Misplaced Pages

Islamophobia

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Islamophobia, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Misplaced Pages:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. ITAQALLAH 20:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Public Information Research

I was able to locate a third-party source for PIR's tax-exempt status, but Daniel Brandt himself removed it for reasons which seem understandable. Shortly after that, Jimbo semi-protected the article. Now, the only practical effect of doing that would be to prevent Mr. Brandt from editing it, as he chooses not to use an account these days. I don't know whether this is by design or coincidence (I guess I'll ask Jimbo when I get a chance) but I was wondering if you had any suggestions. —freak(talk) 22:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Also I don't know what skin you're using but on my screen Blue Girl is obscuring your username at the top of your talk page. Might want to move her down a few notches. —freak(talk) 22:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Freak added a link that displayed my street address, and I deleted it because the PO box is sufficient, and already widely available. Then someone else added a box from NameBase with my telephone and fax numbers, whereupon I had to edit out the numbers on the box at NameBase. I don't need BLP victims calling me up and complaining that the Wikimedia office ignores them (this already happened today)! If Freak wants to do something useful, he can delete the page and all the archive pages at Talk:Daniel_Brandt. By the way, Jimbo unblocked me the same time that he semi-protected the PIR article. He was protecting it against trolls that hate me. He wasn't semi-protecting the article because of my edit. Daniel Brandt 04:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting my article Talk page

I couldn't reply to your message on my User_talk page because it's still protected. That's okay, it can stay protected. Thanks for deleting the article Talk pages. About your question, why not do both? The redirect (which I don't like but that's a battle for another day) goes to PIR, but keep PIR just a tiny little stub that says it sponsors the following websites. Then link to the Misplaced Pages article for each site. The CIA cookie thing is so trivial, that it can be mentioned in a NameBase article (there's a page about it at http://www.namebase.org/ciascan.html ), or just skipped altogether. Or you could add our www.cia-on-campus.org website (didn't know we had that one, did you?) and mention the cookie thing there. Or add a sentence about Google's cookies, and stick the CIA sentence right next to it in the Google-Watch article. By having these other articles, you can justify keeping PIR just a tiny little stub. This approach is reasonable because the whois info for all my websites shows that the domain registration is technically owned by PIR. Brandt doesn't own the websites, PIR does! I think Misplaced Pages-Watch should probably be skipped or mentioned in Criticism of Misplaced Pages, but that's not for me to say. Daniel Brandt 04:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

BLP

Mind skipping the bullshit? Citing things like "actual practice".. do you think people are stupid? Actual practice shows a mix of just about everything, some going to DRV, some ending up in wheel wars. Actual practice is a mess, and is what we are trying to avoid. You might want to try citing something that is actually true, next time.

Trying to weasel in things that will give admins more power do to "BLP deletions" is wrong, has no support from arbcom, and definitely has no consensus by the community. I'm sorry you've been frustrated with some situations in the past, but get over it. These things you wish to add are only going to lead to abuse of the policy. -- Ned Scott 07:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You really need to start discussing your edits before making them. Some of your minor tweaks changed the wording very significantly. We need to consider how other people read this stuff, and how things will be interpreted. Preventing abuse of the policy is just as important as enforcing it. Also, some of the stuff is just down right needless and way into instructions creep. So, seriously, discuss before changing. -- Ned Scott 06:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel575 (6th)

Could you please ask User:Shia1 to calm down? I see you've kept an eye on the sockpuppet case, so you're in a better position than I to emphasize the importance of WP:CIVIL. In other words, I might respond to his nasty words, but I don't want to deal with it anymore. Thanks. YechielMan 22:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Essay

I figured I'd talk about this to a random user on my watchlist :-P

User:Deckiller/Avoid starting World War I. Based on what I've seen at disputes like Juice Plus, that silly handicapped picture dispute, some Final Fantasy disputes, and other things. Just a rough outline right now. Comments/ideas? I'd like to turn it into a Misplaced Pages-space essay in the future. — Deckiller 19:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: WP:BLP

I know you've been active in the recent developments at BLP, and I notice that you're making a much-needed effort to copyedit and tidy up the policy. If you get a chance, I'd appreciate your input on the newly-minted "Privacy of names" subsection, my efforts to expand a two-line comment into something that provides a little more guidance on what has been controversial elsewhere. Serpent's Choice 21:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Your comment would be valued

Since you made the change to WP:RS that put non-scholarly sources on an equal footing with scholarly ones, you may want to comment on discussions here and here. I've long valued your contributions to the project but am really, really disturbed by this change. I've noticed that you've often been disdainful of "experts" and hope that the change was not overly influenced, whether consciously or unconsciously, by your personal views on that matter. Raymond Arritt 22:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Rogue Admin

Please see my User talk:68.110.8.21 and User_talk:Akhilleus#WP:POINT.2C_WP:HOAX.2C_WP:PN.2C_WP:BIAS. Misplaced Pages seriously needs your help Slim. Thanks. 68.110.8.21 03:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for undeletion followed by redeletion

On Talk:Daniel Brandt, I read that you were the last admin to delete that page. I personally do not keep up with Misplaced Pages processes like this, but I read about this issue on WP:POST. Curiosity drove me to find the DRV discussion. It was quite hard to find that discussion (eventually I managed), so I wonder if it would be possible for you to undelete the talk page, and then delete it again, but specifically link/include "Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2" in the comments/summary? This would facilitate an easier search for the discussion for future readers. Thanks in advance. --User:Krator (t c) 13:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Abortion article

There's some discussion here about the accuracy of the first paragraph of the abortion article, and you're invited to participate.Ferrylodge 21:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to Participate?

