Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by QuackGuru (talk | contribs) at 02:57, 7 February 2008 (Fork). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives
Archive 0 Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Starting fresh

Time to archive. -- Levine2112 03:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Prominence

I have nominated Misplaced Pages:PROMINENCE for deletion because it is an underhanded way to twist policy to suit one's own interpretation. Feel free to comment. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 22:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have. Thanks for that. Short of arguing it to death, what road would you suggest to solve the issue with ScienceApologist at both Deadly nightshade and Rue? -- Levine2112 22:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:DR has many options, but I think these problems, and those related, have gotten to the point where mediation would probably be best. I suggest you work with the editors to create a request you all agree to. --Ronz (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive advice. Last time I tried a mediation I got burned by incivility. So forgive me if I am a bit cautious with that route. -- Levine2112 01:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm suggesting something slightly different that should avoid such problems. If you can all agree first to exactly what you want mediated, then you've already resolved the problem that you (and most others) encounter when trying mediation. --Ronz (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how that is any different from last time. I guess I want a response from other users besides you. -- Levine2112 02:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Categorical imperatives

Hi Levine2112... Just wanted to let you know how much I appreciated your supportive comments over the last couple weeks regarding the whole "category:pseudoscience" thing on WP. And it looks like reason (as outlined in NPOV) may even prevail! -- at least, outside homeopathy, where lawlessless and chaos rule.... btw, speaking of 2112, have you heard the 1974-ish bootleg of Rush in Cleveland? Damn fine show. cheers, Jim Butler 22:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. It is much deserved. Have you considered adminship yet? I haven't heard the bootleg, but as you know I am a fan and now that I know it exists I shall track it down! -- Levine2112 23:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you can find that boot on one of those ok-by-artists, live-recording Bittorrent sites like Trader's Den or Dime-A-Dozen. I discovered it by surfing around about Larry Williams, whose songs the Beatles covered a bunch of; Rush does this crazy Zeppelin-esque cover of one of them. Adminhood: to the extent that I've decided to stick around and work to improve WP, sure; I guess I'm as qualified as anyone. No great rush though (totally unintended pun until I typed it :-) cheers, Jim Butler 03:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Adminship is supposed to be not that big a deal, but in practice seems to have become an hours-consuming stressful "hazing"-type deal, which I'm not sure is really worth it... just to get a set of sysop tools that should ideally be available to all, yet hardly ever used. ("Ideal" is a long way off, of course.) I think that energy may be better spent editing at Citizendium. That site like a nice next step, and growing. best regards, Jim Butler 05:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info about the artist-friendly download sites. I am very sensitive to that as I have had friends lose their jobs as the record industry battled with pirates. And I hear you about adminship. I've seen it described as merely a software update. That said, I also feel that admins serve a greater purpose than policing. I feel they serve as interpreters of policies for the rest of the "civilian" editors because they are given a higher level of respect having earned their position. Generally, I agree with your perceptions into policy and therefore I feel that Misplaced Pages would be a better place with editors like you lending your view on policies to the hoi polloi. Whatever you decide to do, best of luck in all of your endeavors! -- Levine2112 05:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Note

Why did you move my comment? Anthon01 (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Mine was in direct response to OrangeMarlin's and therefore I wanted mine to follow his. All I did is change your indentations for ease of ready. Feel free to change it back if it is an issue. -- Levine2112 23:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's ok. You didn't think I was responding to his challenge? Anthon01 (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess not. I will reread. -- Levine2112 01:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Please check the bottom of my talk page. Anthon01 (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

And this Anthon01 (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Were you reported by someone originally? Sorry you had to go through that 8 minutes of confusion. -- Levine2112 21:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It was a result of this. and the section below. There is also this, added to the policy page of NPOV, without any consensus or discussion on the talk page.

Please note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Article Probation (civility)

The article Deadly Nightshade is under article prohbation per Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from homeopathy and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before being banned. All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation#Log of blocks and bans, and may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard. Your edit here could be considered a violation of civility. PouponOnToast (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What part? And considered by whom? -- Levine2112 21:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, me, for one. And I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the terms of the probation. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What part do you think is not civil? -- Levine2112 21:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"you are just trying to disrupt this process" - comment on the content, not the contributor. "This is disruptive to the process," would be acceptable. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I will change to what you suggest. Considering what he was doing, do you think he was being disruptive? Consider WP:SPADE. -- Levine2112 21:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think both of you are being disruptive. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How am I being disruptive? I am actively seeking dispute resolution and clarity while SA is muddying my attempts. Also, consider your comment about TDII's apology being "baseline". Was that not uncivil? -- Levine2112 22:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You can't stop responding. Every minute of every day you are constantly proclaiming you are right and he is wrong. You edit war.

