Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:47, 28 November 2012

Welcome!

Hello, HiLo48, 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 on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Longhair\ 07:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Further

Further to my response at my talk page I note that both Longhair and Brian have come to your page to welcome you. Both are great participants here and you have some fundamental links to get you started in terms of understanding. If you need more help please ask at any time.--VirtualSteve 07:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Reviewer and rollback

Hi, I've added a couple of flags to your account: reviewer and rollback. I hope you find them useful. Let me know if you have any questions. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

For keeping the baddies at bay...

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for keeping an eye out for damaging edits. bodnotbod (talk) 10:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to move this barnstar to wherever in your user space you'd prefer to have it. bodnotbod (talk) 10:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Humor at Protected Pages

As someone who lives on an island (granted its a VERY large island) perhaps you are unaware of what the rules are on the Mainland (thats what we call it) for articles that may be considered political in nature;

1. Any cross-party hugfest can only be initiated by the right,
2. Any internal hugfest (or support of one another) within the right should NOT be constued as anything more than friendliness and cheerful banter,
3. Any internal hugfest (or support of one another) within the left could, should and will result in immediate blocks and bans to the active participants and severe reprimands to any editors that were seen smiling in the general vicinity.

These are just some basic guidelines to assure the safety and sanity of your fellow editors. A good rule of thumb to follow is that if the right is obviously humorous 3 times in a row, some humor from the left will be tolerated since the conversation will be ended via "shrink wrap" at any moment. BTW, sorry about the spelling of humour. Buster Seven Talk 20:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for information

Compliments on your sang froid

I can't help but admire your reaction the other day to the namecalling you were subjected to by Encyclopedia91. You must have the patience and forbearance of a saint! I know I would have reacted quite differently. You are a model for us all. Sincerely, --Kenatipo 21:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice Koekjes

Buster7 has given you a Nice Koekjes which promote fellowship, goodwill and WikiLove. Hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the good flavor of Nice Koekjes around Wiki World by giving someone else one. Maybe to a friend or, better yet, to someone you have had disagreements with in the past. Nice Biscuits are very tasty and have been known to calm even the most savage beast. Enjoy! Buster Seven Talk

I just gave a koekje to an Aussie friend, User:Alastair Haines and I thought of you. It's fresh. I made it last night. Buster Seven Talk 14:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Some words I'm working on

Been thinking about this criticism issue for a while. Probably not the ideal place to say this, but I want to try putting the words together. I think criticism sections are almost always going to be inappropriate in Misplaced Pages. Just about everyone has somebody who disagrees with them about something. Some, like outspoken atheists, will have more than many from conservative religious parts of society who disagree. That's a given. We cannot possibly list all the criticism, so what's the point of listing any? We should just describe what's significant about someone (i.e. why they have an article here) and let others decide on the merits of their actions and views. The same goes for people significant for their strong religious views. List those views, and let it stand. Going any further will inevitably create the debate of "how much further?" So, no criticism sections. OK?

I agree with you 90+%. Criticism sections are lazy writing, often places for sneaking in their point-of-view. They are often a way of taking an obscure critic and giving them promotion by adding their opinions. I often get the impression that some editors start with a point of view and then web search until they find some obscure opinion piece and add it to the article. In these cases, only reliable sources and notable ones will do. Instead of putting criticism in its own ghetto, if legit it belongs next to the ideas being presented. Thank you for bringing up an important issue. --Javaweb (talk) 00:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

You two might want to check out Misplaced Pages:Criticism, an essay that discourages the existence of criticism sections and goes over the main points against them.AerobicFox (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

I support you

You were right in the Pregnancy talk page. The image you wanted in the lead has a much more "medical", serious and informative tone than the one that the scores of probably American nipple-o-phobic prudes finally forced there. Actually, even from a purely aesthetic point of view the bare breasted image is superior because of the more "charming" expression of the woman in the picture, rather than the a bit like "whatcha lookin' at" expression of the Asian woman. --Cerlomin (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For your sport work. :)

LauraHale (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy Australia Day! Thank you for contributing to Australian content!

