This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Guy Macon (talk | contribs) at 18:48, 31 May 2013 (→FYI: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:48, 31 May 2013 by Guy Macon (talk | contribs) (→FYI: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Template:Archive box collapsible
Battlefield Misplaced Pages
Your user page comments are entirely correct: Misplaced Pages is designed to be a battlefield. I try to teach this to my students, both by encouraging them to participate and by showing them select diffs, but my scope is limited. It is my sincere hope that, as a notable author, you might share your understanding of Misplaced Pages with a more general audience. Perhaps you could get an editorial published on the topic. - Lanny 01:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.174 (talk)
- Misplaced Pages was not the product of intelligent design. It was initiated as a stopgap measure and its success and development since seem to be a good example of evolution. This is, of course, driven by the survival of the fittest and so it behoves us to be fit. The predators and parasites that have occupied various ecological niches are to be expected. Imagine yourself to occupy a different niche, choosing a suitable totem to symbolise this. Catherine might be a great tree or wood, for example - indifferent to the foxes and wolves, as it steadily grows and endures. Myself, I might be a squirrel that plays in its branches ... Colonel Warden (talk) 10:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Couldn't agree with you more, cat. The whole place is a battlefield. You can either keep fighting or give up; I prefer to keep fighting, because when we give up, "they" win. I work mostly with comics articles and RPG stuff (how ironic), and those and any fiction suffer just as much from dealing with people with a battleground mentality as anything else, and perhaps moreso. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I have to say, you make some very good points. I don't think it is all necessarily evilly intended -- or even intended at all -- but the way the process is structured is essentially guaranteed to create a battlefield scenario. And the more important - esp. socially -- the topic is, the more intense the battle aspect inevitably becomes. I'm not sure I will keep doing it (editing), but I do get occasional glimmers of hope when I see an article land in a stable position with a reasonably accurate and balanced presentation. And I have to note the irony that you are still out there editing away yourself, many months after the battlefield manifesto. Cheers. Pechmerle (talk) 07:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ironically the more important an issue is the less likely it is that the rules will actually apply to it. Misplaced Pages claims "Neutral point of view is determined by its prevalence in reliable sources, not it's prevailance among editors." This is a set-up for failure as has been proven. With editors making the determination it will invariably be the editors' view that prevails. A neutral view is inherently incompatible with such an editing philosophy. The only way forward is multiple points of view and since it is impossible to make this change the way wikipedia is set up somebody else will take the lead. Biofase | stalk 17:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- The only real way forward is to have real editors, who are empowered to make substantive decisions, not just enforce (inherently flawed) process rules. It doesn't even have to be undemocratic, which I expect would be the biggest initial squawk. We could elect those who take on that role. A transition to that from where WP is now would be immensely difficult. The probable alternative is that over time WP becomes less and less relevant, and is no longer regarded as an encyclopedia. Heck, it isn't a true encyclopedia now, with the huge amount of fluff both as articles, and within articles. And, as now run, enormously too much energy is required to ever get an article on a controversial topic into something resembling reasonably accurate but balanced shape. Oh well, WP was an interesting idea. Pechmerle (talk) 06:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- Multiple points of view are already in action on Wikinfo. Whether people should give up is a difficult question. There are arguments on both sides. Against what's said above there's the point that, if all the honest editors give up, leaving propagandists to take over & carry on the war against each other, Misplaced Pages would quickly become totally discredited, &/or forced to change. I can't tell people what to do. I'm a bit inconsistent. I no longer edit articles, but I still post comments. Peter jackson (talk) 09:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm a nooB editor, active a few months, thinking seriously about giving up. The battling is wearying, no fun. And I agree that in many ways Misplaced Pages is designed as a battleground, and invariably leads to all kinds of feuding. Does Misplaced Pages attract people who like to argue? Perhaps. I can be rather stubborn, argumentative at times. And while as individual battlers we may not like having to battle, perhaps in many cases the overall result is positive for readers -- that is, does the battling mean that the good ideas win out? Or does the spam and junk and crap win out? I haven't figured these things out yet.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Three factors aggravate things, in my view. (1) Misplaced Pages's anonymity (identities traceable not to real people but only computers) (2) the unfair imbalance between long creation time and fast deletion time and (3) rule complexity. Taken together, these three factors mean that Misplaced Pages is a perfect place for bullies to satisfy a personal need for power. A user armed with rules and a bent for destruction can have a field day pushing people around. And perhaps we might use the term Wikibullies to describe experienced yet secretly destructive users who browbeat fellow editors with narrow interpretations of complex rules and mask aggressiveness with a facade of helpfulness and an image of "following the rules". They sour the atmosphere. They poison the place for constructive editors. They don't contribute constructively. It's my hunch that a small group of editors in Misplaced Pages are Wikibullies who wreck the place for many others. There is community discussion about why many good editors keep leaving, and one hypothesis is that they are discouraged and frustrated by destructive people playing power games.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Strange Bedfellows
Catherine, I suspect that were we to compare positions on a list of major and minor issues in spiritualism and religion, politics, culture, sociology and history, we would agree on just about nothing. But it's fitting that I see you as an important ally in the one arena that has the ability to trump it all: Freedom of Thought. Please do not let thought-suppressing cabals of Wiki abusers blunt your determination to seek true neutrality, inclusiveness, and real world balance in treatment of faith topics. These cabals (especially the so-called ID Cab) stand for suppression of free thought, censorship of ideas, disrespect of spiritual and religious faith, and single-minded advancement of an intolerant and narrow-minded point of view. Folks like you are the only thing that stand in the way of their goal to denude Misplaced Pages of all but their "politically acceptable" thought. Good luck in all you do!24.21.105.252 (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
fyi re "hostile cite-tagging"
Jack Merridew 09:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
And your point is?
