Misplaced Pages

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Integral art

Just to let you know that the link to the AFD at Integral art comes up as a redlink for me. Might be a template problem; I can't tell William M. Connolley (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I've seen this before. I think it's a cache problem. Try reloading the page while holding down shift or control or whatever is appropriate for your browser. jps (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

It's server-side caching, not the viewer's browser. You have to add "?action=purge" to the end of the article URL, then press Enter (which I've done). Johnuniq (talk) 01:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that's worse than I thought. Someone should solve that problem or at least add that to Twinkle. jps (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Aha, so that's the secret. Thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Help deleting an article

Hi, is there any chance you can help submitting an article for deletion for me (I noticed you did some recently) so you would be a good person to ask. The article is this one George P. Hansen. He's non notable paranormal believer and there's no sources for him, even his book is self-published. I am amazed the article has been there so long. Dan skeptic (talk) 02:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Done. If you'd like to learn a user-friendly way to do this yourself, try enabling WP:TWINKLE. Its "XfD" feature helps solve Wikipedic nonsense. jps (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice and sorting this :) Dan skeptic (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fiscal conservatism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back, and please use talk pages

Hi Josh, welcome back. Are you sure you want to go down the road of edit-warring and using generalized ES's rather than the talk page (cf. recent edits to TCM and acu articles)? That's WP:IDHT and was the sort of thing that led to your being banned in the first place under the ScienceApologist account. Don't repeat that if you want to avoid drama and you want your edits to stick. (BTW, IIRC you were indef-banned -- can you point me to the discussion that lifted it?) Happy editing, and I hope you have a better experience this time around. -Middle 8 (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Middle 8, edit warring and using generalised edit summaries is exactly what you did when you reverted Josh. Was it not? Despite that, I have commented on the talk page briefly outlining the issue several hours ago, yet you failed to respond there?IRWolfie- (talk) 23:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

@IRWolfie- No, I explained my reasoning . That for two (non-identical) mainspace edits. All I could find at talk from you was this (were you using another account too?), and nothing from Josh until my request above. I find no ES with your edit here, and nothing on talk re the same. I think you should both use the talk page more, and for real, not glossing over stuff. --Middle 8 (talk) 03:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that Middle 8 should be editing acupuncture or TCM articles at all, though his input on the talkpages would be most welcome. I have started a discussion on his userpage and mentioned it at WP:FTN. jps (talk) 00:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Wrong re COI now as before. Consensus at FTN or ANI or wherever you complained last time didn't agree with you, and likely won't now. Please stop wasting time with frivolous complaints. --Middle 8 (talk) 03:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

No consensus has ever concluded that you are not conflicted when it comes to the subject of acupuncture. You are simply mistaken about that. jps (talk) 03:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Huh? You're prevaricating again with this "proving a negative" wording -- that's telling; your position on acu is weak, so you create red herrings. It's just as I said -- never any consensus; actually nothing even close. Got evidence proving me wrong? (N.B. - pls see my privacy concerns on my user page and don't discuss any possible previous accounts of mine on-wiki.) It's simple: I don't POV-push (except in the hyperbolic bizarroworld where anyone who disagrees with you does), so I don't have COI... IOW, with no crime, the possibility of motive is irrelevant. --Middle 8 (talk) 08:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

As an acupuncturist, you have a conflict of interest on acupuncture and have (re)inserted promotional and biased wording into that article. Please stop acting in mains space. Thank you. jps (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Why are falling back on repeating yourself? IDHT much? It's not gonna happen. I consider it a frivolous request, given your history here and lack of attention to much of the stuff you say is so direly wrong with articles and editors. You should stop the hyperfocus on editors and concentrate on specific, realistic proposals on talk pages. On a procedural note -- please let me know with e.g. {{subst:FTN-notice}} if you mention me on FTN -- I caught it this time but could have missed it. Thanks and happy editing... --Middle 8 (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

You can try to protest as much as you like, but the fact remains that you are a professional acupuncturist trying to slant the acupuncture article to state that there is evidence for acupuncture being an effective medical procedure. Also, please note that this diff shows you were told of my intention to post about you on WP:FTN. jps (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, you're right about the diff, missed that. Your COI mantra is weak -- still can't engage on the merits, eh? That said: you never answered my question about your being indef-banned, and the circumstances of returning -- feel free to do so here or on my talk page. --Middle 8 (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I would not be using a "COI mantra" if you hadn't acted in article space, Middle 8. You know how much that's frowned upon in these matters. If you had just stuck to the talk pages, I'd have been happy to "engage on the merits", but it is difficult when you revert, go to MY talkpage, call in the cavalry, and generally go on the offensive. Still, I'm willing to let bygones be bygones if you are, and if you can agree to work with me -- though I'm not going to be silent if I see you abrogating COI like the last round.

And you'll have to forgive me for not answering your query about my return to Misplaced Pages. That is really water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned. A talk page watcher might fill you in on the details either via e-mail or otherwise (frankly, I'm surprised they haven't already contacted you about it), but I'm not inclined to revisit it, if you don't mind. jps (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

True skeptic or biased?

