Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:09, 3 January 2012

I am new to wikipedia as an editor and would like to bring continuity to articles between the Swedish, German, English and Anglisc wikipedias. I would also like to contibute to the Frisian and other minority Germanic language wikis as my ability and expertise allow. Please feel free to offer and directions, feedback or corrections here. Thank you and happy editing. Obotlig (talk) 04:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Messages

Please add new messages below with a fresh heading for each new topic, and sign your posts with four tildes per the note above the edit window. Thanks.

Sigewif

Hello Obotlig, I'm posting this message on your talk page because I noticed that you've recently created the new article Sigewif--The citations and references look great.It would be great if you could also upload a picture for the related article Asakku.

It's nice to see you editing!Amy Z (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the intro. I couldn't find anything on the commons for that assaku article. I'm not familiar with that area of mythology but perhaps there is a public domain book that would include a relevant illustration? Obotlig (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:11 September births

Category:11 September births, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The White Ribbon

Thanks for your ideas about The White Ribbon. I made a few changes that borrow from your input without attribution and I hope you don't mind. I'm not sure about the Protestant/Lutheran distinction; I have a copy of the screenplay translation and neither word appears. This is a detail. I really don't know if the meeting with Eva's family must be included. We leave out many scenes and the opening and closing covers the fact of their engagement without detail. It's a balancing act. Thank you again. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks for your attention to this. I also apologise for the back-and-forth over it before when discussion was called for. I think the lumping of the "mysterious events" together is a confusing element but I am not really familiar with what is expected in a plot summary for a wikipeia article. Some of the events are explained only to the udience and some are left without any exlanation at all which was presumably intentional or meaningful. As to Protestant vs. Lutheran I would guess it was inferred that this is a protestant rather than catholic village because the pastor has a family, was not addressed as a priest, etc. I am not sure of the relevance of the label but it would be obvious to a German audience that these were protestants (which would mean Lutheran to them). I am not sure we should include what might be an obvious but unstated conclusion an audience would reach, or why or by whom the label Protestant was inserted in the article. It is accurate but I also think the details about Eva as I gave are also essentially how she was intended to be seen. I notice a lot of subjective or loose wording in articles relating to the arts and I guess it is necessary to provide an accurate portrayal of impressions that may not be black and white. I'll defer to your experience in this. Thanks again. Obotlig (talk) 01:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This plot summary is somewhat unusual in being built around characters instead of chronology but I am one who thinks this is in many cases a good method. The grouping of mysterious events was not my idea but I think it brings across the film effectively. You hit the nail on the head with the observation that obvious but unstated conclusions require some thought for their place in the summary. I am a believer that the summary should not go further than the film wherever possible. On the other hand, it is a summary, not an investigation of cinematic epistemology; we have to summarize. Where Eva is concerned, I feel that it would be easy to overemphasize her. Haneke consistently leaves his ends loose in a way that seems to resist allusions to cinematic boilerplate. Too much on Eva might imply that the story is built around their relationship. Anyway, thanks for your interest. This film presents some interesting questions that come out in the construction of the plot summary and I enjoy that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hard problem of consciousness

I undid your addition to the introduction of Hard problem of consciousness because it did not really belong there. It was not about the hard problem in particular, but about questions of consciousness in general. It perhaps belongs in the Consciousness article, but, again, not in the intro, but at an appropriate place in the text body. Stevan Harnad 11:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harnad (talk • contribs)

Thanks for letting me know. I disagree and feel that each issue is mentioned in that article. It may be a matter of wording. I think the intro parapragh as it was did not offer sufficient explanation for a layman. I have started a conversation on the article talk page about this to see if some consensus can be reached on a better wording or why the explanation is misplaced or inaccurate. Thanks again. Obotlig (talk) 01:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Helle Thorning-Schmidt

In Folketinget the other members are only allowed to address her as "Statsministeren". Not Ms. Statsminister or Ms. Thorning-Schmidt. Only "Statsministeren". I didn't vote for her, so like parts of the press I use less pleasant words about her :-) I'll make sure always to summarize my edits from now on, so they don't come across as vandalism.Carstensen (talk) 05:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Accusations

Please do not throw accusations of "vandalism" into edit summaries before you understand what is going on. If you nonetheless believe I am vandalizing, please use the corresponding warning templates. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 17:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Removing the christian terrorism cat from the blp of a self-proclaimed christian terrorist is hard to assume any good faith of. Consider it a warning if you want. Obotlig (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Obotlig. I commented on a different matter, below, as you'll see. Thought I'd just politely shove my oar in here, too, to mention that you do need to be very selective in using the word "vandalism". Doing so in any but the most absolutely blatant cases, e.g. when someone randomly adds expletives to an article, is likely to get you in trouble. You can say, if you must, something like "that edit was erroneous" or even, in very severe cases, that it could be a possible bad faith edit, although that's also asking for trouble, imo. But do save the word "vandalism" for only those instances in which you're sure your point-of-view opponents would also agree with the characterization, without any doubt. It's a "hot button" or "loaded" word in wiki-speak, one that has a very narrowly defined meaning in our parlance, and one that's easy to get in trouble with, if used loosely here. I don't mean to be scolding or holier-than-thou in any way, please understand: Just trying to save you unnecessary trouble. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I think I am too often abrasive and inconsiderate when I don't understand another point of view or haven't taken the time to even consider the reasoning of the other party. I will make my best effort to be polite and cautious here because I am finding it a rewarding activity on the whole. The terminology and rules are a bit confusing and I will remember to read the guideline pages as often as it occurs. Thanks again for steering me toward appropriate behaviour here. Obotlig (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