working through the lower chakras is a bitch. and thats what were here for, in one model of reality. its getting very dark in here, hope the light breaks through. or maybe were all trying too hard to stay in the light, ignoring the darkness. wheres walt kelly when we need him? Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Alien Encounters
I was meaning to drop you a note about this when it was AfDed but it got rapidly kept so is OK but I thought it worth seeing if you had any extra sources, especially from your time as editor. (Emperor (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC))
- Thanks for the note -- i added some more notable names and a ref. cat (not logged in) 64.142.90.33 (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. (Emperor (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC))
Serial killer article
I haven't written about serial killers in awhile but I'll see what I can do. ] (talk) 08:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Dante Arthurs and M J Anderson
I just wanted to let you know that I have deleted M J Anderson from the page People speculated to have been autistic because of the feeling that it should list only deceased people, or, more properly, people who've been speculated to be autistic only after their deaths. This is a controversial article and this policy may change; the last time a murderer was added to the AS list there was an all-out edit war. Soap /Contributions 18:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Replying to your comment on my talk page. Actually, there is a notice on that page that says not to add living people, but I think editors tend to overlook it, and besides, there was already one living person on the list until today as the result of an unfinished edit conflict, so clearly the rule wasnt being upheld (including by me). Perhaps my saying that I had a "feeling" it should list only deceased people wasnt the best wording. Soap /Contributions 02:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- It happens. No problem. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 03:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer!
Note that I've just now reverted the redirects (they weren't done by me! {smiles}) of those articles about convicted or accused Craigslist killers. Again, Catherine, thanks. ↜Just me, here, now … 04:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't change "Craiglist killer" into a dab...
CATHERINE.......
Probably "Too Long, Didn't Read" - sorry.
- .......I didn't change Craigslist killer to a dab...V did.
After which I restored it. Then V insisted it was a dab. So I restored it again and this time moved Craigslist killer to List of Craigslist killers (the reason being that a list is not a dab so V couldn't then f* with it).- Then V started a second article named Craigslist killer. (You can do that after an article has changed names by simply going to the original title's redirect page and editing it to instead start a new page. Which V did to make a brand new dab.) So, anyway, your article was saved as a "List" article -- and, also, V got his "dab"....
- Then I turned his dab into a redirect. (This I did cos V INSISTED in listing accused folks' names plainly as "Craigslist killers" which is a Misplaced Pages Biographies of Living Persons vio!)
- Wikidemon tagged the original article (which was now titled "List of") with a tag suggesting it be reworked for various reasons. Than I deleted this tag saying the article should either go for review at Articles For Deletion or remain untagged.
- Anyway, I ended up tagging the "List of" article for deletion review, but then "voted" for its being Kept. (BTW if there are substantial votes to keep an article it isn't deleted. It doesn't take a majority to keep or anything. And even if a majority of folks would vote for a nominated article to instead be merged somewhere, even in a case such as this such an article still wouldn't end up being deleted. At least not before whoever is working on the article merges it somewhere (the target of which would always be chosen by actual writers of the article in any case). So, in other words, there's little to fear from a Articles For Deletion reveiw and much to be gained. That is, once an article passes, then people such as V who basically hang around simply to blank and reblank etc the article then have to accept the consensus of the greater community and lay off. Got it?)
I know there's a lot of words in the last enumerated item, but I hope you were able to follow it. {smiles}
Anyway the bottom line is I didn't turn the article into a dab!
