont want it in Misplaced Pages", no matter the pov or NPOV of the topic in hand.

This is NOT about any Shi'a-Sunni dispute, this is about one person being... yeah, the b word. Do go to the article and look at the definition

Instead of battling it out (and if I were an admin, I would have deleted both the articles in question as vandalism targets), why not attempt to show both Sunni and Shi'a positions on the objects of controversy (it would not be unlike a comparison between Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism in some aspect) and document the stuffing out of your positions? That would make far more sense than the insanity that's going on between you two right now... and you both get something constructive out of this. B.Wind 21:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It is simple: When it IS Shi'a pov, i add it to the Shi'a section. In those cases, there is no problem what so ever.

The problem comes when Zora does not like the issue. In those cases, it really does not matter what pov or NPOV it is, she labels it Shi'a pov, shuvs it in the Shi'a section and if posible , she just delets it outright . Just look at this to see how much enrergy is needed to make her accept something that is verfied by me and six other sources!--Striver 01:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• You don't have to convince me if Zora is truthful or not, for, frankly, I'd rather not be a referee between the two of you. Calling someone on liar or a "dense dick" on a AfD discussion is name-calling no matter how you justify your actions. Name-calling is name-calling regardless of its accuracy. It is clear that the contention between the two of you has run long and run deep -- but I am sure I am not alone when I express that you two take your fights elsewhere, say... your own discussion pages? But, please, when you write through Misplaced Pages, please keep in mind that this is a public forum that demands CIVILITY. Had someone written or spoken to you (or about you) in the same manner that you had posted on the AfD discussion, you would be rightfully upset, too.

As stated above, I don't care what your religious denomination is. While you might (or might not) view it as part of your being, I view it as trivia best left alone. There are too many "hot buttons" and all that - but if a Misplaced Pages article is getting you that worked up about the person who wrote it, you're taking this far too seriously for anybody's health, especially yours -- and the people who are caught in the crossfire. B.Wind 23:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

B-major

When I studied RC and saw B-major, my original speculation based on its title was that it was an article on the B major scale. However, I saw it was on something random. I wrote on your Afd page a question about the article. Georgia guy 00:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• You have faster fingers than I have -- I'm still learning the process of AfD, and you're just too fast. This orphaned article is about a performer rap music producer using that stage name. B.Wind 00:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

You know, I just realized what that + is for... :)

Thanks for backup on the JLEG-related vfd's. I don't like taking crap from some anonybozo. D.valued 00:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem! I call 'em as I see 'em, and your point was a valid one. That vote must've touched a nerve as someone has since vandalized my user page from three different computers in the same school. B.Wind 17:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry

I hope I didn't come off like a jerk. My frustrations were more towards the people (mostly tha anonymous fellow) who were casting aspursions on my character. I also put a great deal of effort into creating the angels wake article. Anyway, I apologize to you or anyone else that didn't deserve it if I was rude at all. If you don't think the band is notable enough, fine. I respect your opinion. I just really like the band and since I know a bit about them and I honestly do think they're notable enough (even if it's just barely) to be included. I think any band or artist that can be verified (has a website that isn't geocities or angelfire), has at least one CD, has a reasonable underground following, has played a number of live shows (and gotten paid for them), gets airplay from radio stations (even indy ones) and has some sort of media coverage (Even if they aren't on the cover of rolling stone) should be considered notable enough to be included. Anyway, I hope you understand my position. I've added and edited several things now, and any constructivie criticism you would like to give me regarding past, present or future articles is welcome. Thanks! -Timothy R.