Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:47, 19 October 2010

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Please

Please take a look at User:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox, and feel free to improve. I'm sure there are better examples than what's occurred to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Some of your recent changes aren't quite accurate. A scholar writing decades later is not a first-party actor in the Manson Family murders. The first-party sources in that example are (1) the people committing murder and (2) the people being murdered. The police are actually third-party sources for what happened. (They are first-party sources for whatever they saw and did themselves.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Please, feel free to edit/remove/improve anything I added - I was just trying to flesh things out the way I see them, and I freely admit I might not have hit it on the head. What you've done is a really good start, and I think it'll be useful. what I really need to do, I think, is go through the assortment of policies and essays that already try to deal with this issue and see what they say explicitly; that way we can use this to integrate and organize them better. --Ludwigs2 21:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The endless treadmill...

Hi Ludwigs2, I've reversed your closure of the "latest" WT:RD thread on punctuation &c. For an editor-behaviour thread, my feeling is that it should be closed by an admin if it is to be closed at all. There has also been some hostility in the past at reftalk to editors unilaterally hatting discussion threads on the lines of "who are you to decide?". This is a case where I have to ask the same question - and I've been thinking about this since 3 minutes after your edit, so it's not a decision arrived at lightly. Refdeskers are by and large pretty level-headed people and I always value their input (including yours) - so I'd prefer to see the comments continue for a while more. Hopefully I've accurately refactored your closing note but feel free to refactor additionally as you see fit. Franamax (talk) 22:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Lol - no problem. Usually when I do something like that it's more in the nature of smelling salts - an unexpected and unpleasant intrusion that can sometimes snap people back to full consciousness. It wasn't intended to be authoritative, exactly, and I don't mind it being reverted if there's a good reason to revert it.

I do think I was correct, however: unless there's some meaningful changes in attitude this is just going to squabble its way straight into bans/blocks. I will be more surprised than most if anything productive comes out of continued debate. --Ludwigs2 23:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Your closure was likely correct from the standpoint of unlikelihood of further progress and potential for further disruption. It may also have been correct as being already a decided issue, but you didn't indicate the previous consensus in your close. Prediction of the future is not really a basis for a close, unless there is ongoing disruption within the thread which needs to be quelled. Remember that when you hat something, you are telling everyone else on the wiki to STOP TALKING ABOUT THIS! You need to outline to all others why the discussion itself should be shut down, rather than why the discussion subject (or initiator in this case) should be left up to an admin to decide based on sober summing-up of other people's views. Franamax (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

missed your comment

sorry, I missed your comment, here: Template_talk:Hidden_archive_top#nominated_for_deletion. I was surprised by the whole thing as I think the discusssion was closed as I was typing. Then when I checked to see when it was opened, I was really irritated. They should have a minimum time before a deletion discussion is allowed to be closed. stmrlbs|talk 01:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

well, you could reopen the deletion discussion with a very clear statement that the last one was too short to be meaningful. do you think that would be useful? --Ludwigs2 02:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Forum-shopping

Thanks for your tweak - I think that captures it nicely. ‒ Jaymax✍ 00:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Medicine/Chiropractic/SPOV

Hey Ludgwigs, re: your comment that these issues have been discussed before, can you point me to some of those discussions? I know that Chiropractic had its own Arbcom case and I've read through it (as well as reams of talk page history), but I can't find much discussion about MEDRS in conjunction with ASF except from those who want them to work in lockstep. Ocaasi 69.142.154.10 (talk) 04:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure which comment you're referring to. the GEV section has frequently been challenged (look at the talk pages of NPOV and NPOV/FAQ), the issues in general come up all the time here and there. can you be more specific? --Ludwigs2 17:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You mentioned that issues about how NPOV applies to medical articles has been discussed before. I assume some of that happened during the Chiropractic ArbCom case. Are there other places I should look? Ocaasi 69.142.154.10 (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Trading card game

We're wrapping up the democratic rules approval process. Please reveiw Misplaced Pages:Trading card game/Action plan/Phase 1:Rules/Rules approval‎ and review the ruleset. If no changes are made to it within 7 days, then we will proceed next week with the card nomination and approval process.

If you are no longer interested in helping out with the project, please remove your name from the participants list.

Thanks! Bob the Wikipedian 05:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Continuing to make substantial changes to NPOV without consenses

For consistency with NPOV, I think you need to first explain your deletion of ASF and major rewrite to NPOV against Misplaced Pages's consensus. You continuously edit without consensus and delete long established parts of policy. Do you understand it is a big deal when editors are concerned you are forcing changes to policy that they disagree with, while you are not adhering to the advice of WP:PG#Substantive changes. You have exported your disagreement with long term NPOV to V policy, and refuse to abide by consensus at NPOV. You wrote in part: "such as the fact/opinion distinction, which I disapprove of". You are personally against the intent of long established ASF when you admitted you disapprove of the fact/opinion distinction. Is it your aim to consistently remove ASF? QuackGuru (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It is my aim to improve policy so that it is fair, balanced, useful, and (most importantly) reflective of the principles that are required for constructing a good encyclopedia. what is your aim? --Ludwigs2 23:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

BLP concerns

My concerns in :

• It's all your opinion.
• "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."
• "but they don't seem to realize or acknowledge the distinction" Again, your opinion. Ironically, it applies to most of the arguments for getting rid of the Quackwatch ref.
• "he's more concerned with the opinion-mongering side of that equation (the 'informing people' bit) than he is with the actual analytic process of distinguishing good practices from bad." Pure speculation on your part. This is a pattern.
• "but the people inclined to do that kind of thing (Barrett being no exception) have a horrible tendency to overindulge in questionable critiques" Ditto for this and the rest of the paragraph.

In other words, the entire first paragraph is a BLP vio. --Ronz (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)