Hi SlimVirgin,

We've not met in Misplaced Pages, but some other users recommended I contact you. :-)

I'm an Australian research student who is writing her thesis about Misplaced Pages. The thesis is about virtual places and citizenship online, and the ways that communities are formed in virtual spaces. Misplaced Pages is my main case study for this.

As part of this I am interviewing Wikipedians (via email) about their thoughts and experiences while editing and using Misplaced Pages.

I'd love to interview you for my research, if you are amenable. I know that you have been a member for many years, as well as an admin and a prolific contributor. Some others have also noted that you have had experience dealing with situations such as sockpuppets, trolls and edit wars. I'd love to speak to you about your experiences in these areas.

The interview would take place via email at a time convenient for you, and you would of course be anonymous in the research.

If you are interested please say Hi on my talk page or send me an email and I can explain the project and what it involves in more detail.

I hope to hear from you! Best Wishes, tamsin 01:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Higher

Hello SlimVirgin, I noticed on your user page you say that of February 2007 you are at #44 on the list of Wikipedians by number of edits. I thought you might like to know that as of May 2007, you are higher at #38. Acalamari 01:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Neil Clark (writer)

SV, I am curious as to why you changed Clark's handle. He does not publish anything other than journalism, and it conflicts with WP categories.

Cheers! Philip Cross 19:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Edits to WP:RS

Hi - regarding your recent reverts on WP:RS, could I ask that you take another look at the talk page? There's been discussion about changing the wording of the "scholarly and non-scholarly" section here. So far, all 10 editors who have expressed an opinion on the talk page have been interested in changing this wording. I know, I know, voting is evil... but I don't see how the "scholarly and non-scholarly" wording to which you reverted could be said to have consensus on the talk page. MastCell 21:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Misplaced Pages Reliable Sources

Re: your edit here to Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources. At least ten other editors participated in a discussion pertaining to that wording. Could you please revert yourself, or in the alternative, at least leave a comment (out of courtesy if nothing else) at the relevant part of the talk page (for your convenience link here). I'm not saying that you're right or wrong about the edit, it should just be discusseed either way at this point. Thanks R. Baley 21:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Off day." (link) Sorry, I had just read another user's frustration about something he/she perceived as a non-response from you. At the time (as I watched your contrib list grow) I was feeling the same way. I should've been more positive in my assumptions, and given it more time (you really do a lot of editing!) As noted on the BLP talk page, my apologies and take care. R. Baley 02:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Attribution/FAQ

Any objections to tagging the page as historical rather than simply turning it into a redirect ? Nick 22:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Essjay controversy

Just a note to say that I completely support your edits to that page. That article does seem to be in need of attention, especially with the project's tougher stance of WP:BLP shaping up. Do you thinks its possible to argue that all references to Essjay's true name should go? The harm argument applies as much here as to other articles about semi-notable people and I don't see that his name needs to be included for the controversy to be documented... WjBscribe 02:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

In many ways I feel this is similar to the real name of anyone else who becomes famous on the internet under a pseudonym - Essjay is the notable persona (ie. Star Wars kid not whatever the kid's name actually was). Unfortunately a lot of the key quotations - especially those from Jimbo and the NewYorker's clarification use the name rather than the screen name. It might be worth waiting for ArbCom to rule of the Badlydrawnjeff case. If the "do no harm" proposed principle passes (as looks likely) it'll put removing real names from articles like this one on a stronger platform. WjBscribe 02:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Is WP:RS Shameful?

Has WP:RS been discredited, as you said, or did you mean deprecated? Jehochman 07:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think "discredited" is the wrong word. Please try "deprecated" on for size and see how it fits. Lots of people are used to citing WP:RS. There's no need to upset them by calling their favorite guideline shameful. Jehochman 07:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Since when is WP:RS a "discredited guideline page"?

How long has WP:RS been "discredited"? I cite it all the time in discussions. Did I miss something? Wot happened?

--Richard 07:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Copy-editing of policies

I have replied to your comment at Misplaced Pages talk:No original research. I am making these minor grammatical changes to improve the clarity of the text and remove ambiguity. Tim Vickers 01:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Talk page

What on earth happened here? It looks to me like you accidentally edited Misplaced Pages:Talk page instead of Meta:Help:Talk page. Since then, Misplaced Pages:Talk page has taken over Help:Talk page's role and it's gotten out of sync with the master copy at meta.--Father Goose 07:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

POV forks

I wasn't trying to create one. The only person who's opposing the section is yourself and the FAQ suggestion was sitting there so I created it. We can simply delete it for the timebeing, if it's just more trouble. Perhaps better, until it's actually decided it might be a replacement for RS.

Your preferred is self-contradictory. "...significant-minority viewpoints...whether scholarly or not" clearly does not agree with the arb principle cited (or with NPOV, for that matter). In a sense, I'm not bothered if V says as much, because editors will properly ignore it. Non-scholarly opinion is actively suppressed on a number of our well-hit science articles, even when particularly widespread and even when noted in reliable but non-scientific sources. Global Warming has remained an FA precisely because editors have gamely stuck to that principle. With the WSJ, the Telegraph, and the National Post—all de jure reliable—you could create a fine (but generic) skepticism section. And it would have no place in the article. Thankfully, it won't wind up in the article while our better science editors are watching it.

So no, I don't think this simplistic tossing out of the distinction between scholarly and non-scholarly will have an effect on the best articles (though it may have a damaging effect at the fringes). But policy isn't supposed to contradict best practice, it's supposed to reflect it. Marskell 20:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)