Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:33, 2 February 2012

User:Juice Leskinen/Archive 1

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for giving me my first Barnstar so i give you this in return! Typhoonwikihelper (talk) 11:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Second warning

Quit it with shit like this. Please <s>strike it out</s>. You're making it harder to edit the page and develop a consensus. Address edits, not editors. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope you address their constant personal attacks in the same manner. --Juice Leskinen (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

WLU. The tone of this feedback is inappropriate. Please remember to be polite and respectful to other Misplaced Pages users. Garemoko (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do.

Garemoko, this is the second time I've had to deal with this nonsense. I'm pissed off at everyone on the page right now, they're all making editing the page harder. Consensus can be documented, built and altered without irrelevant pointers to someone's diagnosis. Tylas has yet to do anything indicating her diagnosis is causing any problems with editing - she's a new editor with a strong POV. Just like Juice, who I'm a lot closer to agreeing with, but that doesn't excuse calling someone out because they disclosed a diagnosis. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your polite response to me WLU; I appreciate that. I don't know the ins and outs of the article or discussion, and its great that you're encouraging people to focus on discussion of the article rather than each other. I hope you can retain your sanity and calmness in doing so! Garemoko (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments like this only make it harder to work on the page. Worse than that, it will drive away contributors not already involved in the discussion - which means editing the page will be interrupted by page protection (and not always on "your" version). Please edit civilly. Please. You're making my life more difficult and increasing the likelihood of getting yourself blocked. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 00:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement of new editors

Thanks for your encouragement to new editor Typhoonwikihelper. This is really valuable. Please keep it up! Have you considered getting involved at the New editor feedback dashboard? Garemoko (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I recently joined the feedback/Response team and will try my wings there for a while. I'm fairly new here so I will take it slowly. I appreciate the support you and others have given me so far. Juice Leskinen (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Praveenblack

Unfortunately, your "advice" on that page seem to likely to the have the effect of encouraging a user to try to game the system to get fringe material added to an article... AnonMoos (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I assumed good faith in that he would make good NPOV edits. I think it is really important to give newcomers some leeway in the beginning until they learn the system. And it is important to remember that despite Misplaced Pages says that all editors are equal, reality doesn't always work like that. Giving him the truth will help him in the long run. Thanks for your input! Juice Leskinen (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

That's nice; you should have encouraged him to discuss the matter on Talk:Classical language instead of encouraging him to add what happens to be nonsense to the article, and you should have encouraged him to work with other users, instead of running squealing to an admin whenever he encounters any disagreement. Thanks for nothing... AnonMoos (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

At this point in time, Misplaced Pages has no working system for conflict resolutions, ganging up with peers of often the way people get their way in articles. I understand that many do not want newbies to understand this fact, but I think it is only fair that they know the rules of the game (I would never do so myself, but then again, I never get my way in articles either). Juice Leskinen (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It's nice to encourage new users, but you should encourage them to do the right thing, not the wrong thing. Sorry if I could be considered to have "bitten a newbie", but at Classical language we're really getting tired of perpetual attempts (some of them clearly intentionally-malicious vandalism) to claim that Tamil has a historical status which is not accepted by the mainstream consensus of linguistic scholarship. AnonMoos (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that if there are two sides to an argument, both sides can follow the rules while at the same time have edits that are completely opposed to each other. In such (very common) cases there is no way to solve the dispute, so whoever has the most power in terms of peers will win the editing war. A newbie will not read about this in the manuals, but he will probably learn it after he has been banned, and then it was too late. This is unfair. Juice Leskinen (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