	Australian Wikimedian Recognition (AWR)
	Thank you for your contributions on English Misplaced Pages that have helped improve Australian related content. :D It is very much appreciated. :D Enjoy your Australia Day and please continue your good work! LauraHale (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I have spotted your username regularly popping up and, on occasion, beating me to a reversion. You also seem to be active in a wide variety of activities on Misplaced Pages. Keep up the good work! LittleOldMe (talk) 07:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This has been due for a while. From someone who disagrees with you 3/4 of the time, to someone who understands what an objective world encyclopedia should be, and puts all else aside in pursuing that end, and who's methods of disputing are refreshingly direct. North8000 (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #2)

To add your named to the newsletter delivery list, please sign up here

This edition The Olive Branch is focusing on a 2nd dispute resolution RfC. Two significant proposals have been made. Below we describe the background and recent progress and detail those proposals. Please review them and follow the link at the bottom to comment at the RfC. We need your input!

View the full newsletter

Background Until late 2003, Jimmy Wales was the arbiter in all major disputes. After the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee were founded, Wales delegated his roles of dispute resolution to these bodies. In addition to these committees, the community has developed a number of informal processes of dispute resolution. At its peak, over 17 dispute resolution venues existed. Disputes were submitted in each venue in a different way. Due to the complexity of Misplaced Pages dispute resolution, members of the community were surveyed in April 2012 about their experiences with dispute resolution. In general, the community believes that dispute resolution is too hard to use and is divided among too many venues. Many respondents also reported their experience with dispute resolution had suffered due to a shortage of volunteers and backlogging, which may be due to the disparate nature of the process. An evaluation of dispute resolution forums was made in May this year, in which data on response and resolution time, as well as success rates, was collated. This data is here. Progress so far Leading off from the survey in April and the evaluation in May, several changes to dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) were proposed. Rather than using a wikitext template to bring disputes to DRN, editors used a new javascript form. This form was simpler to use, but also standardised the format of submissions and applied a word limit so that DRN volunteers could more easily review disputes. A template to summarise, and a robot to maintain the noticeboard, were also created. As a result of these changes, volunteers responded to disputes in a third of the time, and resolved them 60% faster when compared to May. Successful resolution of disputes increased by 17%. Submissions were 25% shorter by word count.(see Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Statistics - August compared to May) Outside of DRN other simplification has taken place. The Mediation Cabal was closed in August, and Wikiquette assistance was closed in September. Nevertheless, around fifteen different forums still exist for the resolution of Misplaced Pages disputes. Proposed changes Given the success of the past efforts at DR reform, the current RFC proposes we implement: 1) A submission gadget for every DR venue tailored to the unique needs of that forum. Similar to the one that was deployed, with great success, to the DRN. Structured based on the specific issues most commonly dealt with at each forum. Designed to improve the quality of requests for DR and the efficiency of DR at that forum. Applicable at following noticeboards: Dispute resolution, Neutrality, Reliable Sources, Original Research, Biographies of Living Persons, Notability noticeboard, Fringe theories, Conflict of Interest, Ethnic and cultural conflicts, External links, Third opinion, Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee. Forms will merely fill out any existing templates (such as Arbcom's) and create a markup-free form in line with specific noticeboard practices otherwise. Example form fields: What pages are involved? What users are involved? What is the issue? What resolution is desired? 2) A universal dispute resolution wizard, accessible from Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. This wizard would ask a series of structured questions about the nature of the dispute. It would then determine to which dispute resolution venue a dispute should be sent. If the user agrees with the wizard's selection, s/he would then be asked a series of questions about the details of the dispute (for example, the usernames of the involved editors). The wizard would then submit a request for dispute resolution to the selected venue, in that venue's required format (using the logic of each venue's specialized form, as in proposal #1). The wizard would not suggest a venue which the user has already identified in answer to a question like "What other steps of dispute resolution have you tried?". Similar to the way the DRN request form operates, this would be enabled for all users. A user could still file a request for dispute resolution manually if they so desired. Coding such a wizard would be complex, but the DRN gadget would be used as an outline. Once the universal request form is ready (coded by those who helped create the DRN request form) the community will be asked to try out and give feedback on the wizard. The wizard's logic in deciding the scope and requirements of each venue would be open to change by the community at any time. 3) Additionally, we're seeking any ideas on how we can attract and retain more dispute resolution volunteers.

Please share your thoughts at the RfC.

