Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:31, 20 January 2005

Alison Moyet

well now.. seems quite strange that we can not use simple everyday terms that we have written and spoken easily more than 100,000 times (that are in no way carry 'copyright', and are provided for other's use only by us)elsewhere when issuing our publicity and histographical information, but we will change a few things for the sake of simply removing your lies about this artist.

regards,

Jas contact@AlisonMoyetForums.net

Misplaced Pages:Cite sources is the best way to deal with arguments on these matters. Also, we prefer it if people assume good faith rather than calling people liars. But do keep contributing - David Gerard 02:19, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard, confidence trickster

Actually, I consider Scientology a scam, and I think Hubbard was a con man until the day he died. (And beyond, since his writings are still in circulation.) But applying Category:Confidence tricksters to his article seems somehow POV to me, and I can't quite decide down why. —tregoweth 08:36, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Good comment

I'll copy one of the better comments you have made in this endless flame war about Misplaced Pages's future:

I don't think I'm saying "my values matter, yours don't". You do not know my values. I am saying "the only values that matter in a Misplaced Pages article are whether it's NPOV and encyclopedic." If I am likely to be offended or upset by any part of the content I don't have to look at it (as I've indicated, there are areas of Misplaced Pages of which that statement is true for me).

I'll just say that this is a nice comment. Samboy 00:11, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

autofellatio

Well, the image didnt last long. And it was your good old friend Userking who reverted it. Just one question: does everyone hate this guy? it seems to me that there are so many users who are getting into big kerfuffles over most of the stuff he edits. Reply here if u want.--Onefool 01:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Autofellatio

Nice try! Looks like you ran into a censor though. Ahem. Now, why don't you try to create the same "consensus" there that you wanted for clitoris?Dr Zen 04:58, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not bothered either way. I wanted to test whether the picture was linked because people wanted it linked or just because it had always been linked. I don't do revert wars and I don't do solo campaigning.

On consensus, I have abandoned your extreme inclusivist conception of consensus as unworkable. If an article reaches a stable state without protection I think there may be some justice in pragmatically defining that as a consensus. It does require editors to be a bit more restrained than some of the revert warriors we have seen on clitoris. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My "extreme inclusivist conception of consensus"? Consensuses are inclusivist, Tony. They are not simply the will of the majority. Still, I'm tired of trying to explain that to you.

The article is "stable" because the "revert warriors" are no such thing. I admit it, Tony, I occasionally use a strategic revert, usually so that I can bring a POV warrior to the table (never, ever to prevent them from having their say). I always commit myself to discussion -- sometimes at very great length. I give my correspondents the full chance to describe their position. It's been difficult in your case because of course we hold the same POV about clitoris pictures in general but I am not arguing that we should just push a POV, but that we should fight for all POVs. I won't be dropping that focus in my work any time soon. I'm strongly committed to NPOV and equally committed to inclusive solutions where they are possible. I still believe in the wiki part of the pedia!

What I think you don't understand is that I feel that our "side" if you want to call it that has been restrained (with one notable exception, but one doesn't always choose one's bedfellows). Creating a consensus that includes all views on that page involves scaling a mountain. Most of the views on the other side are quite antiwiki. Some are extremely hard to appreciate. For instance, the insistence that users should expect graphic pictures in an encyclopaedia even though no other encyclopaedia carries them or that "puritans" ought to read disclaimers, while others need not, to get an idea of what there might be for them to disapprove of. I think you're well capable of seeing why those arguments are flawed and why, if you stepped back from your POV, you would find them hard to support. As I say, I share the POV. I have no doubt that the world would be a better place were it populated entirely with enlightened, liberal English people, but it is an unignorable truth that it is not, and that Misplaced Pages is not a project to educate them to become that, but to make available to all of them all human knowledge. Tony, you picture young girls' coming to the article to get information on where to find their clitorises. But there are girls who would be scandalised by the picture. Are they to be barred from the knowledge in the article because we will not link the picture or put in a mechanism to suppress the pictures?Dr Zen 12:11, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm well aware of your concept of consensus--I've had occasion to point out to you that it implies that Raul and Chocolateboy should be happy, not just you and I. Have no fear, I was not referring to you as a revert warrior, in particular. But revert warriors are involved in editing that page in pro- and anti-picture roles.