Love, ↜Just me, here, now … 06:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oy. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
A headsup that a discussion wrt the possible renaming
of "Internet homicide" may commence here. ↜Just me, here, now … 19:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- has commenced here. ↜Just me, here, now … 20:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've suggested a new name here: Talk:Internet homicide#Proposal. If you could make a comment there I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks. ↜Just M E here , now 06:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Hrafn's tactics
Sorry to bother you with this but while looking through talk pages yours came up. I see you have a long history with the subject in question. Most recently he's making his biased comments on Talk:Creation–evolution_controversy. Now when challenged that these are in fact his views he's falsely reducing the discussion to an archive claiming as his reason: "Off-topic. This page is for discussing (preferably specific) improvements to this article, not who is a "real scientist"". What the heck, HE brought it up and now he wants to bury it because supposedly there's no discussion relating to the topic. Biofase | stalk 00:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Arrivederci
Ciao Catherine, it was good to know you. . Malcolm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.139.29 (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Folk like you who do care
Hi Catherine, having read the wonderful essay "What is Misplaced Pages?" on your user page, I thought maybe you might like to have a look at a couple of possible ways ahead by folk like you who do care:
and just recently:
With good wishes, Esowteric+Talk 13:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I contributed a bit on this page: Catherineyronwode (talk) 03:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Wow
Gwen wiped your commentary right off the Dugard case's talkpage. ↜Just M E here , now 01:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- And i restored it. What's going on there? Talk to me! --cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 02:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, let's see, cat. I think Gwen maybe has got to balance a tendency not to be at all gunshy with a need to stay out of getting in all too many of brouhahas, in order for her reputation not to suffer (generally speaking -- ?) I think, however, in the aggregate she's a plus. Having people who will go the distance for what they perceive as best for the project (the "not-being-gunshy" bit) comes in handy, in many cases, I'd guess. (I don't really watch her -- or even other admins, for that matter, so I'm just guessin here.) Also she's a good writer, talented with words (a skill you appreciate, I'm sure!) ↜Just M E here , now 03:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment. After i restored the material, she did not remove it again, so, fingers crossed, it was just a slip of the mouse. --cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- She's over in England. So... lol ↜Just M E here , now 04:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Still blushing over this, even if it was but a slip of the mouse. Thanks for taking the time in letting me know it happened. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 11:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- When the cat's away, the mice will play... *Dan T.* (talk) 11:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Still blushing over this, even if it was but a slip of the mouse. Thanks for taking the time in letting me know it happened. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 11:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- She's over in England. So... lol ↜Just M E here , now 04:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment. After i restored the material, she did not remove it again, so, fingers crossed, it was just a slip of the mouse. --cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Example of Battleground Craziness Which Cat talks about
I'm a nooB editor, active a few months, revamped substantially a business article, then got into a protracted battle with another editor. What follows is MY side of a dispute over a business article. (the other editor thinks I'm the harasser) I removed his/her name and references to the article because I don't want to continue the war with this other editor; but I thought it might make interesting reading? And it illustrates what Cat is saying on her user page about battling, and why it can make Misplaced Pages less fun.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC) ed and how to prevent it in the future. For me, it makes Misplaced Pages less fun; stepping back, one could think that the structure of Misplaced Pages almost encourages such fisticuffs. And, when there's some civility and genuine respect for the rules, I think everybody benefits from "fair" battling; but when it becomes a mud-sling-fest, everybody loses.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Your experience parallels mine, and it is interesting that it took place in an entirely different interest-sector, namely business, a very materialistic and fact-checkable area in which deletions cannot be said to be based on purely ideological grounds. Thanks for posting this here, but i would also hope you post it somewhere that some of the bureaucrats might see it. Misplaced Pages is seriously losing writers (falsely called "editors") because we are all so tired of donating hours of research and writing time for deletionistic target practice.
- For me, the temptation to write for Misplaced Pages is based in part on the coolness of wiki markup language, so this year i paid a tech person to create a wiki for me. Now, when i return to articles that i wrote and researched years ago and find them half the size they were, ruined by deletionist editors, i dont fight. I just go back in the article history, grab my own text and any other good text that was part of the pre-deletionistic Wiki collaboration, and host it at one of my own sites, either in html or in my own wiki. My largest site is rated at about 71,000 in the alexa.com ranking system (WP is at about 7 on their scale, i think), so it gets a fair amount of traffic -- and actually, because i focus on only a few topics there. the traffic is keyword specific and i think the articles are getting seen as much there as they would be seen here at WP.
- Misplaced Pages is not writer-friendly and thus it is foolish of us to waste our time writing well-researched articles here.
- These days, when i feel tempted to write for Misplaced Pages, beyond un-logged-in touch-ups and grammar fixes or additions to current events articles, i just stop. I literally "just say no."
- Cordially, cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
An Experimental Democratic Boobocracy
This is the text of a piece i wrote at mediawiki commons, where a discussion is brewing about the loss of writers (so-called "editors") from Misplaced Pages. The repost here is due to the fact that fewer people will read it were it was originally posted.
Misplaced Pages versus Writers
After years of writing for WP (which WP denigratingly calls "editing"), i started my own wiki on a topic-cluster that was having content retention problems at WP, using mediawiki software and limiting my staff to three writers. We are doing great. We enjoy the work, we are open to adding new, qualified writers (and, yes, we credit these contributors as WRITERS, not mere "editors"), and the site is thriving in its own way.
The topic-cluster i selected for my wiki experiment was Folk Magic, including Southern Black folkways; world-wide religious belief in clerical divination, including 19th and 20th century religions such as Spiritism, Spiritualism, and New Thought, and the attendant biographies of personages associated with the development of these religions; and a survey of the divination practices developed by various ethnographic groups, e.g. Scottish and Irish tea leaf reading, Scandinavian egg-divination, African American dream divination, Anglo-American rural dowsing and doodle-bugging, Chinese I Ching fortune telling, etc. In the interest of full disclosure, i will note that i am a published author on these subjects, and also a "notable wikipedian."