--The Olive Branch 18:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to record this before it gets buried

"...user HiLo48 has a biased towards Netball and against male sport's."

I think it's a gem.

HiLo48 (talk) 06:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	YOU are a human being with a brain, NO scarecrows allowed. Kennvido (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Personal opinion

In the RfC/U, which you have apparently stated you would not participate in, I made a comment which I think might be useful. If you look at the Bibliography of encyclopedias, you will see that there are a rather large number out there, many of which are in the public domain. I am myself currently in the process of downloading to myself the various volumes of the old Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, some of whose articles have been said in reviews of more recent reference works to be possibly the best articles on those subjects ever written, with the intention of ultimately adding them to WikiSource, and, maybe, starting some articles which we don't yet have in the English wikipedia which are contained in it. I made a statement in the RfC that, should problems continue, it might be extremely productive if perhaps you found a topic of interest to you and maybe do the same. User:Blofeld, who has apparently recently retired, started the bibliography page with the intentions of giving interested editors some sources which could, hopefully, establish notability for some topics and provide some content with which to start articles that don't yet exist.

I said somewhere before that, as a citizen of the US, I often agree with your own opinions that the project tends to be overbalanced to the US side. Starting articles on non-US topics, possibly using public domain sources, is one way I am going to try to develop some of the content that is currently weak or nonexistent regarding some of those topics in the field of religion, philosophy, ethics, sociology, etc., as per the source above. And, like I said, there are a lot of other such sources.

I do think that maybe, if you find problems with other editors persisting on wikipedia, maybe one thing to do would be to do some more work elsewhere, like I intend to do. Even for a lot of the content here, in the English wikipedia, material on some topics, like older biographies, won't have changed that much since some public domain works were published, and they might be extremely useful in not only being more available to both our editors and readers, but also in at least some cases maybe one of the best ways to help get some articles here about older topics up to GA and maybe better. Just an idea, anyway. John Carter (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack

Please do not attack other editors, as you did to Homophobia. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. I know it's not the most stable environment but personal attacks do not help anyone and might actually derail the good progress being made. Please strike your comment. Thanks ツ Jenova20 09:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that was not a personal attack. Too many people here don't read what others post carefully enough, and you've just proven to be one of them. I had earlier posted "We're all prejudiced in one way or another..." In that context, where I describe everyone as prejudiced, calling someone prejudiced cannot possibly be seen as a personal attack. (Unless I've personally attacked 7 billion people.) I'll await your apology. HiLo48 (talk) 09:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but i fail to see how "You simply have no idea what prejudice means. You ARE prejudiced" is: A - helpful, and B - not a personal attack, even if directed against a lot of people.

That conversation should never have trailed off the way it did and it doesn't help at all. I ignored Maktesh's comment along those lines and i expected you to do the same thing.

"In that context, where I describe everyone as prejudiced, calling someone prejudiced cannot possibly be seen as a personal attack" - yes it can, so be careful with how you phrase stuff like this and Misplaced Pages:Comment on the content, not the contributor. Thanks ツ Jenova20 10:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Look, Maktesh IS a bigoted and prejudiced editor, and doesn't realise it. I have disengaged from that conversation now, because he's one of those ignorant, shallow editors that won't see the problem with his stated position. It's sad for Misplaced Pages that we have no way of dealing with people like that. He's the bigot. I tried to address it. He'll never get it. I shouldn't be criticised. HiLo48 (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

No comment. Just don't personally attack him, even if he attacks you. There's proper ways to deal with this stuff, although i'm not entirely convinced they work myself after the recent ANI. And keep your edit summaries accurate too, i never called you a bigot and never intended to. Thanks ツ Jenova20 11:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

HiLo, there is a way of dealing with editors whom you find yourself opposed to, but this isn't it. The technique is in two parts. First you have to rein in your frustration and indignation before they let your tongue (or your fingers) get you into trouble. That way you prevent yourself immediately being cast as the uncivil, disruptive, impulsive troublemaker. Type out your first response but don't send it, then leave it for an hour before you come back and delete it unsent. Second, stay true to your position but write the sweetest, most co-operative, even-tempered reply you can manage without it coming across as sarcastic. With any luck they will either (a) cease to regard you as an enemy and start seeing you as someone they can work with or (b) be so worked up by their inability to get you to respond that they will make an ill-judged indiscretion. Either way you come out looking like (and actually being) the good guy.