For edit warring in 1RR articles

Hi. I saw your post to WP:AN3 about the Gilad Shalit article, and I commented there briefly. I just thought I'd mention that most editors would probably have taken that to WP:AE since Palestinian-Israeli Conflict ( aka "ARBPIA" ) articles are a rather specialized area of contention on Misplaced Pages. The admins who monitor that board are more familiar with issues specific to those articles, and also very familiar with the most prolific editors on either side of the topic area conflict, so you'll probably find that you get a more informed hearing there next time out than you're likely to obtain on other boards. You can't take your complaint there now, though, as I imagine you know, since that would be "forum shopping", and thus improper. I just thought I'd let you know of this if you have problems you need admin help with in the future, re articles under ARBPIA constraints. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I began to think that I should have taken the other avenue when Epeefleche began his irrational tirades and bullying, but thought the edit warring board was the easier route. Unfortunately I am already very familiar with his ilk and can recognise the behaviour patterns and thought processes well enough (at first sight) to know that it will just make me frustrated or angry. In the end I can only lose by investing energy in a competition of wits with habitually aggressive imbeciles who somehow have good standing with wikipedia. It's not a topic I care enough about to attract negative attention to myself from sorts of persons whom in my experience are extremely vindictive and have limitless energy to dedicate to it. Thanks again for the pointer and if it should arise again I will go the arbitration route. Obotlig (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Glad you were able to take my comments as I intended them, both here and in the section above. I know well from personal experience how very difficult many editors who focus on Israel-Palestine Conflict articles can be. I refer to no particular editor, of course, but there's this very strident "my side, right or wrong!" propaganda mentality that overwhelms the whole topic area, and one that seems very clearly supported by off-wiki canvassing and alert mechanisms among like-minded partisans.

Similarly, and as I imagine you know, many editors have also observed previously that this effort appears to have strong institutional and governmental or quasi-governmental support, as well: This is very easy to see, for example, in the photos of the conflict that are made available to Misplaced Pages or Commons. These and other factors do indeed make it a very difficult area in which to contribute, and I certainly appreciate your efforts to keep the topic area from being completely co-opted by such efforts. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a widespread problem for a, for lack of a better term, democratic effort like wikipedia. For example I would imagine Mormon and Scientology articles face this. But those cases are probably well enough addressed by the existing balances, and there are limits to the energy, methods and resources those sorts of groups will bring to bear. In this other situation I think you are confronted with almost insurrmountably organised and entrenched opposition, ranging from the casual supporter and civic group member, to members of the governments, militaries and intelligence organisations of many nations, often possessing the dual citizenship issue that my edits (inadvertently) raised. It seems to me that one's allegiance should always be in question if you serve in the military of another nation or may have some ties, directly or indirectly, to its foreign intelligence agency. However this particular group seems to evade all scrutiny, even when caught in the act of sedition, espionage, even acts of war, or scream bloody murder if anyone so much as raises an eyebrow. As you note they are very well-entrenched on wikipedia and operate in varying degrees of coordination, formal or informal. I would rather avoid the issue or approach it extremely obliquely because there are other articles I care much more about improving and I am familiar with the consequences of collecting unnecessary antagonists of this ilk. Best wishes to you in you efforts to bring balanced points of view to any and all articles you find of interest. Obotlig (talk) 05:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

1RR violation

Hi. I just wanted to remind you of the discussion concerning your 2 deletions within a 3-minute period, of the precise same edit, at an article under 1RR restriction. The discussion is here.

Your first revert -- deleting another editor's inclusion of the word "France" -- was here. Your second revert -- deleting the same word, a second time, three minutes later -- was here.

As I indicated, I believe that constituted a 1RR violation. The article is under 1RR restriction. Your two deletions meet the definition of what constitutes a revert (again, see WP:REVERT). Your edits were clearly related -- they were deletions of the same precise word, at the same article. And the edits took place within a 24-hour period (specifically, within 3 minutes). I think the best course would be for you to self-revert, under the circumstances.

As I also indicated, I've not brought a complaint to a noticeboard, or encouraged that you be blocked, but rather sought to address this through talk page discussion. You stated in our discussion on the article talk page that your second revert was inadvertent. But then, for some reason, you never corrected your (inadvertent) second revert, by self-reverting. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

1. I believe you are deliberately harassing me. Please do not post this sort of rubbish to my talk page.
2. I believe an admin already closed the case where I also offered my edits for evaluation.
3. As you well know, an edit involving removal or replacement of material is not counted as a reversion unless it is restoring the article to some prior state from the previous 24 hours. I asked if that was the case and you did not indicate so. Otherwise I could construe every edit you make as somehow returning some portion of the article to some prior state even years in the past, if I looked hard enough. I do not believe an editor of your experience is ignorant or irrational enough to fail to comprehend that. I take this as willful harasment and bullying.
4. The use of the allegiance parameter in the military service template as you would like is false and misleading. It appears to be a part of some POV or political agenda to spread the falsehood that dual citizenship is not an active problem of mixed allegiance. At any rate that parameter of the military service agenda is to indicate what part of the war a person was on, and only might be different than the organisation served in for example in the case of a double agent or traitor.
5. I have nothing more to say to you about this. I am not interested in your lies, irrationality or very possibly seditious activities in articles about which I could not care less. Let us part ways permanently. I will be forced to complain about any further posts by you to this page. An admin looked at the edits in question by both of us and closed the case.

Goodbye. Tschüß. Geh raus. Bis nie. Hej aldrig. Mach frei. Au revoir. Obotlig (talk) 01:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Nordic?

Curious that you accused me of anti-Nordic vandalism, when I happen to be a member of haplogroup I1a and speak passable Danish, Norwegian, and Icelandic. I'm pro-truth, and not anti - any ethnci or racial group. 155.84.57.253 (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)