That position seems to assume some kind of stringent anti-objectivity ultra-relativist position which is pretty much irrelevant or useless to what most of Misplaced Pages is trying to do. The fact is that the Tamil-aggrandizers support themselves by referring to newspaper stories, legislative resolutions, and the works of people like Devaneya Pavanar, while the opponents of the Tamil-aggrandizers refer to solid reputable mainstream linguistic sources. Guess which is more valuable for Misplaced Pages? -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not required to be "neutral" between flat-earth theories and spheroidal-earth theories... AnonMoos (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a balance to be struck here and in fact you are both right. One of the 5 pillars of wikipedia encourages users to be bold, not to worry about making mistakes and even edit before reading any of the rules. Its really important that we encourage new users like Praveenblack, even if their edits are not good edits. This is how new users learn to make better edits, and if they get instantly smacked down, it makes them sad and stops them becoming good editors. Misplaced Pages has a declining editorship, which is why initiatives such as the Feedback dashboard that Juice Leskinen is contributing to are so important. Its also really important that editors who maintain individual articles are supportive of new users who might not even know what an article talk page is, let alone how to use it properly. That means helping new users to make constructive edits, rather than simply reverting, criticizing and calling it vandalism.

In the same way that there was room for improvement in Praveenblack's contribution and in AnonMoos's response, there is also room for improvement with Juice Leskinen's feedback. Encouraging edit wars is not a good idea and AnonMoos is right to encourage you to encourage new users to the talk pages. Thank you both for trying to make Misplaced Pages better. I hope you both found this helpful and can move on with your wikipedia lives! Garemoko (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that editing-wars are part of the core of wikipedia. There can be no real--"forced"--rational agreement between two opposing sides since this requires principles of scientific rationality, which Misplaced Pages is not based on. The experienced editors are well aware of this fact and all the ways to outmaneuver newbies in editing wars. By giving them the power of truth, I do honestly believe that they will have a more productive and longer stay on Misplaced Pages. Juice Leskinen (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You've obviously got your views which I not going to argue with. If you disagree with the policy on edit warring and wish to see it changed you should seek to gain consensus on the talk page. I would however encourage you that whilst the Misplaced Pages policy is to discourage edit warring that you do not encourage new users to take part in this. Garemoko (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello to all senior editors. I edited the classical languages page, trying to arrange the languages in order I last saw. I thought some users edited out in favor of some Languages and changed the order. So i decided to put back into correct order and I have been mistaken by fellow senior editor AnonMoos of editing in favor of Tamil. I stopped editing in middle because I could not remember the correct order of languages I last saw. I'm really sorry for my mistake and thanks for correcting me. But I dont know why AnonMoos is so worried about Sanskrit only and not the other languages I edited out and a kind request to him, "Please be soft in your advice or comments as no one is here to contribute non-sense to wikipedia, I'm new to this duty. Thank you again"..... Praveenblack (talk)

I also had sent my complaint to Misplaced Pages Feedback dashboard about non-factual edits in classical Languages page a day ago and was responded by Juice Leskinen . Thank you..... Praveenblack (talk)

Thanks to editors Juice Leskinen and Garemoko for their support for new users like me and making me realize the importance of my contributions to this wider wikipedia community. I'm assuring you all that my future contributions will be factual and neutral..... Praveenblack (talk)

Thanks for your response and for staying positive Garemoko (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For your fantastic work on the Feedback Dashboard :) The cabal is watching! :DOkeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

^^ Juice Leskinen 21:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Feedback responses

The recent feedback response at User_talk:Kayla_fink seems more of a political statement than a helping statement. Possibly more appropriate in a discussion of Misplaced Pages policies than in a new user support area. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

If you do not understand the power dynamics of Misplaced Pages then you are unlikely to succeed as an editor. A few years ago this was less of an issue, today is a extremely important.

I appreciate the feedback, Juice Leskinen 20:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry I called you Whacky. I got in trouble for it and feel bad. ~ty (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Apology accepted, I will hold no grudges. I will also apologize for not taking your diagnosis seriously, I think you are a honest person who mean no harm, so my behavior was not ok. I hope we can put this behind us and work together constructively in the future. Juice Leskinen 23:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