These topics were virtually taboo at WP, due to "ownership" by atheistic and skeptico-scientistic materialists who would not permit even mere descriptions of these subjects to stand in the encyclopedia without injecting their negative commentaries, which often took up 50% or more of a given article after they revised it. They often sub-headed their attacks on the material "Criticism," and, yes, they included "Criticism" of everything from the lives of 19th century New Thought authors to the fact that Cantonese-Americans born in the USA often use a system of divination employing 78 strips of bamboo dedicated to the Buddhist goddess Kwan Yin (Guanyin). After 3 1/2 years of attempted contributions to WP on these topics, during which i watched my texts repeatedly defaced by POV-pushing and admin-supported "skeptics" and drive-by racists (you haven't lived until you've found an article you spent 12 hours composing littered by the words "Niggers and porch-monkeys"), i simply collected my texts and took them elsewhere, to a cooperatively-owned non-profit wiki in which contributors manage their own content.
Can WP do what we did? I doubt it, frankly. The "democratic experiment" inherent in WP is going to contiue to run its full and entropic course. Like Usenet, and like the ODP/DMOZ, Misplaced Pages has peaked as a social network for intellectuals and is on the downward slide. Bandwidth is now so cheap that any author worth his or her salt can create a relevant domain name and host essays and topical articles that will easily be found by google's search engine. Why would any writer donate writing to WP, where writing is called 'editing" and bozos can abort an entire page and admins can "own" a topic and destroy content at whim?
My most popular site -- on the obscure topic of folk magic, and all written by me in html -- now has a rank of 71,000 at Alexa. Our collective new mediawiki site -- on the aforementioned obscure topic-cluster -- only went online on June 6, 2009 and already ranks in the 1,000,000 range at Alexa. We expect it to rank under 100,000 within three years.
Yes, i still write for WP, mostly bcause i am a polymath and when a passing news story outside of my chosen field catches my eye, i like to contribute, but i do so as an IP, and as a result i exprience considerable arrogance and abuse from admins.
So good luck, WP -- but you've already lost a lot of "experts" and professional writers. Bandwidth and hosting are chickenfeed-cheap; we have Yahoo Groups, MySpce, and Facebook for our social friendship needs; and we take enough pride in our work that we like to call it "writing" not "editing" and we like to see it stand out, undefaced, whole, intact against the ravages of a mindless boobocracy and WP's croneyistic cabal of "owning" admins and "editors."
Cordially, catherine yronwode, the IP known as "Ol' 64" -- 64.142.90.33 03:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Cheyenne descent
Tura Satana is of Cheyenne descent alright, she told me so herself. If in doubt, feel free to contact her through her website or her MySpace site. Best wishes, Frankly speaking (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I doubt i will revisit that list, though -- i was just doing a drive-by cleanup of the Cherokee Descent category -- so feel free to work on it yourseelf, okay? Cordially, cat yronwode
BTW, Letterman
My reply there is a little snippy, but just wanna assure that it isn't directed at you or your addition of the cite even though I think it is unnecessary. I've had more dealings with grundle2600 on many political articles than I care to, and today is just par for the course. Tarc (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
David Letterman
With respect to the quote, you are advised to stop restoring the text without a solid consensus on the talk page. Keep in mind that I am making this call as an administrator under the terms of the "biographies of livig persons" policy. If there is consensus on the talk page that it does not suggest an issue that as yet is not verifiable, then it certainly can be restored - but not before. You are free to challenge this call through the appropriate channels if you feel it is necessary, and I can provide appropriate links if you need them. Keep in mind that I am writing to you and discussing this at length because I do not wish to see a well-meaning contributor possibly incur a block over what should be a simple direction to discuss first. --Ckatzspy 04:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- You are threatening to block me from Misplaced Pages over a five word sentence David Letterman told millions of viewers on nationally broadcast television and which has been printed in hundreds of newspapers. Groovy, cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 04:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Catherine, I am not threatening you with anything. Furthermore, I have gone out of my way to try to discuss this with you in an effort to avoid any potential issues that could arise from this. The BLP policy is much more restrictive than other aspects of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, and administrators are tasked with using extra vigilance in overseeing them. All I am asking of you is that you get consensus on the talk page for your text. Nothing more, nothing less. --Ckatzspy 04:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Sock / wife?
