Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:39, 11 January 2007

Welcome!

Hello, Avt tor, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --DarkEvil 02:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia Canada

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 02:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Second-person and point of view

Thank you for contributing to the different articles on second-person narration. It is very much needed with some qualified help on this issue! I see that you have added an eample of "Jonathan Garg's New Moon" to the point of view article. Who is this Jonathan Garg? I have never heard about him and I have not been able to find anything on him, and the link that you have added seems to lead to a website that does not quote its sources whatsoever!? Thanks again! Jeppebarnwell 10:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Glad to help. Actually, all I did was try to clean up the confusion between Point of view (literature) and Narrator. A lot of POV material was in the Narrator article, so I just cut and paste and tried to make that somewhat coherent. I didn't evalutate the content as such. I'm not the source of the reference to Jonathan Garg. Part of my purpose was to add clarity so that it would be easier to research some of the details. When I discovered the subordinate articles, it seemed to me that a lot of the detailed material could go into the subordinate pages, so there's still work to be done. But when I saw the debate about merging going back months, untangling the pages looked like a soluble first step. Avt tor 14:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Lieberman

Agree with your edits to the lead, but I think it would be better to correct problems (mentioning Jewish in the opening line, dropping phrase "anti-Palestinian") without characterizing them in the summary line as anti-Semitic.

It is important to Lieberman's bio that he is Jewish, more important than noting Dodd's religion, whatever it may be. I think we can agree though, that it does not belong up top, without resorting to charges of anti-Semitism. Likewise, he is one of the most anti-Palestinian legislators in Washington. But we agree that the use of that phrase (instead of pro-Israel) is inflammatory. Toning down rhetoric is a good thing. It would be just as good to talk about toning down rhetoric instead of characterizing factually accurate but inappropriately placed comments as anti-Semitic.

Anyway, that's my two cents. Jd2718 20:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Singling out public figures for being Jewish, in a way that isn't applied to other public figures, is a method used by anti-Semitic groups to isolate and marginalize Jewish personalities. It's not harmless or neutral, regardless of how factual it is. There is a way to put relevant background in context. Someone keeps injecting this material back in, and their agenda should be exposed. Avt tor 20:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think there are two problems here. We don't know the editor. And as much as you dislike the edits or I think they are inappropriate, we do not know the editor's motivation. By labeling them anti-Semitic you may be in violation of Misplaced Pages:Assume Good Faith. And while the violation may be minor, it is worth reading the policy.

Second, there is a need for editors to revert anti-Semitic editing on Misplaced Pages. But I am talking about the real thing (try Holocaust or Jew for lots of examples. I would not count these edits in the same category. Jd2718 01:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll take your word about those other articles. I don't think I can edit my earlier reason, but I won't phrase the objection that way in the future. Avt tor 15:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Fandom guideline

Your heart is in the right place, but I hope you're ready for a serious battle. I went through a tremendous amount of conflict when I wrote the notability guideline for royalty, and that's nothing compared with the number of editors that will show up to tear this one apart. Fans of Star Wars, Star Trek, Firefly, Battlestar Galactica, Dragon Ball Z, World of Warcraft, Pokemon, and pretty much every other pop culture genre are going to be all over this.

I have two suggestions to make this easier. First, try to make everyone happy (within reason) even if it means ruining the guideline. If it can't hold together after massive changes, it wasn't meant to be. Second, answer questions and requests for a few weeks, just to get the ball rolling, then bow out. Just take it off your watch list and let the changes go on without you. Check back once in a while to see how things are shaping up, but don't drive yourself crazy trying to defend it for months on end. If it's been turned into a good guideline, other people will step up to defend it for you. If not, then the people have spoken.

It would take a serious miracle to get this one to fly, but if you can keep your sanity then at least it will make for some interesting discussion and a good learning experience. Good luck! Kafziel 17:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I need a guideline to help me in editing other pages. I'm not interested in imposing my will on the community, I'm asking for opinions as to where the lines should be drawn. There are pages for people whose major accomplishment seems to be posting to other people's blogs or having some cute schtick at cons. If the bar is lowered that much, it would call for hundreds or thousands of pages to be created, which IMO would overstate the importance of fandom, and in practice would mean that people who have friends who edit Misplaced Pages would be overstated in importance relative to others of greater note. I hope you're right that many people will have opinions; that should help make this useful to people. It's not the media stuff that needs to be fixed, as the existing guidelines work fairly well for content related to TV shows. Avt tor 17:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong - it looks like you're doing well so far. But things are just getting warmed up. I just wanted to give you a couple of pointers, as one of the most recent editors to have gone through the process. Some won't like it the way it is, some won't like the fact that it exists at all, and some will say it's already covered by a different guideline and should be deleted. Don't lose sight of WP:OWN and you should do fine. Kafziel 17:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Not to worry, I barely own things that actually are published commercially under my own name. :) The purpose of this, from my perspective, is to ask the community where we should be drawing the line. I proposed this because the existing guidelines don't clearly cover the situations I'm seeing, or rather, the existing guidelines seem to lead toward deletion and I want consensus in the grey areas before doing anything like that. In most cases I am at least slightly personally acquainted with the people in question and I wish to be extra careful. Avt tor 17:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Culture of Canada

No problem, glad to do it. I see a few more things there that need attention; I'll get back to it when I can. Great country you got up there. Hope I can visit someday. Textorus 00:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Science fiction and science fiction fandom

You obviously have some expertise in these areas. I haven't broached the articles to do with fandom, but I wanted to let you know that I can see you know what you're talking about. I'm not just flattering you on this - it's an assessment I've made. The hard part with the science fiction article is finding sources that will satisfy people; almost anything on that article is likely to be contested, no matter how uncontroversial it may seem to the person making the statement. I'm not sure what can be done to make progress, but I'm happy to talk about it if you ever want to kick it around. Metamagician3000 09:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I have been at this for a while. It can be hard finding definitive sources, though I do know who to ask about things. One of the problems with Misplaced Pages is the hyperincrementalism that happens; without a clear outline, a page can become an odd aggregation of not-closely-related comments. I've been thinking about how to rewrite the science fiction page. Hopefully I can resist the temptation to publish essays in relevant publications just for the purpose of citing them in Misplaced Pages. :) Avt tor 16:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Lol, yeah I know the feeling. Actually, I am sometimes tempted to cite my own publications, but I then feel I should be discussing it on the talk page first ... which opens a can of worms. I started to rewrite the science fiction article at one point, but eventually gave up. It currently seems to be a morass. But I reckon I'll at least pay a bit more attention to the talk page for awhile. Metamagician3000 22:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Policy stands of Joe Lieberman

Thanks for explaining why this article was created. It would be helpful to add more details about this to the talk page, too. At the time I tagged the article, there wasn't anything linking to it, so I think the tag was perfectly reasonable. However, now that it is linked from the main Joe Lieberman article, which means interested people can find it. I'll remove the {{linkless}} tag. FreplySpang 21:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Asimov.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Asimov.jpg. Misplaced Pages gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Misplaced Pages, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 20:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)