No. If I had said "TDII sucks at apologzing" or "TDII's apology was insincere" then that would have be incivil. The fact of the matter was that the apology as presented was the baseline of apologies. It was not directed at the target of the personal attack, it was no where near the attack itself, he did not withdraw the attack, it was after substantial prompting and it was two words. He didn't go to his targets talk page to apologize, and he didn't say anything substantial about his apology. That's why it was baseline. I make no assumption about motive or skill in saying this - the edit itself was nothing more than a baseline apology. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you are now being extremely uncivil with me with your characterization of my editing habits.

Second, I maintain that when someone swallows their pride and apologizes, it is a big step and we should encourage such behavior. Belittling TDII's apology as "baseline" is uncivil in my eyes. -- Levine2112 22:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice

The way notice works, if somebody gives notice, they are also accepting notice. There is no need for reciprocal notification. I expect that every active editor within the homeopathy articles is going to be on notice shortly. Hopefully behavior will improve and no bans will be called for. Happy editing, Jehochman 22:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

AN/I posting

So you are aware and may respond, you have been mentioned in a posting about ScienceApologist at AN/I: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#ScienceApologist. Vassyana (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy article probation notification

You should be aware that Homeopathy and related articles are under probation - Editors making disruptive edits to these pages may be banned by an administrator from homeopathy and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before being banned. All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation#Log of blocks and bans, and may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Corrected _FD for Misplaced Pages:PROMINENCE

Sorry, working at home on a dial-up connection through a sticky-keys-laden craptop. The corrected deletion nomination page can be found here. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Edting Special pages

Can special pages be changed...by anyone?--Angel David (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

See Special:Specialpages: Most of the content of these pages is automatically generated and cannot be edited. To suggest a change to the parts... -- Levine2112 21:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• What?--Angel David (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Click on the Special:Specialpages link and read the opening paragraph. The answer seems to be "no". -- Levine2112 23:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

New Shortcut

You first introduced this policy to me. In my current holding pattern, I have created a link that I think you and others might find useful. WP:PSCI Cheers. Anthon01 (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not wikistalk me

You are obviously wikistalking me. I'd appreciate it if you did not. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I have to look up wiki guidelines about "stalking" but I'd like to note here that I have myself included SA's Talk in my watchlist during periods of what I considered contentious editting. I don't mean to imply that SA has ever accused me of stalking, or that Levine is or is not doing anything similar; I just want that on the record as a concerned party. And it wasn't SA but his pal Ronz who stalked me, in the sense of spamming my talk after I had explicitly renounced further attempts to resolve our differences by direct conversation, and after I had explicitly asked him not to (the wikiquette item I introduced and following RfC were never addressed, and dropped for inactivity); however, at the time it certainly seemed that SA and Ronz had their metaphorical probosci deeply ensconced in each other's morphological tori. Pete St.John (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

and note, if watching your opponents' talk pages is a component of stalking in this venue, then Ronz apprarently is watching this, he just complained at my talk. Fruitlessly, I should think, as it appears nobody is willing to get in the middle. Pete St.John (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I find PeterStJohn's language about SA and Ronz here extremely incendiary, and clearly intended as such. In short, flame bait of the worst kind. PeterStJohn may want to remove it. Avb 23:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The "owner" of the Talk is welcome to remove it at his discretion. It may be removed as a result of an action from e.g. an RfC or an ANI. Meanwhile I'm standing by it and will defend myself at the Wikiquette or whatever open recourse any claimant seeks. Pete St.John (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I very definitely prefer open forums, such as a Wikiquette, to seeking help from allies individually, towards resolving disputes. I seek uninvolved 3rd parties. I don't expect to meet any but I seek them. Pete St.John (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Note

Just wanted to inform you about the section. Anthon01 (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Fork

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Chiropractic&diff=next&oldid=189391448 Time: 01:37, 6 February 2008

I deleted the tagged orignal research and the POV material.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Scientific_inquiries_into_chiropractic_care&diff=next&oldid=189335743 Time: 01:15, 6 February 2008

Your next step was commenting on the talk page about POV Forks of a new article. You were fully aware of the POV fork policy.

There was a discussion for the new article and consensus was achieved. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Chiropractic#Too_long.21

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Scientific_inquiries_into_chiropractic_care&diff=prev&oldid=189411284 Time: 02:27, 6 February 2008

However, you forked the disputed material to another article without discussion or an edit summary. This goes against Misplaced Pages policy and by extention may also be in violation of the probation.

See Misplaced Pages:Content forking: A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Misplaced Pages, as they avoid consensus building and violate one of our most important policies.

You have not gained the consensus of the community to fork POV material to another article. Regards, Quack Guru 02:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)