What is your relationship to Self-ref (talk · contribs · logs)? — ] (talk · contribs) 11:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- He's my husband. His name is nagasiva bryan w. yronwode. You can view pictures of our wedding here. Enjoy! Oh yes, and please assume good faith. Thank you very much. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Catherineyronwode! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
- Richard Cavendish (occult writer) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Anna Riva - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Draja Mickaharic - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Country Turtle Records
Hi Catherine, could you please be so kind as to have a look at this and tell me if I'm completely wrong in my opinion about that label's notability !?! StefanWirz (talk) 09:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
AN/I
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rami R 19:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I looked through the edits of Sundae and there clearly was quite a bit of IP vandalism that day. I could see you thought Rami R meant you when he referred to IP vandalism but if you think about it - that seems unlikely doesn't it? He has explained. In the circumstances, continued insistence that you were called a persistent vandal and an edit summary saying "fuck you" was a bit over the top and certainly uncivil. If editing in a state of annoyance it's always best to click "show preview" first.Fainites scribs 20:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- I wanted to make sure you understood (someone else already mentioned it too) that the page got protected because of vandalism from other IP addresses, not from you. Fwiw, I've always liked your writing. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 09:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know if you saw what I wrote at ANI, so here it is:
- Looking at the sequence of events during the 3rd, the key facts you overlooked were the request for page protection, the timing of the vandalisms, and the timing of the fulfillment of the request for page protection:
- I'm seeing questionable (mostly vandalistic) edits by other users at 23:47 on the 2nd, then on the 3rd at 01:00, 01:28, 01:29, 02:03, 02:19, 02:28, 03:04.
- I'm guessing Google posted their thing no later than 04:00 UTC, as that would be midnight EDST in the US.
- More questionable (mostly vandalistic) edits by other users at 04:16, 04:20, 04:23, 04:55, 05:05, 05:22, 05:47, 05:48, 06:04, 06:26, 06:41.
- Tbhotch requested protection for the Sundae page at 06:47, due to the Google thing.
- More questionable (mostly vandalistic) edits by other users at 06:49, 07:25, 07:34, 07:49, 08:17, 08:20, 08:22, 08:25, 08:29, 08:31.
- Your first edit as an IP came at 08:33 and the last at 09:46.
- Rami fulfilled the RFPP request and semi'd Sundae at 09:48.
- You begin editing using your login at 09:51.
- ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. I wasn't looking for an apology. I just wanted you to realize that there had been vandalism, earlier than your updates - and that it was the 3-hour delay in getting the page protected that was no small part of the problem. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Copying of Misplaced Pages article(s) w/o compliance with licensing terms
I notice that you have apparently copied articles from Misplaced Pages to the readersandrootworkers.org Wiki with which you are affiliated. However, readersandrootworkers.org is not an open-source licensed site and you have not provided the required notices and links acknowledging Misplaced Pages as the original source for the copied material. (see WP:COPY).
For example, on the page List of Spiritualist Organizations, you claim "This List of Spiritualist Organizations was compiled and is maintained by catherine yronwode", but you do not acknowlege Misplaced Pages as the original source. From the article history, one can clearly see that the original article was not created by you, but rather by User:Lucyintheskywithdada on January 8, 2008. Your first edit to the article would appear to be on June 8, 2008. Therefore the article is not solely your own creation and you have plagiarized the work of others without providing the required acknowledgements.
The readersandrootworkers.org domain was not registered until February of 2009 and could not have been the original source of the article. By mid-February 2009, list of Spiritualist organizations had been edited by a number of registered Misplaced Pages users besides yourself, including User:Lucyintheskywithdada, User:Pegship, User:Rev Dan Kivel, User:Benjaminmaule, User:Chazzmania, User:Shabicht, User:Ableowned2, and User:Ntsimp. All these contributors have to be acknowledged one way or another on your site. The easiest way to do so is to provide a direct link to the version of the Misplaced Pages article which was copied along with the required licensing notices.
All copies of Misplaced Pages articles require that a notice be placed in the copy indicating the origin (Misplaced Pages) along with a link to the version of the article that was copied. See Reuser's rights and obligations. This credit is required by the CC-BY-SA and GFDL licenses under which you are allowed to copy works from Misplaced Pages to which others have contributed. Please place such acknowledgements and links on any and all copies you have made of Misplaced Pages articles.
In addition, the site readersandrootworkers.org does not appear to be licensed under either the CC-BY-SA or GFDL licenses. The open source licensing which allows you to copy Misplaced Pages content requires that all works derived from Misplaced Pages content also be licensed under the same terms as Misplaced Pages so that others may copy and modify your version of the work. If your site is not so licensed, you must include such a license on each page that derived any content from Misplaced Pages or you may not use Misplaced Pages-derived content on your site.
If this non-compliance with Misplaced Pages licensing requirements is not corrected, I will be reporting the violation to the WikiMedia Foundation and the owners of readersandrootworkers.com may receive notice that they must comply with the licensing requirements or take down all Misplaced Pages-derived material. This applies to every page on the site that has even a single sentence copied verbatim from Misplaced Pages.
Thank you. Yworo (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, actually you are mistaken, but i understand your confusion. The material was not copied from Misplaced Pages. In fact, i donated material from my own list TO Misplaced Pages.
- The list of Spiritualist Organizations formerly at Misplaced Pages, as well as the list currently at readersandrootworkers.org, derive from an out-of-copyright book called "Who's Who in Occultism, New Thought, Psychism, and Spiritualism: A Biography, Directory and Bibliography Combined in Distinctly Separate Sections" a.k.a. "Hartmann's Who's Who in Occult, Psychic and Spiritual Realms in the United States and Foreign Countries," written by William C. Hartmann and published by the Occult Press in 1927 -- hence the long list of "defunct" organizations it contains.