I don't think it is a question of whether paper articles on the subject contain pictures (although if it were CiaraBeth's account of the explicit pictures in her kids' textbooks would tell me all I need to know). I do think it's reasonable to expect a person who is likely to object to various items of content on the web should get into the habit of reading disclaimers--that is what they're there for. You refer to girls who would be "'scandalized" by the picture. They can use their browser controls just as I do when I visit an entry on a subject that triggers my phobia. If they don't do that, they will be informed.

This is an encyclopedia. We're not in the business of deciding which pictures might upset people and which might not. We're in the business of deciding which pictures are informative and which are not. The users can decide on the other question and use their browser controls accordingly. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:49, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to join you in giving it a try, thank you very much! Ha. OK, Tony, you can add the image back if you want. Personally, I'm not terribly fond of the idea that anything can be shown on a Misplaced Pages page just because it's relevant to the subject matter, but believe you me, that's not a dispute I want to get involved in. Everyking 08:26, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and tell User:Onefool that I ain't really such a bad guy. Everyking 08:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

clitoris

• Glad to see you back Tony. Very interested to find out the motivation behind the need to insert a picture which does not depict the clitoris in the clitoris article. Fascinating stuff. - Robert the Bruce 04:20, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I prefered the black and white pic. I thought it more instructional and did better depict the clitoris. I am beginning to wonder what this male fascination is to see the clitoris pulled from behind the hood. I wonder if they have this misoginistic fascination with it because doing so causes intense pain to many young girls. If a man tried that on me when he was visiting down there, he would be likely to end up with a broken nose from my foot kicking him. ;)CiaraBeth 17:12, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Redirecting Orange

I take it you have read Talk:Orange, and disagree with it? JRM 21:11, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

Yes, very much so. Oranges already points at the fruit, now Orange points at the color and both have pointers to disambiguation for people who have place names to find or didn't type "orangemen" instead. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:05, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, since the colour orange is ahead of the fruit orange, if not by much. I don't understand why the existence of oranges is supposed to prove anything, though. That's an ordinary plural redirect. "Something without parentheses already links to it" is largely irrelevant, since you're not supposed to link to ] anyway, no matter what foo you're talking about. (And if I had my say those Orangemen and "Orange County" places wouldn't even be there, but that's another story.) JRM 23:17, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

Duplicated articles...

I got your message, and after reading it, I tried to move it to the another page, but it didn't work...would you be able to merge the two? BigDan 04:24, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Reply: Thanks for the reply...I'll make the request now. BigDan 04:39, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Fish

Changing to Category:Fish by Region. I would've done it sooner (even before your message) but my computer was having one of its fits where it just doesn't like Misplaced Pages for a few hours.--ZayZayEM 14:40, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

RfC against Everyking

I have filed an RfC against Everyking. Those concerned who have participated in this debate can certify it, while those who agree with my summary of the dispute may endorse it. If you've been involved in similar disputes (i.e. Autobiography promotion and publicity, La La (song)), feel free to add your own summary in the outside views section. You can endorse more than one summary, and still can certify the dispute. Johnleemk | Talk 19:07, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Abu Ghraib again

I don't know whther you want to get involved with this, but if you do, please take a look at Talk:Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (censored) and Talk:Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse]] Jooler 11:12, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Page moves?

Hi Tony,

You wrote: "in practice I think you could have moved this yourself because the only thing at the target location is a redirect with no history". I've seen this kind of comment before, but I don't understand. If I try such a move, it fails. As far as I can tell, you have to be an admin to move a page over another one, even one that has no history.  ? Dbenbenn 22:48, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, I figured it out. Dbenbenn 18:05, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can you sign your vote for moving to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - Thx for supporting this move - sorry wrong person - Have a good day! Trodel 02:18, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please don't post profanity on Misplaced Pages:Requested moves.

IfD

Hi Tony, I thought you might want to put in your two cents at the IfD on autofellatio.jpg. Cheers, Timbo ( t a l k ) 19:09, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Everyking arbitration

I've filed an arbitration request against Everyking. Please comment; brickbats for my foolhardiness are more than welcome. Johnleemk | Talk 07:57, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Emulation Software / Virtualization Software

I have just realised you and I might be having a little category war here between "Emulation" and "Virtualization" (US spelling because there seemed to be more of that for the topic when I got to it.) I just noticed the long list under Emulators broken down by type of hardware (which is good) but the lack of distinction as to the nature of the technology (not so good.)

