Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FergusM1970 (talk | contribs) at 07:28, 27 December 2007 (→More suicide...: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Previous archives available here.

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Thanks for all your work. I appreciate it. Keep it up! Gonzo fan2007 02:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Nice catch on Talk:Rated RKO Discussion Page. For future reference, you can just tag the talk page WP:CSD#G8 instead of create the article page with {{db-empty}}. -- KTC (talk) 07:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Catching The Point

Thanks for the catch on the WGA strike. I've very new to editing and I was somewhat confused on how to express my disapproval for a given article's content. Have a pleasent day! -Icarus'sNewBag

Randy Moss

Why did you remove Randy Moss's middle name? --Phbasketball6 (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the comment from the sockpuppet on my Talk page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for watching after my Talk page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for cleaning up the (space) and 'is'/'as' change I made to 'Quiet Riot' (that had been subsequently reverted). I knew 'as' was correct, but also realized that the whole sentance was gramatically tedious. Your change makes it much clearer. --12.26.232.203 (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hannity

I replaced the best-seller claim, with sources. - Crockspot (talk) 07:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I also added a reliable source about Olbermann to the talk page here. Crockspot (talk) 08:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. -Helper2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helper2008 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. Helper2008 (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I've made a proposal on the Olbermann talk page. - Crockspot (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Sapience/Sentience

Go look at the definitions for yourself, and if you still feel that your consensus is correct, then I respect your freedom to be wrong.

Sentience: Sentience refers to utilization of sensory organs, the ability to feel or perceive subjectively, not necessarily including the faculty of self-awareness.

Sapience: Sapience, usually defined as wisdom since it is the ability of an organism or entity to act with judgment.

I will act no further. Judge for yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.139.96.127 (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Man, I love it when newbies give me odd jobs. Civility, please. I've replied to your talk page. Snowfire51 (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Writers Strike

Oh no, I wasn't offended at all! Thank you for your kind comments. ^_^ I'm sure my work needs improvement, anyway. I like feedback and constructive criticism; they help me improve as an editor. —Mirlen 07:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Practical advice

It's probably not worth it to edit war with an IP on its own talk page. See WP:DENY. - Jehochman 03:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Theresa Duncan

I've given 75.32.190.138 (talk · contribs) a 24 hour break to cool down. Since this is a different IP than was persistent about this particular subject before, he (It appears to be Alex Constantine) may come back with yet another IP. If he comes back, give me a holler since I'm a little familiar with the situation or, if I'm not around, post about it to Admin noticeboard/Incidents or Admin intervention against vandalism. Also Administrators' noticeboard/3RR is a good one for this kind of behaviour. Cheers, Pigman☿ 06:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Bigotry against IP-only users

Please refrain from making unwarranted edits to this IP user's talk page with incorrect spellings of "sarcastic". It is neither necessary nor proper for you to be judge nor jury here, is it? Fortunately, we can wholly agree that the facts are what is ultimately important.. and in this case, the IP user got the __facts__ right and made the point very clear to the supposedly "seasoned" editor.. that is, DO NOT ASSUME, CHECK YOUR FACTS BEFOREHAND.

In good fun, I Thank you for your incredibly constructive reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.34.98.154 (talk) 10:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried. Snowfire51 (talk) 10:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Snowfire, I deeply appreciate your involvement in this topic of discussion, and the article as a whole. True, I tend to be a bit speculative of non-registered users' edits, only due to the fact that, more than not, it's the IP users (not ALL of them, I get that, but a lot!) that tend to come in and commit the vandalism. So yes, IP edits get scruitinized more, but rightly so.

Once again, thank you. Edit Centric (talk) 03:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, good working with you. Whether it's officially recognized or not, there is a natural bias against IP editors. I feel comfortable saying that, since probably 90% of the vandalism I correct is from anonymous editors.

When there's a problem with an IP editor, especially one that has been disruptive in the past and refuses to cooperate or be civil, there's a natural tendency to assume the worst. There's no logical reason not to have a wikipedia ID for anyone who's going to be here for longer than a few rounds of vandalism, so there is and should be a higher level of scrutiny there.

Anyway, don't worry about it for now. Anything else I can do to help, just drop me a line. Thanks! Snowfire51 (talk) 04:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Suicide Methods article

I'm not used to debating things on Misplaced Pages. However, I'm somewhat baffled by your reaction to the suicide thing. I always thought that making self-destruction sound like the hideous, painful mess it really is was a good thing. I'm contactable at billy_britain@hotmail.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FergusM1970 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Replying to your comment, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. I understand you'd like your thoughts on suicide known on the page, but your opinions are original research, which is not allowed. Entries should be properly referenced and clinical, not emotional.

Also, Misplaced Pages pages should be discussed on their talk pages, not through email. If you have a concern, make it known on the talk page of an article and see if other people agree with you. Misplaced Pages works through gaining a general consensus on disputed topics. Thanks! Snowfire51 (talk) 06:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a whole load of hearsay, myth and vagueness in that entry. There is also enough ambiguity that some people might see it as a "how-to" article. All I'm trying to do is mention the possible outcomes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FergusM1970 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to clean up the unreferenced statements, simply pointing to someone else's hearsay doesn't give an editor the right to insert his own. I agree the article isn't a very good one, but if it's going to be on WP, it needs to be taken care of in the proper manner. If you want to list probable outcomes or mishaps, those need to be properly referenced. Thanks! Snowfire51 (talk) 07:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

More suicide...

OK, I'll look up some references.

I note, though, that while you have cleaned up much of what I wrote on that entry, I inserted three specific (and effective) methods of self-removal. You removed all reference to the consequences of these actions, but left the instructions themselves untouched.

My feeling is that BOTH should be there; if someone is actually searching the web for suicide methods there's a fair chance that they're looking for a simple and painless one to try out. I fully take your point that everything on WP should be properly backed up; however, if it's OK for the details of medieval Japanese suicide rituals to be in there without any references at all, why is it so bad if the effects of a non-fatal gunshot aren't referenced?

Just a thought, but maybe one that could save a life or two.