Hi jps. This recent edit of yours at TCM seems to tamper with sources... I'm particularly concerned about you trying to weaselwordedly downplay the result of the Vickers study, and changing the conclusions of the 2011 review into almost the exact opposite. This is among the worst biased editing I've seen in a while (and I've seen quite a few crazy alt-med disciples at this article already). You're not doing science a favor with this. Please stop. Respectfully, --Mallexikon (talk) 01:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Responses like this embolden me. I will continue. Respectfully, jps (talk) 22:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Education question about the use of WP

Hello Josh,

I think you make a very true and interesting statment, when you state in your page that Misplaced Pages

is used by students and teachers as a first stop on many of their research projects.

As a teacher (I assume?) do you yourself accept in a student's research or paper a citation that comes directly from Misplaced Pages? Or, as I believe is the accepted practice in American academia these days, this is just an underlying reality everyone is simply aware of (as you so clearly and directly state in your opening statement about your interest in Misplaced Pages), but it is not yet truly reflected in the written or published expression of academic knowledge or "discourse." Do you think it will ever be? How do you think this change in the process of the recording of knowledge in society will or should come about? Or maybe my one "simple" question has now become multiple philosophical questions that are too difficult to answer simply and directly, and you don't have the time for that? I'd understand if that were to be your answer. And by the way, the reason I am here now asking you this difficult questions is because of the quite harrowing (for me) dissonance between your very complex User Name/ID and your very simple and direct signature. Be well, warshy 16:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi warshy,

A direct citation to Misplaced Pages should only be accepted as an example of what was in the Misplaced Pages database and nothing more. For example, an article on a fast-developing current event might cite a Misplaced Pages diff at a particular time to illustrate that some change was made at some instant. That's just about the only legitimate use for a citation directly to Misplaced Pages text.

I catch students plagiarizing Misplaced Pages all the time and generally, being a softy, require them to redo the assignment, though I really ought to fail the students. Will Misplaced Pages ever be a citable resource? I sure hope not, but predicting that kind of future is a difficult task indeed. A better question might be to ask whether Misplaced Pages will survive another ten years.

My username is arcane for reasons that I won't get into, but I like simple signatures and am happy to go by my actual name. Usernames, unfortunately, have an odd history at this website.

Cheers,

jps (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Josh,

Thank you very much for your very straightforward answers to my questions. If you could clarify to me why you say that you hope Misplaced Pages never becomes a citable source I think your position would become much clearer overall to me. I just appreciate having your sincere input into my thinking about the subject. I don't have many answers myself to these questions, but I think about them often, due to my daily interaction with this "phenomenon" called Misplaced Pages. Be well, warshy 18:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Why do I think Misplaced Pages shouldn't become a citable source? It's because of its database permissions model. Compare, for example, the story of the Oxford English Dictionary. While that particular reference work accepted submissions from anyone and everyone, there was an evaluation system in place to separate the wheat from the chaff. In contrast, Misplaced Pages's system is to hope that someone else will fix the problem. This is not the recipe for a reliable source, and unless that aspect of the website changes, I hope that it never becomes a acceptable to cite such a source. jps (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, Josh. Thank you very much again for your input into my questions. Your position is clear and I will take it into consideration as I ponder these questions further. Be well, warshy 19:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

David Birnbaum

Would you mind taking a look at this, it involves a fringe topic. I created the article but had second thoughts afterwards. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Your username

What's with the lengthy and unpronounceable username, out of interest? I'm a big fan of randomly generated strings myself, but just wasted seconds of my life parsing an edit summary where another editor didn't know how to refer to you (choosing to describe you as "editor exclaiming 'Huzzah!'"), and another few seconds checking that you weren't a keyboard-mashing vandal. --McGeddon (talk) 12:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The explanation for why I chose this is somewhat long and a bit too personal for the publicly viewable wiki. Feel free to e-mail me if you want to discuss the matter in private. jps (talk) 15:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but this account isn't attached to a useful email address, I never use it for private chat with other editors. Does the name QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV serve some specific purpose that QTx or QTxVi4 or QuiteExuvial4b (or, indeed, "jps") wouldn't, and which is worth the slight difficulty of editors trying to talk about your edits without being aware of your talk page signature? It's an intriguing puzzle, but I am struggling to imagine any hypothetical case where this username is more useful than an equally random but abbreviated one. --McGeddon (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It does serve a purpose that your alternative suggestions do not. However, it's not something I'm prepared to talk about on-wiki at this time. jps (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite. I've set up a throwaway email address at quiteexuvial@gmail.com, drop me a line and satisfy my curiosity. --McGeddon (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Rupert Sheldrake

As you well know, the Sheldrake article is subject to discretionary sanctions. You have reverted three times today at that article. Consider this your only warning for today and for the future. If you engage in such disruption, you risk being sanctioned without notice pursuant to WP:ARB/PS.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Could you please tell me which of my edits today are "reverts" and, specifically, show which version to which I am reverting? Thanks. jps (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

