Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:01, 30 January 2011

Welcome!

Hello, Jprw, 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 and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 14:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Archives

/Archive 1

Splattergate listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Splattergate. Since you had some involvement with the Splattergate redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Gobonobo 01:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Watts Up With That?

The article Watts Up With That? you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Watts Up With That? for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Aaron north (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Broken Compass cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Broken Compass cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Roger Scruton

Hi Jrpw, can I ask that you please stop removing pertinent material from Scruton? Almost every edit you've made there has been to promote him in some way. I think if you want to do that—in the sense of wanting to present an accurate picture—the best way is to start building up the article about his philosophy. We say almost nothing about it, but if we had a fuller account of his thinking, then the details you don't like would be viewed in context. The way to write a good BLP is to give a full and rounded picture of the person. I'd be willing to help you with it. SlimVirgin 19:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

"Almost every edit you've made there has been to promote him in some way". Not true; however, it could be argued that almost all the edits you've made have been to detract from him in some way (you clearly don't like him or his views). So I think that collaboration might not work in practice, but thanks for the offer. Plus, I don't have your stamina. Jprw (talk) 05:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's not true that I don't like him. I have his work to thank in part for getting a first in my Kant final, so I've always had a soft spot for him. :) SlimVirgin 06:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Scruton again

You've reverted the tobacco material—either removing the section entirely or removing the key details—13 times since August 2010, reverting against multiple editors. You've been blocked twice because of it, once for 3RR and once for block evasion. There has been consensus on talk that the details are appropriate, and this was confirmed on September 5 at the BLP noticeboard, which is where I first saw it. Despite that, you've continued to revert:

Aug 28, Sept 4, Sept 5, Sept 5, Sept 8, Sept 9, Sept 9, Sept 9, Sept 9, Sept 9, 72-block for violation of 3RR, Sept 10, added three POV tags as 95.27.94.16, Sept 11, 5-day block for block evasion, Oct 12, Oct 12, Dec 4, Dec 4.

Every time you revert, you draw more attention to it and cause more discussion. As soon as the discussion is archived by the bot, you start reverting again. SlimVirgin 09:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

See the Scruton discussion page for a response to this -- as for the block, I believe that this was shamefully orchestrated by yourself (I was trying to remove contentious material as per WP:BLP) and it was through your friendships with the Admin that you escaped censorship yourself -- a most disgraceful episode. If you recall, I asked on numerous occasions why you had not been blocked over the reverts and was met with a wall of silence from both yourself, other editors , and admin. Your behaviour is deeply mendacious and disingenuous. Please do not comment on my talk page again, you are not welcome here. Jprw (talk) 09:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jprw,

Thanks for your efforts to keep Misplaced Pages balanced and truthful. I noticed an attack on me in the Roger Scruton discussion pages by Slim Virgin, and so wrote a reply to her criticisms, only to discover that she has now blocked me from replying to her accusations! So I am blocked from contributing to the Scruton article, blocked from making any comments on her changes, and now blocked from defending myself from her attacks on me! Nasty does not capture it!

I have posted below the reply I wrote (with an additional comment on top!) which I have now posted on the Philip Rieff talk page. She knows she has a very poor case. I believe that small groups of Misplaced Pages editors are trying to subvert Misplaced Pages. The Left seem have a real problem hearing alternative points of view. They just seem to want to write propaganda. As it happens a friend of mine and myself are close to launching a software business, which "could" become extremely profitable, and we are currently discussing whether or not we should make a very large donation to Misplaced Pages if our business takes off as hoped. Needless to add I am very much against making any such donation now. Thanks again for your efforts. It is a relief to know there are sane people in this world.

(85.211.84.10 (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)).

Plagiarism!

It seems that SlimVirgin has now banned me from replying to her criticisms on the Roger Scruton talk page! What a truly nasty woman. I therefore give my reply (given that she is mainly talking about this article) on this talk page.

I am very familiar with Philip Rieff's writings. I have several of his books (6 to be precise - nearly all his output) and I am happy to discuss with others who are familiar with his work (which of course excludes the increasingly hysterical "Slim Virgin" whose knowledge of the writer being discussed is as usual approximately zero) what is the best short summary of his ideas, but SlimVirgin has now blocked my access to the Rieff article as well!

I recall there was an existing entry (written by others) on Philip Rieff which I updated by adding some information on his last books (not "Charisma" that I can recall but certainly his "Sacred Order/Social Order" trilogy) the summary of which I took directly from my reading of his books. I also recall adding (in the hope that I was improving them) to the summaries that people had already given of his previous books.

"Slim Virgin" objects that some of the phrases used (I presume my additions) in the summaries were taken (without acknowledgement) from a summary of these books already given by David Glen. I think it is wholly appropriate that David Glen should get a reference, and as far as I am aware nobody is disputing that an addition of a reference to David Glen would be an improvement, and that it would have been better if I had made an explicit reference to his summaries, but I do not think that SlimVirgin has quite grasped the fact that David Glen (at least in those phrases that were used in his summaries of his early books) is supplying a precis of the words and sentences and paragraphs and thoughts of David Rieff! What is being attempted by David Glen (and the Misplaced Pages article on Philip Rieff) in other words is a short summary of the contents of the early books by Philip Rieff. The focus is not on David Glen or myself, or on anybody else, except David Rieff! The most important question is - Is it an accurate summary of the words, sentences, and paragraphs and thoughts written by David Rieff?