- Portions of this book were apparently copied to Wikiedia by previous editors before i contributed to the page.
- During the 1990s i transcribed Hartmann's list (by hand, before scanning!) and maintained my own electronic copy of this list on my hard drive. I updated my version of the list, adding URLs for contemporary organizations and also the names of defunct organizations that Hartmann had not listed.
- When i found that Misplaced Pages had an updated version of Hartmann's list online, complete with the list of "Defunct Organizations" i was quite thrilled. It was amazing to me that Misplaced Pages would actually maintain such a useful aid to Spiritualist scholarship. In the interest of helping out Misplaced Pages -- and especially in the interest of heightening public awareness of the many African American contributions to the religion of Spiritualism -- i added numerous organizations to the Misplaced Pages list from my own hard-drive list, because the original 1927 compilation by Hartmann, coming after the expulsion of Black Spiritualists from the NSAC in 1922, and written during an era of extreme racial segregation amounting almost to apartheid, had completely ignored or overlooked them -- and so had the original Misplaced Pages editors who had apparently uploaded their own copies of Hartmann's list to Misplaced Pages and did their own research and expansion into web URLs for surviving organizations.
- After i contributed entries from my own version of the list to Misplaced Pages, i continued to update and upgrade my version on my hard drive. In 2009, i uploaded my hard-drive version to the readersandrootworkers.org site.
- The two pages -- Misplaced Pages's and mine -- have resembled one another and have also diverged quite a bit over the years.
- For instance, my readersandrootworkers.org page maintains a sub-list of "regional and denominational directory sites of Spiritualist Churches." the Misplaced Pages page does not include this material.
- In my role as the lead editor at readersandrootworkersorg i have consistently maintained my list at the readersaandrootworkers.org site, but i have not consistently maintained the list at the Misplaced Pages site, as that was a volunteer project. Occasionally i returned to the Misplaced Pages list to prune spam links and to add overlooked African American organizations, both contemporary and defunct, but i noticed that Misplaced Pages's version of the list continually degraded, so i felt that i was wasting my time there.
- At one point, for instance, i noticed that a portion of Misplaced Pages's version of the list was no longer in alphabetical order, whereas Hartmann's original list, and therefore my list of the 1990s, have always been in alphabetical order.
- At another time i noticed that links to non-qualifying sites had been added to the Misplaced Pages list (i.e. links to sites that were not "organizations" consisting of several churches, but rather were individual churches or single individuals). I eliminated these from Misplaced Pages's list as i had time or inclination to do so. Such non-qualifying sites were never part of the readersandrootworkers.org list, of course.
- I did not recently do much to bring Misplaced Pages's version of the list up to conformance with my own list until last week -- and i did not even have time to finish that job: The list of defunct organizations at Misplaced Pages had inexplicably lost entries from the first portion of the alphabet and i intended to restore these when, almost immediately after my pass through the page, you deleted all the data anyway.
- Over the years there have been numerous duplications of various states of the Misplaced Pages version of the Hartmann list, but the readersandrootworkers site is not one of those iterations -- in fact, the information has run in the opposite direction -- from my original research, from my delving into scholarly books on African American Spiritualism, and from my own list to Misplaced Pages's list, due to my efforts to help improve Misplaced Pages's list.
- As far as i can determine, my readersandrootworkers.org version of the list has not been duplicated by other sites. A quick check would be to look for the "Colored Spiritualist Association of Churches" or the "Divine Spiritual Churches of the Southwest" or one of the other African American denominations that i added to Misplaced Pages the day before you deleted the page content. If a copying site does not contain those organizations, it was copied from Misplaced Pages, not from my site.
- You are correct, by the way, that readersandrootworkers.org is not part of the Misplaced Pages copyright agreement group. It is a private wiki, using media wiki software.
- Thank you for asking about this, and please, do not hesitate to ask me about other material that i have written elsewhere on the web or that i have written and donated to Misplaced Pages. I am always glad to be of assistance.