-big smile- :) ~ty (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Many of your responses to feedback requests are inappropriate—do you have sufficient experience to be offering advice? Mistaken comments about the role of administrators (here) might be alright in an informal chat, but not when recorded on a user's talk page. Suggestions like "Since the rules often contradict each other, what matters is rarely what they say but rather who can support you if you ever where to be banned." (here) and "Minority point of views are welcome as long as they can be sourced." (here) are most unhelpful. If you have a specific problem with rules that contradict each other, please ask someone for clarification (me, if you like—reply here, or try WP:HELPDESK). Please stop suggesting to new users that they need someone to support them as if preparing them for battle: what they need is help understanding that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia based on reliable sources (and please see WP:FRINGE before commenting about minority points of view, although it turns out that the feedback issue is not a question of sourcing, but is some question of style (see the article talk). One trivial point is that you mean WP:BLOCK (a WP:BAN is rather different and is not a problem a new user will encounter). Johnuniq (talk) 10:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's look at a comment you yourself made recently: "Likewise I have not followed what is going on in the article (in a month or two, when the excitement has died down, established editors will evaluate all the changes and will remove anything inappropriate)."

A clear case of : http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles

Ownership is a huge issue on wikipedia and there is nothing wrong or against the rules to inform newcomers of this fact.

We can take another example WLU is blocking pretty everything Tom Cloyd does in the article, not because he knows much more or makes better edits but because he is well established on Misplaced Pages and picking a fight with him would get Tom Cloyd banned in the end, so he stays on the sidelines. (for the record, both make pretty bad edits, so I'm not condoning any one of them).

Power is ultimately the only thing that can settle a conflict here. Juice Leskinen 10:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It is worth considering the remarkable success of Misplaced Pages—how is it possible that many good quality articles are maintained despite onslaughts from vandals, POV pushers, cranks, spammers, and many other unhelpful contributors? I'm not sure anyone knows the answer to that, but it is related to the fact that many people support the concept underlying Misplaced Pages (an encylopedia based on reliable sources). How is it that the people with the power that you mention are also the people capable of creating what we see?

It would be hard to argue with my above quoted comment, as of course it is desirable that inappropriate material be removed, although reasonable people will disagree about what is appropriate. I know that WLU is an immensely helpful editor, and is one of the few who has sufficient stamina and skill to combat serious pushers of fringe views—if there were not editors like WLU, Misplaced Pages would look like many of the junk yards on the Internet that are overrun by cranks. If politely asked WLU would explain in detail the reasons for any particular edit (and those reasons would be based on an accurate interpretation of Misplaced Pages's policies). No one here claims to be infallible, and if WLU has made a mistake, I am confident they would want it rectified. I recently noticed Talk:Dissociative identity disorder where the editor you mention is currently adding a highly unusual section to the talk page. I should delete that section myself as it completely conflicts with WP:TPG and the way Misplaced Pages is organized, but I'll leave that for when I have time to attempt an explanation. At any rate, I'm not asking you to change your views about the power structure here, but please stop expressing those views to new users. Johnuniq (talk) 11:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

From what I have seen so far, most articles related to the more controversial sexualities are highly biased, it is as if one or several people have systematically removed anything that doesn't conform with a FOX-news worldview. It's not a success, it is a complete failure. And I blame the power/ownership issue, no one dares to edit those articles anymore due to this. It's simply appalling.

If you can show me that it against the policies or even the spirit of Misplaced Pages to inform new users of this, then I will stop. However, todays Misplaced Pages is a far cry from the lofty ideals of the olden days. Juice Leskinen 11:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

To elaborate, for example, if a person has not studies a subject he might be impressed with a an article that is 2 pages long but has 140 references to scientific studies and similar. Great article! Or is it? To answer this question, you will need a deep understanding of the topic at hand, so for all you know, the article could be complete propaganda with cherrypicked sources who may or may not even support the statements they are supposed to. Unfortunately, this seem to be standard in the sexuality related topics.