Wondering if it is time to work out a bit of a strategy. I have also started talking about these things with Eric Smith (brouhaha.org) who is active in this area on Misplaced Pages. As you can see from my user page I feel the terminology in this area is in complete disarray. I had a go over at http://shearer.org/en/thw/ to define some ways for roughly framing these technologies - I won't say define, that's too tight! - and have refined it a bit since. The intuitive link between the technologies is not easily captured into quantitative analysis.

What do you say?

Dan Shearer 02:23, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Titan

You made Titan a redirect to Titan (mythology), saying in your edit summary: "Primary meaning of Titan is mythological, from which the other meanings are derived." If you want a primary topic disambiguation then surely Titan (mythology) should be moved to Titan. See Talk:Titan (disambiguation). Personally I think the vast majority of people looking up Titan at the moment will be looking for the moon, hence we need an equal topic disambiguation. I'm not bothered if I'm in the minority on this; all I want is a degree of consistency in applying Misplaced Pages policies. As a non-sysop there's no way I can sort this out of my own accord. — Trilobite (Talk) 12:52, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I would usually agree that Titan (mythology) was primary because it was the original meaning, but with Huygens in the news I'm sure the moon article will be bombarded with hits. I'll leave it up to you where all our redirects and disambiguation notices point. — Trilobite (Talk) 13:09, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Abortion

RfC on Talk:Abortion. RoyBoy 02:40, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Re: Mongo/Bush

Hi there, thanks for your offer of stepping in...I've left a note on Mongo's talk page to warn him of breaking the 3RR rule, he hasn't edited anything since then. But I somehow doubt that's gonna be the last we hear from him :P -- Ferkelparade π 14:29, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, he's at it again...I've already used up my 3 reverts for today, so if you have time to step in, I'll be much obliged -- Ferkelparade π 13:17, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in and defusing the situation before it got out of hand. I am humbled - your mediation skills are obviously far superior to mine :) -- Ferkelparade π 18:56, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Autofellatio images

Hi, I noticed that selfsuck.jpg was removed from Autofellatio and replaced with the old picture. Now the original picture's listing on IfD had been removed and the image is still there. Does that mean it survived IfD or is it about to be deleted? Also could you please vote on selfsuck? I think it would be handy to have around as a backup, and I think it would be difficult to argue that it's more indecent than autofellatio.jpg. Given the subject, it might be good to have a spare handy just in case. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:13, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Hey Tony, thanks for the heads-up. I hadn't even noticed the IfD on that picture. From what I can tell, Image:Autofellatio.jpg survived IfD — the votes seem about 50/50. User:Duk posted the IfD discussion on the image talk page, so I'm guessing that's a record of its survival. Cheers, Timbo ( t a l k ) 02:59, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oops, I did notice it. Haha, I was the one to change the pic back to Image:Autofellatio.jpg. I was scared away by the fair use issues, but you've convinced me. Timbo ( t a l k ) 03:08, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Plausible doesn't cut it

I disagree in regards to the George Bush article. J.H. Hatfield's book has no proven facts, only assertions and inuendo. Therefore, in an effort to be NPOV I still continue to state that the reference to this book and the allegations of cocaine use by President George Bush are not what I can say are good examples of NPOV. They are instead placed in the article purely from the standpoint of POV and that POV is an effort to slander, not an effort to educate. With that much said, and in light of the fact that I obviously have a serious difference in perspective with the major contributors to the George Bush article, I would like to clearly state that I feel that this one point is only a minute part of the problem with that article. I feel that the entire article is rubbish and beyond any hope of repair because the major contributors are those that have a POV of dislike of George Bush to an extreme and it is impossible for them to adopt a NPOV. MONGO

Jeez... are we writing an article about George Bush here or someone else? I don't care to further discredit Hatfield, he did that for himself, and wrote the book just to make a buck...would anyone buy it if he didn't have slander to sell? The article isn't worthy of any credit as far as being a worthwhile enterprise of research...it is just too leftist, angry and well, the main contributors are biased beyond hope. --MONGO 12:31, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)