Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Little green rosetta (talk | contribs) at 03:08, 13 February 2013 (→ioby). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Ford Ranchero Edit

How is it unconstructive to list the Ford Ranchero's appearance in a TV series under "In popular culture"? There's a really nice Ranchero featured in an episode of that show 204.209.209.129 (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, but you used a wiki as a reference. Since anyone can edit a wiki, that is not considered a reliable source, which is the only kind we allow on Misplaced Pages. However, I left your addition of the infomration and only removed the reference.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense, but the information I added is no longer there so I think you may have made a mistake and removed more than you intended.204.209.209.129 (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to revert me, but try and remove the wiki ref if you can.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Torchwood Edits

I'm slightly confused as to how to contact you so I am posting here. What exactly wasn't relevant with the Torchwood edits? If you read the main Torchwood pages about the characters it clearly states that Jack's character is considered pansexual, not just bisexual in the way of humans. In fact it is stated several times and even Jack stated on the show he is "omnisexual" so I don't see how it wasn't relevant or extra, it is the truth.

Prod for Roger Peterson article

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Roger Peterson (pilot), which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, propose deletion are disallowed on articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. Thanks! --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 21:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

Hello, I'm STATicVerseatide. I noticed that you recently removed some content from GOOD Music without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Misplaced Pages with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! STATic message me! 14:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Responded  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Right-wing politics

You didn't like my reason? Why did you put the two sentenances back?????? Either removed them or fix them. They are general statments and read like the only the right wing uses these groups...and that is not true. Joraejean

RIGHT WING POLITICS

This is what it says...and it reads as an opinion about all definations of political leanings...LEAVE IT OUT.

"Some historians and social scientists seek to reduce political beliefs to class, with left, center, and right politicians representing the working, middle, or upper classes Others draw attention to the role which religious, ethnic, and regional differences play in democratic politics"

IF IT IS TO REMAIN, IT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED...BE MORE CLEAR...RIGHT NOW WE HAVE=

Some historians and social scientists seek to reduce political beliefs TO.... 1 class, 2. with left, 3. center, 4. and right politicians representing the working, middle, or upper classes

How do you reduce political belifes to 'class' The 'classes' would be correct, because the subject is not singular - it generally comes in upper, middle and lower.

The topic is Right-Wing Politics...

'AND THE WORST....WORST...is number 4....Which reads as if the right politicians represent the working middle and upper class!!!!!'

For God's sake...can't you see what misinformation this sentence states? It's a quote from a book written in the 60's, and who know where it was origionally placed? I would guess it might have been in a preface to explain general 'leanings'of each side. If that was the case, only the leaning of the right should be in this sentance.

Same with the 'general' last sentenance=

"Others draw attention to the role which religious, ethnic, and regional differences play in democratic politics"

Just a general statment that could be for either left or right leaning...so it really doesn't belong in a specific group under 'Right-Wing'

Your's Truly,

Joraejean January 20, 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joraejean (talk • contribs) 06:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Joraejean, we have ways of doing things here, and hounding editors here or by email is not the way. This is not the proper place to discuss this. Do it on the discussion page for the article itself. All other editors who watch that article need to be able to participate. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Mitch Walker

Please see my comment at WP:RM/TR. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Tease and denial

Tease and denial should be deleted, or at most merged into other articles.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocksville

I especially liked your comment to User:Xerographica about "a one way ticket to blocksville." Of all the admonishments directed to him, it is the best. I think (and hope) it has had a positive result. Well done. – S. Rich (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Sexology arbitration case opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 22, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm 03:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Xerographica

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for stepping forward and giving Xerographica such good advice. All of your words are well said and to the point. You have gone out of your way with your simple and elegant admonitions, and I am proud to offer you this Barnstar as a small bit of thanks for your Random Acts of Kindness. – S. Rich (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

LGR, I think your continued gentle admonitions have had a positive impact. I've noticed that X's most recent edits and talk page comments have moderated considerably. Here's hoping! If he continues with his positive contributional attitude, you (I'm sure) will have been a major factor in his reformation. Again, thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 06:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

word to the wise

WP:OWNTALK – S. Rich (talk) 07:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. But it appears there have been some intervening additions/reverts so that might be adding to the confusion.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  07:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Confusion is the right term. I'm not going to try and figure it out. In any event, just take it for a FYI. Best regards. – S. Rich (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Little green rosetta/Archive 1