If I or someone else would attempt to correct this, it would not take long before one of those who did the hatchet job in the first place comes around and stops all such attempts. There will be nothing to do at that point, UNLESS you can find enough allies to support you. Juice Leskinen 11:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The "success" I mentioned is the obvious success of the very many articles which are good. You are correct: there are also many cesspools of trivia, nonsense, and original research. In particular, articles related to sex would be among the worst as the topics are often only of interest to those with, shall we say, a particular interest. Occasionally (although not for a while) an LGBT topic will come up on an admin noticeboard where it turns out that some passionate advocates for LGBT rights have been adding lavish and undue detail to many articles. Often such issues are never resolved because the community does not have the depth and strength to handle ownership issues in topics that are mainly of interest to those who live the topic. I still have no idea of the position that each editor is taking at the Rind article (other than the obvious abuse of its talk page), so I'm not commenting on that particular topic, but in general I agree with what you say. Nevertheless, it is extremely unhelpful to drop a sentence on a newbie's talk page that more or less encourages a battleground mentality—that's just going to get them blocked. If you want to show an example of "rules often contradict each other" I would be glad to offer my thoughts. Also, what I said above about minority points of view needs to be accepted since a new editor who repeatedly adds some well sourced but faith-based observation to an article on science is going to be frustrated. The earlier they learn that articles are based on reliable sources (and what that means), the better. Of course, responses to article feedback cannot do much to provide such education, but they should not mislead or oppose the norms that apply to the vast majority of articles (the norms should apply to all articles, but as agreed above, there are untamed areas). Johnuniq (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Signatories

Juice, you obviously are not willing to advocate for individuals with DID who are having difficulty editing the article. Your assertion that you are is obviously false and is made in bad faith. —danhash (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I will help them to the best of my abilities. Please assume good faith. Removing my signature will be considered vandalism. Juice Leskinen 15:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Assuming good faith does not apply to those who have deliberately showed bad faith. Consider it whatever you want. Go ahead and warn me! It's not like it will matter, because it was not vandalism. —danhash (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Ponder this:

• 35% had no reservations about DID
• 43% were skeptical
• 15% indicated the diagnosis should not be included in the DSM.

Being sceptical about DID is the majority view, learn to love it. Juice Leskinen 15:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't care what your opinion on DID is, and I'm not about to start debating with you, here, about the validity of DID. You made a bad faith edit which I removed, and you called that vandalism, which is wasn't. Your opinion about the color of the sky is equally as relevant to my post on your talk page as your opinion about DID. You can keep trying to impose your opinion on me here on your talk page, but that's not the point of this discussion, and I will entertain no further conversation about it here. Feel free to respond about the matter which I posted about here or else consider me gone from this thread. —danhash (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

"...learn to love it..."? A quote with no source cited? Impressive. You are, of course, citing Piper, A., Merskey, H. (2004). "The persistence of folly: A critical examination of dissociative identity disorder. Part I. The excesses of an improbable concept".Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie 49 (9): 592–600 - a study in which, if I recall correctly, 20% of the subjects didn't even respond to the questionnaire. Two other studies I know about, of the same population, had strongly different results (will be bringing them to the DID article).

And "recovered memory therapy" - thank you. I was quite certain that you are a FMS hack; know I know it. They are the only group who use that term. Real therapists do not refer to "recovered memories". We speak of memory objects, and their existential validity is not relevant to the therapy. We just don't care, even if the client often does. The memory object is validated solely by a client's posttraumatic stress response to it, and it is that on which we work - and with a success rate in excess of 80%. There goes the "invalid therapy" hypothesis.

So...cherry picking your references; gross ignorance of the subject...anything else you want to show us? This is waaaay more fun than throwing rocks at passing cars...

Tom Cloyd (talk) 03:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

:) RajaPakhralMinhas (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :) Just what I needed! Juice Leskinen 15:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

AN posting notification

Administrator's noticeboard posting. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Getting a bit childish

There is currently discussion over the appropriateness of the section you just tried to manipulate. Feel free to comment on the administrator's noticeboard (follow the link in the previous section) or in the comments subsection. Thanks. —danhash (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine I will delete the section instead. Juice Leskinen 21:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

If your complaint is valid I'm sure it will be heard at the administrators' noticeboard where as you know the section is currently being discussed. —danhash (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Only a matter of time now. Juice Leskinen 22:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)