| Revision as of 07:03, 9 November 2006 editThe hobgoblin (talk | contribs)121 edits bling bling.← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:16, 29 November 2006 edit undoJghfutikdpe3 (talk | contribs)13 edits ←Replaced page with 'you dumbass ~~~~'Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| you dumbass ] 22:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| '''Welcome!''' | |||
| Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}, and ] 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: | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on my talk page, or place <code>{{helpme}}</code> on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --] 21:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| PS: I got one of these when I first got started here, and now I'm passing the same text on to you. --] 21:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Barack Obama== | |||
| Just to say that because of family commitments I haven't been able to do any work on this article these last two days, but hope to do so very soon. Regards, --] 04:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I want to thank you for the way you've handled this, a clear contrast to other recent contributors who I suspect do not fully share our interest in improving the article. I've learned something from this: when a Misplaced Pages formulation of words or ideas looks awkward, it may be because the commonly used words or ideas are just that: common, but not necessarily accurate or wise. | |||
| :In principle, I think it is a human right to express the ethnic identification of one's own choosing. Ethnicity legislated by strict formulas has been used as a justification for so much evil in this world. On the other hand, I have gradually warmed to your idea that the specification "African American" would mislead readers, especially when given the added force of being stated in the article's lead without any clarification. | |||
| :I look forward to the day in the near future that Obama's biology will not be considered as notable as his biography, and when we can remove that frequently contested and difficult to compose sentence entirely. Anyway, I think you are off to a good start in Misplaced Pages (I am also new, only since June) and hope we can all learn something from being here! --] 20:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I know, it shouldn't be there in the first place and like I said on the talk page, if Harold Ford Jr. wins, it will have to be revised or just scratched completely. But thanks, and I look forward to seeing you on other articles in the future. ] 21:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Been dealing with some edit friction ] from an unexpected source. Let me know what you think. --] 22:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Have a look at , first two paragraphs. Do you think we may be finally getting it right? --] 06:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == 3RR Rule == | |||
| You are in danger of violating the ] on {{{1|a page}}}. Please cease further reverts or you may be ] from further editing. <!-- Template:3RR4 --> | |||
| Please read my edit summaries. This is the third edit summary that you have ignored. | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I warned ] for directed at you. If it happens again somewhere else, let me know. · '''<font color="#707070">]</font>''' ''<font color="#465945" size="1">]</font>'' · 18:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Directed at you, but meant for me! --] 20:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == RFC Obama == | |||
| Hey Shakam. I have seen your RFC heading on the obama talk page but I dont think you have ever linked the article to the actual rfc page. Here is the link: | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment | |||
| Since there is still alot of controversy over the whole african american or mixed race thing, maybe you could start over-put in a new rfc section in the article (changing the title of the old one) and post under either the politics or biography section on the RFC page. I really do think we need some fresh opinions from outsiders. I have been tempted to do this myself but didnt want to steal your thunder. So let me know what you think. ] 06:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree with Jasper23 that it does look like we need to find an alternate approach, as suggested alternatives to "only African American" are not holding up in the lead paragraph. I'm not convinced more opinions will help us much, as I think we already understand pretty well where the problems lie and we should be able to come up with something that works. ''I have in mind to draft a "Controversies" (plural) section, with a simple one line bulleted statement on this and also a few other edits that have been wandering around the article, looking for a more permanent home (and getting some people rather agitated in the process!'' --] 10:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Did it. Suggest letting the African American text stay in the lead paragraph, and if ] gives us hand with the problem in November, I'd support deleting that troublesome line entirely. --] 16:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| What do you mean, did it? And I'll be acquiescent for the time being. ] 20:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Generally, it's not a good idea to have a paragraph which basically consists of just a quote. It's much better to do what was done in the paragraph above that regarding Angela Bassett's comments, i.e. weave the comments into a relatively coherent paragraph. And authority has nothing to do with it. It's more knowing what's generally considered "good" in articles through being here for a long time and knowing policies such as WP:NOT and WP:BLP. | |||