Firing off spleen the way you so often do is not only unhelpful to the encyclopaedia, it actually harms your cause by allowing people to dismiss you as a frothy-mouthed trouble maker. If the current RfC has not as yet shown a decisive consensus against you, neither have there been huge waves of support. Those (like me) who have argued against sanctions don't necessarily think you're snowy white. And my further support for you is definitely contingent on you finding a different style of interaction. I'm aware you won't like or necessarily agree with much of what I'm saying here. But I'm saying it to try and help rather than as part of a campaign to bring you down. I'm saying it because I hope you're ready to hear it and carry on the change that's already been evident for a couple of weeks. All the best, Kim Dent-Brown 11:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Kim is right in the above, I'm afraid. I am far from being a perfect person in this regard myself, as my history rather strongly indicates, but saying we're all prejudiced isn't necessary sufficient grounds to later point out that one specific individual is particularly prejudiced. One thing I have learned, over the rather numerous years I have been alive (I'm somewhere in your own broad age range, having just recently hit 50, although not knowing exactly how old you are, I can't be more specific), is that we do accept commenting on the comments of others rather than them personally. I haven't been monitoring your recent actions as much as others have, but if Kim, who has my highest regards, says there has been a recent change in your conduct, that's good enough for me to agree. Yes, I know that dealing with POV pushers and religious nutters of all kinds can be infuriating. As someone who spends a lot of time on the religious content largely because of the problems of POV pushers of all kinds regarding that content, I can honestly say that I have one more than one occasion had I think sufficient grounds to seriously question the basic sanity of some of the people I have been engaged with, particularly those who display "cultic" tendencies, and have I think even said that on more than one occasion. Yeah, personally, I myself don't do what Kim suggested above, although I acknowledge, at least sometimes, I should. On that basis, I really can't fault you if you "let loose" once in a while, but do hope that you can find some way to significantly reduce the frequency with which you might do so. John Carter (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Folks, I think you're all wrong. My only approach now is to disengage, which I have already done. Nothing in Misplaced Pages's processes will stop these bigots. You may have your preferred approaches, but they don't work. Far too many of the POV pushers are still fully active, doing far more damage to Misplaced Pages than I ever have. My approach probably doesn't either (although we don't know about the long term) but at least I've been honest with everyone, and completely principled. I'm comfortable within myself. Pretending to be nice to nutters never makes me feel better, and it encourages them. I am part of a culture of honesty. I'm not leaving it. HiLo48 (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. You'll have to resort to keeping silent or eventually being blocked. If you honestly believe that your fellow editors are idiots and bigots then I'm afraid I don't personally think there's anything clever or praiseworthy about telling them so, nor anything underhand about keeping your opinions to yourself. But each to his own. Best of luck! Kim Dent-Brown 17:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You can think what you like HiLo, no one here is thought police. You can't say what you like though, you can't attack other editors for things in such a way. If you have an issue then bring it up at the correct channel so we can keep this place civil, even for the nutters. Thanks ツ Jenova20 17:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

(e-c) The only thing I can add is that I have, on a few occasions, found ways to be really, really venomously condescending in a polite way. Basically, there are a few times when I have managed to say, basically, "people who belief this need to spend several days (at least several days initially, anyway) in one of the hospitals full of very polite, positive people with long white coats to determine just how many medications they really need, and find some way to manage to take them all within the required medication period. In some cases, this might require them being on constant IV's of medications." Notice that there was no directly "personal" comment involved. Granted, it doesn't work as often as I would like, but in at least one or two cases those SPA POV pushers have retired. Yeah, there still are a lot of people I personally honestly consider total idiots editing around here. I am considering just what to do with one of them right now. And, just for clarity, that one is not you, OK? This other editor does boast of being some form of "senior troll editor", and I have a feeling will wind up before ArbCom before long. But I do think that the "💕 anyone is allowed to edit" will always have trouble dealing with those who need surgery to remove their fingers from their eliminatory orifices. And one does get the impression that they tend to effectively breed like rabbits out there, although it should be understood that by comparing them to true lagomorphs I am in no way implying that the latter seem to have had the same sort of extreme craniotomy (or whatever the word is) that some of these editors seems to have had. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)