Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:40, 14 January 2013

Welcome!

Hello, Deicas, 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:

• Introduction to Misplaced Pages
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Zad68 03:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Rocky

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rocky_Marciano&diff=84761896&oldid=84760741 This was most correct version, this idiot today reverted everything under umbrella of POV, which is not, go there and see what can be done to be reverted to this version.

Question

You have made 121 edits to the English Misplaced Pages so far.

How did you learn so much about how Misplaced Pages works in such a short time?

Regards.  Cs32en  18:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I made my first Misplaced Pages edit several months ago. How is that "such a short time"? And what is so cognitively demanding about editing Misplaced Pages? Do tell. And some of us learned about footnotes and citations back in the days of the typewriter.

Why do you ask? Deicas (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I am asking this because your knowledge of Misplaced Pages seems to go beyond "footnotes and citations". Your answer is not really convincing.  Cs32en  19:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You are attributing to Misplaced Pages more complexity than is its' due. And anyway, my training at the covered Misplaced Pages subversion almost as extensively as it did techniques of oppressing the masses. I was #2 in my "Covert World Domination" class. I have what it takes.

I repeat my question -- how is several months "such a short time"? Deicas (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm impressed by your achievements at the Bilderberg Group. Surely subversion of Misplaced Pages must be an important part of the tasks that have been assigned to you. Whether several months is a short time or not certainly depends on the context. How did you get to know about Misplaced Pages, and what were your motivations for not just reading, but also editing the encyclopedia?  Cs32en  19:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

My department in the Special Executive has traditionally been involved in counter-intelligence, terrorism, revenge and extortion, but of late we're been focusing on compromising elections to our ends. And we are *very good* at it, witness the performance of Scott Brown in the Massachusetts senate special election. If we can do that in Ted Kennedy's old district we can get a practicing Satanist elected pope -- which is on our schedule for 2Q2011. I don't do much Misplaced Pages work as the consensus at the Special Executive is that Misplaced Pages is too filled with kooks to be influential on the topics about which we care. But we have a grant from Trilateral Commission for Misplaced Pages subversion which pays for the research staff, so I don't have to spend much time on the matter. Sorry I have to go now, there is a big planning meeting to decide on the location of the next earthquake to destroy a blighted, and unprofitable, third-world nation. Deicas (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Question regarding the YouTube video

Several editors have given a number of reasons why the YouTube video that you have used in the article 9/11 Truth movement is not a reliable source. There are also concerns about a possible copyright violation. An inquiry a the Reliable sources noticeboard has been closed as resolved, concluding that the video is unreliable. Do you intend to remove the video from the article?  Cs32en Talk to me  19:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I will address the issue. Deicas (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2013

Your recent editing history at Paul Krugman shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Zad68 23:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not edit waring. I have *extensively* commented my justifications on the talk page, and now, BLPN. I have, also, un-reverted, an edit by a now-banned sockpuppet. Deicas (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Deicas. A few points:

You appear to misunderstand the difference between discussion and edit-warring. Discussing and edit warring are mutually exclusive–you can be engaging in both at the same time. Since you have this misunderstanding, you should definitely read the links in the warning provided above so that you know Misplaced Pages's definitions of these concepts, which are the definitions an administrator will use when handling an edit-warring report.

Also, based on your edit summary in this edit, you appear to have another misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages process. Your request to have the revert explained to you in a certain way doesn't prevent the application of normal Misplaced Pages process when an edit is challenged via a revert. You need to read Misplaced Pages:Consensus, and WP:BRD.

It appears you have never received a Welcome message with a set of links to the most important Misplaced Pages policies, so I'll leave you one, and hope you find it useful. Happy editing... Zad68 03:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Request to editprotect Talk:Paul Krugman

Re:

As discussion of the Paul Krugman article seems to have moved/been moved here, to biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Paul_Krugman, from Talk:Paul_Krugman -- is is reasonable & proper for me to request that an administrator editprotect Talk:Paul_Krugman with a view toward keeping all the discussion in one location? How would I go about making such a request? Deicas (talk) 9:56 pm, Today (UTC−5)

What you are requesting is the opposite of what needs to happen. The BLP Noticeboard is only for serious BLP issues that need immediate attention. That BLPN topic was covering a rather routine content discussion that needs to be resolved at the article Talk page. When an edit-war breaks out at the article, an administrator may lock the article to force discussion to happen at the article Talk page. So, you should be bringing suggested article improvements and Misplaced Pages policy-based reasons for your suggestions to the article Talk page. Suggestions that gain consensus may be implemented at the article. Suggestions that don't won't be applied. Zad68 03:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits -- naughty User:Deicas forgets to sign edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear SineBot -- D'oh! I am aware that I should sign my posts and I Facepalm every time I forget to do so.

See above! I just did it again! As people get older we become difficult to train. Deicas (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Trillion dollar coin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Who (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Your post is extremely confusing

Your post is extremely confusing, and I don't want to distract the thread by asking for clarification there. You said:

User:Sphilbrick: If you are make an assertion that Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion dollar coin does not rise to a level of signifigance sufficent to merit inclusion in Paul Krugman then why are you saying that in the 'Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin isn't significant' thread just above? This thread addresses "Article-level POV problem".

I didn't contribute to the 'Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin isn't significant'. Did you miss a "not"?