Do you want to keep User:Little green rosetta/Archive 1 or would you like it deleted? It was created by Ysfan. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me and for the offer, but I CSD'ed it already. I appreciate the heads up however.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Maafa 21

Thanks for you recent contributions to the article on Maafa 21. However, I suspect that given the folks we're working with there, we'll eventually need to go to some sort of board to resolve issues. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC) Badmintonhist (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

My edits were mostly cosmetic in any case.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the article approximates a POV monstrosity. Kinda in the same class as the one the Southern Poverty Law Center when I started to work on it a couple of years ago. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I see the usual suspects are in this article. Binksternet's recent edits look ok to me so far. Tomato v Tomatuh edits for the most part. Roscelese is her usually charming lolcats self. Her POV pushing is blatant. I try to avoid articles she has her nose in because she is such an irritant.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but the problem is that the ones she gets a deep foothold in are, of course, the most ideologically lopsided. I once was successful, though, getting her to acknowledge that she couldn't use a pro-choice fundraising flyer as a reliable source. LOL Badmintonhist (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I've participated in a DR, but unless the stick is dropped we are headed for one. The problem isn't that the sources don't convey the message some of the POV pushers want to get across, it's the adjectives that make their edits POV in the first place.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I call it more-royalist-than-the-king (make that queen) editing. Finding a "friendly" source then pushing the hell out of it, so that subjective inferences become "objective facts." A couple of pro-lifers in Knoxville plead ignorance to a journalist's questions and this becomes the basis for stating as fact in our article that Tennessee pro-lifers like the film but don't know what they're talking about. The last time that I "got into it" with our friend it was over our article on "Pro-life feminism" which then stated, with no in-line attribution, that Irish pro-life feminists stayed out of political disputes over abortion. Since that proposition sounded rather dubious to me I maintained that we state it as the opinion of our source. Our friend insisted that since a reliable source had said it, this made it cold, hard fact and no in-line attribution was needed (you see, the point was to make it appear that these pro-lifers didn't have the courage of their convictions). When I found two newspaper columns by one of these pro-life women which utterly contradicted the assertion, our friend said that she wasn't at all surprised. It was as if she knew it all the time, but rather liked the idea of portraying the pro-life feminists as timid souls for as long as she could get away with it. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

``

Talkback (Ks0stm)

Ks0stm 23:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

ioby

Hi, you said that if I'm having difficulties with another editor to post on your talk page...so here I am. If you can get a chance it would be great if you can review the removal of content on ioby. The founder of the website had the content on his user page...User:Erinbarnes. I reviewed it and it looked sufficiently neutral and fact based. Being familiar with civic crowdfunding I'm fairly confident that the website is notable enough to warrant its own entry. So I created the article and moved the content over to the article. Then another editor, who I've consistently had difficulties with, removed the content with the following explanation "Delete promotional content".

If there is anything that is truly promotional...which I myself didn't observe...then throwing the baby out with the bath water is not helpful or constructive. And it certainly doesn't improve the article. Thanks --Xerographica (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I will look later tody.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I've started discussion on the associated talk page. Btw, did you get an "ok" from the user who had this content in their userspace? While not prohibited, it is considered bad form to do something like that without approval.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting observation about the "ok". But when original developer created his page, he "irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." – S. Rich (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, that is why I said it wasn't prohibited. But it is considered a little rude.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at the article. The user had added the link to ioby to the "See also" section on the civic crowdfunding article. Given that they posted a red link...and posted reliably sourced and quality content on their user page...I put two and two together and created the page for them. What also factored into my decision to do so is that I figured that they might be hesitant to create the page themselves because of possible COI concerns. But it's not like I cut and pasted their content...I simply copied and pasted it. And now they know that at least one editor approves of and appreciates the quality of their content. Plus, now you can see Rich and SPECIFICO in action. --Xerographica (talk) 02:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of rude...why would Rich undo another editor's positive contribution to Erin's user page? Why not just allow Erin to decide for herself whether she appreciated Djweinberger's contribution? --Xerographica (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I see no problem with Rich & SPECFICO. I did question their actions, but they discussed with me in a reasonable fashion. Did you see how easy it is to engage someone if you AGF? As for Rich's removal, I don't know. Try asking him nicely, and I bet he will give you a polite answer.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)