You should read up on the definition of revert at WP:3RR and then, if you really still don't know, you can ask me again.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Show me the previous version to which I was reverting, please. That is what would be required at WP:3RN, for example. jps (talk) 22:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Warning the wrong way Bbb23 (talk · contribs) - QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV (talk · contribs) is doing a great job handling the anti-WP:FRINGE WP:POVPUSHING editing. It would be useful if some of these WP:ARB/PS could be applied to those only interested in WP:RGW rather than those supporting the project and having to deal with a lot of nonsense. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Administrators are not allowed to take sides, Barney. It's the unfortunate way this website was set-up. jps (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Well they should work to support policy and WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. It's necessary to take sides Bbb23 (talk · contribs) when one "side" is acting with policy and the other clearly isn't. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

From experience, I know that most administrators are generally not adept at being able to interpret the subtleties of the content policies very well, and, even if they are, they run the risk of serious blowback if they try to enforce those policies using administrative tools as the users against whom such policies are enforced will likely cry foul and, as there is no competency exam to become an administrator on this website, it is highly likely that other administrators will be sympathetic to such complains of abuse. Such is the stuff of wheel wars. On the other hand, it is somewhat straightforward to enforce other policies such as WP:CIV by looking for swears or WP:3RR by counting reverts. Only, rather oddly, I don't think that the administrator here actually checked to see if my three edits were actually reverts. Certainly there is no analysis provided to help us figure out if that's the case. jps (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Reverts

Your last edit seems to have vanished from Bbb's page. I think we agree on this though. The word "revert" seems to be key, ie, reverting to a previous version is I guess what is at issue. Is there anywhere that I can get clarification on this because if what Bbb says is the rule is the rule it will make editing almost impossible. Every article will just grow and grow since nobody can change anything. Barleybannocks (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

We're cross-posting now, but that's okay. Hopefully the administrator will read and come to his or her senses. However, if this kind of misinterpretation continues, it might be a good idea to post about it on the administrator's noticeboard WP:AN. I try to avoid that at all costs, but that would be the next logical step. jps (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, dear. This is not encouraging. If he doesn't relent, I think we'll have no choice but to post to an administrative noticeboard. Nuts. jps (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

did you remove my post by accident I'm scared to reinsert it now!Barleybannocks (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It was an accident. Sorry. Looks like it's back now, though. jps (talk) 01:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Barleybannocks (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Removal of content on WP:AN

I have reverted your edits to Administators' Noticeboard because you removed a user's comment without an edit summary. If you choose to do that again, please use an edit summary to explain. Thanks, Ross Hill (talk) 01:02, 20 Nov 2013 (UTC) 01:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It was an edit conflict which, because I was editing in a subsection, didn't come up in the diff compare. I think it's all taken care of now. jps (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Accident. Barleybannocks (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Okay, I thought it was something like that after you thanked me for the edit . No worries! Ross Hill (talk) 01:05, 20 Nov 2013 (UTC) 01:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

"Technically, any change, no matter how small to the text of an article, is a revert."

I don't know what the next step should be to address this problem. One step might be to open a discussion on the 3RR to see if it could be refined to help prevent such gaming. On the other hand, admins are supposed to be the last persons to game. vzaak (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Implying that an admin is out to game the system is AGF-defying. Assuming that most admins are not power-hungry automatons who act out of a desire to block more users or to issue more 3RR warnings so that they can fill their ego-driven quota, there is no benefit for any admin to try to game the 3RR policy. More specifically, Bbb23 is a decent and capable admin, as his overall record indicates. His interpretation of 3RR in this case may not be universally accepted but that is no reason to escalate this to insinuations that he is gaming the system. Δρ.Κ.  03:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing and User:Atethnekos are both beginning discussions as to whether this particular interpretation should be clarified. I agree that pressing the issue vis-a-vis the admin is not the right direction right now because there is consensus that this viewpoint of what characterizes a "revert" is a legitimate position (as much as I disagree with it). jps (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the point about what constitutes a revert needs clarification and I also find the current interpretation too strict. I also agree with your approach regarding the admin. Thank you jps. Best regards. Δρ.Κ.  20:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I've only been editing since the summer, and sometimes I use WP terms without knowing the full context. By "gaming" I only meant using a Misplaced Pages policy contrary to its intent. There is no doubt that is occurring here, where a person is construing collaborative WP:EDITCONSENSUS changes as reverts. Looking at WP:GAME now, it additionally says "bad faith", which is not what I intended. I have no idea why this person has this unique understanding of the policy on warring. I don't think it's a view held by anyone -- at least not any administrator -- except that one person. vzaak (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

We should get some edit into the policy to prevent this person from being able to support their interpretation. jps (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration Request Notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Persistent Bullying of Rupert Sheldrake Editors and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Askahrc (talk • contribs) 20:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

We'll disagree, but please consider responding to this Arb's request, anyway.
Best,
David in DC (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)