In "The Triumph of the Therapeutic: Uses of Faith After Freud" Rieff does indeed argue that Freud's renegade disciples disciples, Carl Jung, Wilhelm Reich, D.H. Lawrence, failed to grasp his fundamental pessimism, and instead spun off utopian fantasies about cultural liberation. More broadly, Rieff did indeed warn that urbanization and modernity were giving rise to a hollow gospel of self-fulfilment, and that the central fact of our age is the emergence of psychological man, a figure with no sense of duty, and little sense of history. When talking about Kant Rieff does claim that an authentic religious culture is not about the citizens' intellectual understanding of rules of right and wrong, but about structures of authority, myth, and meaning that are so deep that people are only half-aware of them. A lot of that is a direct paraphrase of Rieff's own words. It is a summary in short by David Glen of Rieff. In other words it is a reliable summary of what Rieff is saying in those early books. All credit to David Glen for producing an accurate brief summary, or at least, credit should have been given to David Glen, but it is precisely because they are an accurate summary of David Rieff's words that they ended up being used in the Misplaced Pages entry.

Looking at the Glen article I note the phrase explaining Rieff's use of Samuel Taylor Coleridge's notion of the "clerisy", that is, an informal class of learned people who preserve and maintain a country's cultural heritage, also came from David Glen. I do not know if SlimVirgin is familiar with Coleridge, but Samuel Taylor Coleridge does talk about a "clerisy" which is the informal class of learned people who preserve and maintained a country's cultural heritage. That probably explains why I used that phrase. I have no objection to David Glen getting credit for using that precise sequence of words, although I am wondering why the use of such a straightforward definition of what clerisy means without crediting David Glen for putting together that exact phrase is causing SlimVirgin such hysterics?

Slim Virgin then complains that I "did the same in the Scruton article" copying Roger Scruton's words without in-text attribution (although she admits that I provided citations) and sees herself as very loving and tolerant for not removing it. I have to remind myself at this point that it is an article about Roger Scruton. It is not about me, or SlimVirgin, it is about the words, sentences, paragraphs, and thoughts of Roger Scruton." Yet again the key question is - Are they an accurate summary or not? The complaint is not that they are inaccurate, it is that they are too accurate because they are taken from his words!

She then repeats the false allegation that I am User Yorkshirian (on the grounds that somebody once said it) and that I was banned from contributing to the talk page on Right-Wing politics (another lie) or at least I should have been for being so rude, and tops it off with her claim that I "cannot be trusted" - her clinching evidence for this being that I too closely based my summary of Roger Scruton on his actual words.

This would be laughable if it were not so pathetic.

P.S It seems that the phrase "The book uses 39 paintings and other artworks as launching points for meditations on what Mr. Rieff calls the "third culture" -- an empty, permissive realm where no authority is recognized." (which is nearly all a direct quote from Mr Rieff) is also mentioned

(85.211.84.10 (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)).

I've reproduced it on the Roger Scruton talk page. Her behaviour is abominable and the fact that her cohorts in admin are always willing to back her up is a sad reflection of the standards that are tolerated at Misplaced Pages. I'd reconsider that donation if I were you)) Jprw (talk) 06:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Roger Scruton talk page

By this edit I don't mean to take sides in any way. What I mean is that in a heated debate, "you're lying!" is not a very constructive counterargument. Please be mindful of that in the future. Gabbe (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Yorkshirian for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. TFD (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You really have to laugh at the sheer mendacity of THE FOUR DEUCES. I am quite sure he does not believe for a moment that you or I are "Yorkshirian" (if that person even existed) but he is so keen to close down debate (the word Stalinist is very apt here) he is now threatening you with the accusation that you are a sock puppet! Why? Because you dared to disagree with his declaration that Fascism is "Right-Wing"! Needless to add because I made a slight improvement to the Right-Wing entry (which you can read for yourself) I was barred for two months. Presumably this is to discourage you (and others like you i.e. anybody interested in truth seeking) from harbouring any illusions about trying to improve article by making them more accurate. I am beginning to see why (with THE FOUR DEUCES charging around like the Witchfinder General accusing anybody who disagrees with him as being a "sock puppet") Misplaced Pages is widely viewed (especially on politics and other hot button topics) as bunkum.

Nevertheless it is quite an insight (for me) into the hate filled intolerance of many on the Left.

(85.211.72.11 (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)).

Yes, I have to agree with what you are saying. He even had the temerity to delete your comment above from my talk page! (I've just restored it; he really is behaving in an embittered way). The way in which editors like THE FOUR DEUCES are allowed to run amok on Misplaced Pages censoring – or smearing – anyone who disagrees with them, or puts a case to them that they may not be comfortable with, is prima facie proof of the non-neutrality of WP politics pages. Jprw (talk) 07:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Guys, you can't talk about other editors this way. User talk pages are publicly visible, so WP:NPA still applies. Cla68 (talk) 07:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but if another editor's behaviour is reprehensible I have a right to point it out, especially on my talk page.Jprw (talk) 07:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You don't call another editor "an embittered individual." You focus on the behavior, not the editor. You say, "I don't agree with what so-and-so is doing and how he/she treats other editors. I believe he/she may be in violation of (whatever policy)." No name calling. Cla68 (talk) 08:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I accept that, I have changed the wording accordingly. Jprw (talk) 08:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you please not restore comments made by banned editors, which is meatpuppetry. I will add this latest incident to your sockpuppet investigation. TFD (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

What a perfect little Bolshevik party apparatchik you would have made. Jprw (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

TFD, Jprw is wrong to be calling you names, but you are wrong to be pursuing the SPI with such weak evidence. Cla68 (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)