Did you miss that my response was a direct reponse to Amadscientist, who was asserting an opinion, without any evidence, that the issue deserved mention. I disagree. Amadscientist's first two sentences are related to POV, but the third is not. Please take issue with Amadscientist if you want to keep subject matter together.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Glad to see that you corrected the statement. My response stands, I was responding to Amadscientist who opinedThe Trillion dollar coin issue deserves a mention in my view as encyclopedic and having enough notability to mention... I disagree and said so. If you think Amadscientist should be making that statement in a different section, by all means let Amadscientist know, but do so at Amadscientist's talk page, please stop cluttering up the page with your directives. If someone goes off-topic, it only makes sense to direct your request to the person who goes off-topic, not to the person who responds.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

With regard to your comment just above:

1) D'oh! Indeed my RfC comment was missing a "not". I've now fixed that.

2) Per your "... lease take issue with Amadscientist ..." -- yes I will do that. I have attempted to address procedural issues with Amadscientist and *I* am unsatisfied with his response, but, I am not familiar with the DRN RfC process so I don't know if my expectations are reasonable.

3) I applaud you effort to not "distract the thread".

Would you please confirm that you've read this post, with a comment here below?. I'm not certain that I have the hang of communicating via Misplaced Pages user talk pages. Deicas (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Color me skeptical, but yes, I've read it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

How do you view your role...

...at Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#talk:Paul_Krugman?

As a participant in the dispute, or as a facilitator in dispute resolution?

You listed yourself as an involved party, and some of your comments are clearly opinions on the subject matter, yet you are directing others to move posts to different sections, and frankly, doing a poor job of it.

If I post in the wrong section, I'd be happy if someone let me know, but it would be better to do so on my talk page, so it doesn't clutter up the dispute resolution page. Removing comments is bad form. Plus, you are 0–3. See my post above for your first error, although I haven't yet figured out whether you just said the opposite of what you meant, or something else.

Now you are alleging that my comment is about "inclusion" when in fact, it is a rebuttal of your premature and incorrect reading of consensus.

I request that you work on reading more carefully, and if you do find something that deserves a different location, post to the editor's talk page to keep clutter to a minimum.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC) .

1) Per your question: I am first and foremost a participant in the dispute. After all, I was the the editor who made the edit that is one of, but not the only, subject of discussion in the RfC.

2) As no one else seems to be acting as to facilitate moving the discussion in a dispositive direction, I have taken, hopefully non-tendentious, actions to do so.

2a) I call your attention to my, as yet unanswered, question in the RfC "Per my questions, just above, WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF THIS DISCUSSION?".

2c) Do you have any suggestion on how I can get the "SCOPE" question answered authoritatively?

3) Per your "I'd be happy if someone let me know, but it would be better to do so on my talk page": I have, and will, follow your suggestion.

4) Per you "Now you are alleging that my comment is about 'inclusion' when in fact, it is a rebuttal of your premature and incorrect reading of consensus" my assertion of consensus what an effort to prompt probative disagreement. Assuming that I understand you correctly: you ask, quite correctly, that I should attempt to prompt probative disagreeing responses first via comments on users talk pages and only, failing that, resort to comment with in the RfC. True?

5) You observe that I'm "frankly, doing a poor job of it". Is the assertion of "poor job" based on anything other than my missing "not" and your request that, when possible, I make comments on user's talk page?

6) Would you please specify the items on which I am "0–3"?

7) I call to your attention my comment at : does this correctly comport with your request that, when possible I make comments on user's talk pages and on in the RfC discussion? Deicas (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Re #1. I agree you are a participant. It is my opinion that participants should not try to play facilitator.

Re # 2, don't get so impatient. Amadscientist is attemtping to act as facilitator. If that doesn't happen prompy enough, we should eleicit input from an uninvolved volunteer. It is wholly inapproriate for an involved participant to act as a facilitator in this forum. I strongly dispute your contention that your actions are non-tendentious.

Re # 2a. don't get so impatient. It isn't my call, or your call to answer.

Re # 2c. don't get so impatient. Amadscientist is on it.

Re #3. Thank-you

Re # 4. my assertion of consensus what an effort to prompt probative disagreement This is not an English language statement. Please try again.

Re # 5. Yes

Re # 6. To follow, hopefully shortly.

Re #7. It is yet another example of you playing facilitator, badly.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Per #2 "This is not an English language statement. Please try again." -- D'oh! Corrected "my assertion of consensus what was an effort to prompt probative disagreement'"

Re #7 ... your observation is duly noted. Please be assured that it will receive due attention. Deicas (talk)

Re #6. where I assert you are 0–3.

• In this edit you assert every aspect of Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin that is under discussion on *this* page is under discussion at the RfC. That wasn't true when I posted at the Krugman talk page.
• As you now realize, you missed the word "not" in a question posed to me. While a single word, it obviously is material.
• In this edit you proclaim If my reading of this part of the issue is correct, then the consensus solution would be.... Proclamation of a consensus at that time was premature, is not the province of a participant, and isn't even the province of a facilitator. A facilitator can offer straw consensus to which participants agree or disagree. And as a final straw, proclaiming a consensus when half the participants opining are adamantly opposed is not consensus. (I could count this as multiple errors, but I'll grade lightly and call it one.)
• in this edit you claim my post is misplaced, but it is a direct response to your false claim of consensus. I tallied the results to show your consensus claim was off-base.
• in this edit you assert that I am posting in the wrong place. Yet I am directly responding to the point made by Amadscientist. The comment by Amadscientist may be misplaced, but you should take that up with Amadscientist.
• I'm an easy grader, as I didn't count the mistakes you made in connection with others posts, only mine.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 02:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

DR/N conduct

The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is for editors to bring content disputes before the community. Some conduct issues can and have been determined there in a limited (very limited) way. I am issuing you a warning on one now.

Please stop Wikilawyering, attemping to direct the dispute or disruptive behavior of any kind on the Paul Krugman DR/N. Continued disruption will result in your being asked to refrain from further comment on the case.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)