Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lexein (talk | contribs) at 00:19, 10 June 2013 (→Journatic: offs). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

• Please write in a new section at the bottom of this page.
• Please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~.
• (Don't bold first words - they will be unbolded at my discretion.)
• I will reply here.
• If I comment on your talk page, please respond there. I watch my watchlist, and I don't bother with {{Talkback}}, so don't you bother.

Thank you!
Start a new Talk section.

Heirarchy of Disagreement

See that pyramid on the right? I actually _do_ prefer to stay in the top tiers. Unfortunately, the pyramid assumes that all actors are discussing in good faith, stating true facts, and not misrepresenting others' words. I'm afraid these do not hold true for deletionists and trolls, who choose to bend the language, meaning, and spirit of policy, and even outright lie, to achieve maximum destruction, and maximum disturbance to the encyclopedia project. So the reader will find me stepping off the pyramid from time to time to sternly deal with raging deletionist and troll behavior. Sorry if this is upsetting, but please see WP:DUCK and WP:SPADE for more on opening one's eyes and seeing the facts before one. --Lexein

SmackBot

<grin> Think of it as the smack at the end of a Swedish massage, or the smack of a Homer like pate when saying Doh! Whatever makes you comfortable... The name was never intended as a reprimand, although some users have taken it as such, just a passing pun. Regards Rich Farmbrough, 07:39 6 April 2007 (GMT).

SubRip

Stash

Screencap of a prior edit which has been copied to a userspace page, so that links can be shown.

TUSC token c07f8068a22fa9d8a75e59ccfa3b3dc2

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

ThrashIRC

(Moved to Talk:Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients)

Maybe not so bad after all...

ENeville has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Nom nom nom

Yunshui has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made him happy and he'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Holiday cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.

New messages

We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks

Reverted and placed warning templates on the SPA's talk page. He looks to be ripe for a block under WP:NPA, WP:POINT, WP:WAR and is working toward WP:3RR. One more vandalistic edit and I will block him myself. Schmidt, 10:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

sorry for being abrupt, but this is most annoying.

you only linked reviews that are overwhelmingly negative and none of which pointed out the lies, flaws and dangerous liable that the film is soaked in.

tried to add one VERY important review, by alexa obrien. you not only deleted my entries but did not retain the obrien article. write it in there yourself if you want. but dont make out like this entry is unbias.it is not. at all.

and you did include bias in your own editorial as well..it wasnt just the terrible, establishment-stroking reviews.

this film is a menace to investigative journalism, to whistleblowers and to WL, Assange & Manning. if you are not being paid to manipulate this entry, and are doing it off your own back, with no vested interest, then you really are terribly misinformed. but i dont think you're ignorant of the real problems with this film, or with the bias in your entry, i think you are well aware. which makes it worse. hence the abruptness. this isn't about a wikipedia entry, this is about truth, justice & integrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oojamaflipper (talk • contribs) 00:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Having never before contributed to the article, I simply reverted to the last sourced version which existed before your series of edits. Please review WP:NPA. What is not helpful in civil discussion, is your calling Lexein a nasty name by writing "stop being a cunt". Read WP:WAR. What is entirely inappropriate is in a fit of pique to delete sourced content from the article and replace the content with rants toward another editor. Read WP:VANDAL. That is NOT how we do it here. When two editors disagree, they begin as calm a discussion as possible, or seek a neutral third party to intercede. If you feel the article is negatively slanted per WP:NPOV, go to the article's talk page and discuss. Seek a compromise. If most reliable sources give criticism of the film, it IS proper to note atoverwhelming poor acceptance by those critics, even if you feel it is too much negativity. WP:NPOV means we do not offer our personal opinions, but simply report what was written by others elsewhere. . Schmidt, 07:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Journatic

I am not sure how closely you read the article you reverted - but the current (reverted) version now cites "The Journatic Journal" as its primary source. The version I updated took it out of that (essentially) Journatic-authored state (look at the citations) - "^ a b c d e f Joyce Cunningham, "The Survival of the Newspaper Business", The Journatic Journal, Accessed 18 Apr 2013)" I posted about these changes before I made them over a month ago. Nobody seemed interested in discussing them. At this point, if it is repetitive, then it makes more sense to edit rather than to revert to something essentially authored by Journatic themselves (which is original research and self promotion). I don't think Poynter is being "obsessive" because they wrote 10+ articles on the issue (as did the Chicago Sun-Times and Chicago Tribune). So, I am not sure where you saw original research. It was all cited. It's not my opinion that this company was involved in a number of scandals. All of the articles cited on the top of the Talk page (repetitive or not) clearly define the scandal...which actually is a big part of their short life as a company. If the articles on enron, anderson consulting, lehman brothers, anglo irish bank, bernie madoff have sections on malfeasance / scandal - why shouldn't journatic? So, which is more encyclopedic - citing the "Journatic Journal" or the Chicago Tribune, Poynter, Crains Chicago Business, Chicago Sun-times, etc...? Anyway, the point is that the baseline article that should be edited is my last version (and whatever is repetitive can be removed)...not the one written by / citing Journatic, which is not much more than self promotion. I do not want to revert again because of the "three revert rule" - but the current version is not encyclopedic at all. It's just journatic's PR material retyped. ApolloLee (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

TL;DR. Two words: ARTICLE TALK. Revert to an earlier version before the bias you see, then. My points stand. My talk page isn't the place for this sort of, excuse me, but argumentative, wikilawyering blather. I worked on it, and found several RS, and it sure as fuck wasn't "Journatic's PR material, retyped". Of course something else may have happened to them, but your pointy casebuilding is considerably worse. Continue this on ARTICLE TALK, not here. What is it with people, that they just can't stand to discuss article improvements on ARTICLE TALK? Jesus fucking christ on a stick. --Lexein (talk)