- Cordially. catherine yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- A book published in 1927 is probably still protected by copyright. Generally, only books published before 1923 are in the public domain. Also, even if the book is out of copyright, it's plagiarism to copy material from it without crediting the source, which you didn't do, either on Misplaced Pages or on your own site. Yworo (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know why the editors who created the site at WIkipedia did not credit Hartmann -- or even if they actually used Hartmann's lists of 1927 or did their own original research. My list is so filled with the results of my own original research and secondary research (particularly on the African American organizations and on the modern URL lists) that by the time i uploaded portions it to the web, i could not call it Hartmann's list anymore. He was only one of dozens of sources i consulted. I do think that the original Misplaced Pages list probably owes something to Hartmann's or to other lists that appeared in Spiritualist journals from 1910 onward, otherwise there would have been no list of "defunct" organizations. Whoever the editors were who created and added to that list at Misplaced Pages, they were probably Spiritualists who thought that they were helping Misplaced Pages. By the time i found the list, it was impossible for me to determine any of the sources used by the various Wikipedian editors. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- A book published in 1927 is probably still protected by copyright. Generally, only books published before 1923 are in the public domain. Also, even if the book is out of copyright, it's plagiarism to copy material from it without crediting the source, which you didn't do, either on Misplaced Pages or on your own site. Yworo (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- If you started with Hartmann's list, it's plagiarism not to acknowledge that. You don't have to call it Hartmann's list, you just have to acknowledge it as a source. It's your site though. Do what you want, but I've lost any respect for your intellectual honesty with this response. Yworo (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have no problem crediting Hartmann and i thank you for the suggestion; i will also credit the other sources in my library as well as google, where most of the recent URL-based information was acquired. Funny how WIkipedians never credit google... 64.142.90.33 (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Google is a search engine, not a source. As the content was not written by Google, there is no need to credit it. In the good ol' days, nobody would have suggested crediting the library's card-catalog! Would they? Yworo (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Google, the source for the URLS in the list, is far more than a card catalogue; it is a proprietary system of information organization. A copyright notice appears on the entry page to the google site. However, with respect the copyrighting of Hartmann's list of Spiritualist organizations or other such lists of names and addresses, or google's ordered lists of URLS, this may prove of interest to you:
In 1991 the US Supreme Court decided in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service that one phone-book company was allowed to engage in wholesale copying of another phone company's lists of names and numbers, because copyright is only meant to protect original creativity, not mere lists of facts. As someone writing for Misplaced Pages explained it: "The court clarified that the intent of copyright law was not, as claimed by Rural and some lower courts, to reward the efforts of persons collecting information, but rather 'to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (U.S. Const. 1.8.8), that is, to encourage creative expression.'" Thus, with respect to copyright, Hartmann's list of Spiritualist organizations is not protected by copyright. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Be that as it may, there's a difference between violating copyright and plagiarism. The latter is using the fruits of someone else's research without acknowledging it, pretending the work is solely one's own. Yworo (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Supportive words
Look Catherine, you are a fighter, I respect you for that. Clearly that user Yworo is mentally disrupted. Likely he/she is a teenager or, worst, he is mentally that age. The guy apparently is despaired to be an admin – God forbid. You already have read his disturbing talk page? That guy is crazy, furiously obsessed inside himself, he answers with rage anyone contradicting his likings. He must have suffered some child abuse and needs a hospice for an appropriated/psychological treatment. It is easy to realize he found out Misplaced Pages as a cave to hide and uses it, every guideline, suggestion or rule - when convenient to his fondness - as a mental support to his insanity. That guy is a dangerous person, evidently very, very emotionally instable and radical person in/out Misplaced Pages.
In my opinion, the rude and fanatic behavior of that lunatic person should be denounced for an arbitration. But, but, but, but, as you very well described in your user page, that kind of stupidity has company through Misplaced Pages.
Misplaced Pages shouldn’t be a shelter for unadjusted characters. And did I mention he is mentally sick? Oh forgive me if so, and very good luck to you. And remember, you know, there are others nice people like you inside Misplaced Pages. Smilingbird (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, Smilingbird. I appreciate the support. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have placed a final warning on Smilingbird's talk page for the attack above. IMO it would have been more appropriate for you Catherine to ask him/her to desist from this kind of "support", rather than welcoming it. Such diatribes do nothing to improve the atmosphere here and indeed only contribute to the battlefield mentality which, like you, I abhor. Kim Dent-Brown 11:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
MfD nomination of User:Catherineyronwode/Carroll Runyon
User:Catherineyronwode/Carroll Runyon, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Catherineyronwode/Carroll Runyon and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Catherineyronwode/Carroll Runyon during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Please restore User:Catherineyronwode/Carroll Runyon
This text is a copy of text also posted at the talk page of Doug Weller
In December 212 the page User:Catherineyronwode/Carroll Runyon was deleted as "Abandoned userfied article, editor hasn't edited for 18 months." Actually i log in very frequently. I know that to you i am "just andother red shirt" but i have made it clear that most, if not all, of my editing is done from my IP address, and i have actually given detailed written explanations as to why i chose this method of work.
In short, i have chosen to function as what in the retail world is called a "mystery shopper," a term that refers to a supposedly "random customer" who samples the customer service skills of the store. In Misplaced Pages terms, i am the "random editor" who contributes data in areas of personal interest and expertise. I note how many times my work is reverted by bots, unjustly. I note how many times i receive dire warning texts for simply adding a sentence to an article on a well-known and easily-researched topic. I am happy to say that the number of unpleasant personal encounters -- unwarranted rudeness to an unknown IP editor -- has decreased greatly over the past few years, but the bot problem remains.
My former IP was 64.142.90.33
My current IP is 70.36.137.192
I have had other IP addresses as well -- this is up to my isp, of course.