| What you added doesn't say what the controversy is. Her race isn't even mentioned in the article until the controversy section. You need to give it some context. Like. "Halle Berry considers herself African-American. This has caused controversy among some", etc, and then list people who criticize her on it and quotes from those people. Otherwise, standing alone, it sounds like she's just explaining why she identifies herself as African-American. That doesn't demonstrate any controversy or why anyone has problems with it. And per the ] policy, we have to be very careful with this stuff. If you can flesh it out and explain the controversy with quotes from others, great. Otherwise, the quote will probably keep being removed per WP:NOT (specifically Mere collections of public domain or other source material) and WP:BLP. --]<sup>]</sup> 23:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes but you can't *assume* that people know that. I mean, the article barely mentions her race. So putting the quote in there looks like it's out of left field and out of context. It's much better to do something like "Berry identifies herself as African-American", which is controversial and then say why it is with quotes from others and then have Halle's response. Otherwise, you are assuming too much from the reader. Many people will not find her stance controversial in and of itself. It's hard to remember sometimes, but we're writing this stuff for Joe and Jane Q Public. Things we consider as "givens" might not be considered a "given" by all. --]<sup>]</sup> 04:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The problem with that is that "Her self-identification is a result of the ignorance of her peers and her mother's influence." is very POV. The first sentence is just fine though and is what I'm getting at. Need to give it context. But "Her self-identification is a result of the ignorance of her peers and her mother's influence." is very POV. If you can find a way of tempering that a bit, great. --]<sup>]</sup> 05:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Then change it to "Berry has stated that her self-identification is a result of ignorance of her peers and her mother's influence". Otherwise, you are saying it authoritatively, which violates NPOV. And as I said before, it still doesn't state why this is controversial. Who considers her stance wrong or incorrect? If you can't find quotes or evidence that it's controversial, I'd suggest just making it a section of the article (Berry's race or somesuch). --]<sup>]</sup> 06:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I agree the systematic bias and racism is so overwhelming, it has led me to give up on arguing over the internet; because it is no use with "these" people because they hold their "verifiability policy" solemnly to their thick heads. ] 20:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| < http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Hopiakuta&diff=84482917&oldid=84397639 >. | |||
| Thank You. This website often seems like a series of ] ]s. For me, however, much of its draw is the sense of the many thousands of historical tidbits that I've learned, & wished that I could haave learned similarly as a child, from the "]". I do want to end ], other ]. | |||
| ] <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 04:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| What do you mean what you have learned, and how does it correlate with Handicappism? ] 05:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| When this website is good @ history, it can be wondrous. | |||
| However, ]ry, ], ], making regulation more important than fact, as well as a valuable perspective which could be represented as commentary, et al, scare people away. | |||
| ] <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 05:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I've been mainly complaining about the articles that identify almost every person with a little Black blood as African-American. I mean when will truth prevail against ignorance and social construct? ] | |||
| Please do use the "]d ]ature". | |||
| I'm not certain how to respond to your comment, except that differing opinions on all issues should be, @ least slightly, more respected. | |||
| Please, do you recall how you'd located my " 05:29, 23 ] 2006 (]) " comment?? Three months old!! | |||
| Would you, please, describe the derivation of "]"?? | |||
| ] <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 17:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Bored:Quantities == | |||
| "If the variable X is added to the variable Y, the sum is the quantity of X and Y. X cannot equal to Y, ever. So in theory, if two different variables are added, the sum (outcome) of the eqation will be the quantity of both variables, and will NEVER equal to one of the two variables." | |||
| You say: | |||
| X + Y = Z, : Z never Equals X, Z never Equals Y. | |||
| It's faulty: | |||
| X = 0 | |||
| Y = 1 | |||
| So, X + Y = Z = 1, therefore Z = Y ... hehe. | |||
| C. | |||
| What you meant to say is: | |||
| If any two variables, X, Y, (X,Y != 0) are added, the sum will never equal any one of the two variables. | |||
| D. | |||
| But, what if we take a person with 3 different ancestries? In theory, if one has 3 different ancestries they are "never just one of the ancestries", however you would qualify such a statement. | |||
| So, X + Y + Z = A, A can never equal X, Y, or Z. | |||
| Of course here we'd have to add the condition that X, Y, and Z must be > 0. Whereas in Example C, the variables just cannot equal 0. | |||
| ] 07:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:16, 29 November 2006
you dumbass Jghfutikdpe3 22:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)