As far as i know, there is no time-limit on username log-ins at Misplaced Pages as there once was at Dmoz, where i also edited for many years. If there is, and you would like to advise me of the time-frame, i will cheerfully comply and log in promptly in my name and make a courtesy-edit within any time-frime you or your superior officers desire or require -- be it daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly.
On the whole, however, i prefer to contribute to Misplaced Pages as an IP rather than as a username -- it is quicker and more convenient than logging in (i can edit on the fly while on my job, which is writing books) and i enjoy the variety of responses to the IP-editor.
So can i please have my Carroll Runyon page back again? It is not "abandoned." It was actually the casualty of an anti-occultism deletionist edit-war of long ago, and i have hopes to reinstate it. The subject of the biography is worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages, in my opinion.
Cordially,
cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hi cat - no problems with timelimits on accounts. But June 2 2009, your last edit with a 64. IP address, is a long time ago, almost four years, so it does certainly seem abandoned. And worse, it has no sources at all. How about starting a short version in your userspace (with the userdraft template please, that was missing from the deleted version so it was showing up on Google) adding some references to show notability? That would both show that you really are working on it and make it more likely it can be restored to Misplaced Pages. I'm not the one who deleted it and I'm loathe to restore it as it is now. Start some work and reference it and I would probably feel differently. Dougweller (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Doug, Yes, indeed, my last edit with the "Ol 64" IP (64.142.90.33 ) was four years ago. My isp changed my IP when i signed on for a DSL account with them. I have been using the IP 70.36.137.192 since then and clearly stated that in my letter above. Please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/70.36.137.192 and you will see that i edit here often and that you made an error by checking the wrong IP.
- Additionally, you have created a Catch-22. You say that i can have the Carroll Runyon page back if i start to edit and source it, but since the page is being held as unavailable, i can't edit it or source it since i don't know what information it contains. cat 70.36.137.192 (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Catherineyronwode. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.Message added 17:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
a compromise suggestion Dougweller (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Nomination of Fumata nera and fumata bianca for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fumata nera and fumata bianca is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fumata nera and fumata bianca until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- KTC (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
SPI archives
Please don't edit SPI archives, only clerks and Checkusers should do that, per standard procedure at WP:SPI. If you want to introduce new evidence, you need to file a new report, which will be added to the archive in time. You can do so at WP:SPI. Adding to the archive will not reopen the case, only a new report will. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 17:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- I might also note that two different CheckUsers already ran a checkuser process for sleeper accounts before it was archived and found nothing. If you read the archive itself, it has that information near the bottom. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 18:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I have re-posted the evidence here:
Catherineyronwode (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Don't call me a troll
You write: "Child Pornography is to Misplaced Pages as Child Sex Abuse is to the Catholic Church" <-- I want to know what you mean by this, please don't delete my question. 76.105.194.160 (talk) 03:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Look it up at google. Use these keywords: < "Misplaced Pages" "child pornography" > and ignore the articles IN Misplaced Pages. Instead, read the articles from 2008 and 2010 mentioning Misplaced Pages.
Headlines like this is what you are looking for:
- Misplaced Pages added to child pornography blacklist
- Misplaced Pages falls foul of British censors over alleged child pornography
- Brits blocked from Misplaced Pages over child porn photo
- Wikimedia, IWF respond to block of Misplaced Pages over child pornography
- Misplaced Pages embroiled in child pornography allegations
- Misplaced Pages debates kiddie porn action
- Child Pornography at the Center of Intra-Misplaced Pages Warfare
- Misplaced Pages founder reports Wikimedia Commons to the FBI for child pornography
- Misplaced Pages Distributing Child Porn, Co-Founder Tells FBI
- FBI Investigates Misplaced Pages on Child Porn Laws
- Jimmy Wales denies FBI investigation of underage photos on Misplaced Pages
- Wikimedia pornography row deepens as Wales cedes rights
- Wikinews suppressed Misplaced Pages pornography investigation
Content like this is what you are looking for:
- "Last week, administrators of Wikimedia Commons, a media file store widely used for Misplaced Pages articles, deleted hundreds of images." (BBC)
- "Mr Wales had earlier posted his support for the removal of "images that are of little or no educational value but which appeal solely to prurient interests", deleting many pictures himself." (BBC)
- "After a complaint from Misplaced Pages co-founder Larry Sanger to the FBI that the Web encyclopedia site was "knowingly distributing child pornography," the site's other co-founder Jimmy Wales deleted images without consultation, angering many of the site's contributors, BBC News reported Monday." (UPI)
Do the research. It is a topic that dates back from 2008 - 2010 and has never been entirely resolved. The mass deletion of images by Jimbo Wales was not in any way an admission of complicity or guilt, nor was it an apology, nor was it a long-term solution to the problem. It was just a way of shoveling the stuff for which Misplaced Pages got caught out the door. Like the Catholic Church's moving of pederast priests around from diocese to diocese, the editors who were banned over the uploading of child pornography to WIkipedia were able to come back again with new isps and do it all over again. Why? Because of anonymity. Misplaced Pages's policy of anonymity protects criminals.
Catherineyronwode (talk) 03:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
FYI
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-05-27/In_the_media