Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:56, 18 April 2008

Φ

Just joking

Swatjest, I was just joking with you. Just thought the whole situation was funny.

Happy First Day of Spring!

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

`

Wikiproject Terrorism Newsletter

	The Terrorism WikiProject April 2008 Newsletter
News 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack was made a Featured Article Omar Khadr has an ongoing peer review as it begins the slow crawl towards Featured Article status Trials have begun this month in the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Benbrika affair and 2006 Toronto terrorism case, each article could use a good vetting, and the articles on specific alleged terrorists are desperately in need of some clean-up. Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein had his case overturned by the Iraqi courts and was ordered released, although the US military says they will not release him. China announced that they had disrupted a plot targeting the 2008 Summer Olympics, while detractors claim it was fabricated. The bail hearing for Abdullah Khadr, fighting extradition to the United States, is scheduled for April 29 Former Turkish Member of Parliament Leyla Zana is sentenced to two years imprisonment for praising Abdullah Öcalan. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Guantanamo detainees missing from the official list needs votes on whether or not it should be kept on Misplaced Pages.
Archives • Discussion

Sherurcij 05:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Honey and Vinegar

As per your comments on my Talk Page: I will state that while your comments regarding Misplaced Pages communications may have been intended as a sincere effort to maintain civility, it was nonetheless perceived as a "cut it out or I will personally block you from editing" threat. For my efforts in managing professional and vocational environments, I've always found that it easier to bring about desired results by using diplomatic language and a positive encouragement, rather than bluntly calling people to task (even if they are acting in a problematic manner). Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Is that you Dan? It's "Shadow" aka "Peregrine_Falcon" from WaW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowSix (talk • contribs) 15:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

almostcrazy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not sure what to do about this account, which I noticed on RC patrol. One contrib: adding "almost" somewhere it plainly wasn't helpful. After my warning, no further contribs (unless there are some deleted ones). Did I nip in the bud a vandalism-only account, or did I just bite a newbie? I don't have enough experience of this to know what to do next, and I don't have the tools to do anything... other than refer it to an admin. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 17:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither. You used a standard template to tell a new editor that their edit was reverted, gave them links to how to edit constructively, and invited them to talk to you if there were questions. I don't think you scared him off, nor do I think he was a vandal only account. Honestly, he probably made the one contrib, closed his browser and won't check it again for weeks (and may not ever check the user talk page). Don't kick yourself, you didn't do anything wrong.⇒SWATJester 07:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the perspective. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

PetraSchelm

I'm leaving Misplaced Pages for a few weeks as a result of PetraSchelm's methods -- see here, for example: Talk:List_of_books_portraying_sexual_attraction_to_children_or_adolescents. She has massively disrupted the entry, unilaterally. She mischaracterizes that page's history, and other editor's comments. She implies that anyone who disagrees with her is pro-pedophile and disruptive. She refuses to acknowledge genuine controversy (over the meaning of "pedophilia"). And ironically she now accuses others of "soapboxing".

If you decide to block her again, I won't come to her defense. Thanks for reacting firmly to her previous unpleasant behavior. Subsequent events suggest to me that you were clearly right to do so. SocJan (talk) 06:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know your situation, but I hope you come back when you feel ready. ⇒SWATJester 07:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Using the word "Ignorant"

As per your comments on my Talk Page: Please don't template the regulars is, according to that page, an "essay" and "not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." And using the word "ignorant" to in the course of a debate is designed strictly to demean other people. Please refrain from making comments that are not intended to encourage a positive discussion. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• As per your comments on my Talk Page: “So, if a person were to say something in a deletion debate that "black people are inferior" that would not be an ignorant statement? It does not mean that the person is ignorant, but their statement is ignorant.”

The answer: A statement which is not supported by any reputable scientific facts (as in your hypothetical case, a declaration of one race’s inferiority to other races) would certainly be considered ignorant; in the case you cited, a stronger word would be justified. However, no one made such a statement and your example is completely irrelevant to the question at hand.

You used the word “ignorant” to challenge concerns of whether a particular medical professional possesses a specific level of notability within his field and, thus, would qualify for Misplaced Pages coverage. You asserted that opinions that differed from yours in regard to this issue are “ignorant.”

However, no irrefutable facts have been presented (either by you or any other Misplaced Pages editor) to uphold your opinion as the be-all/end-all statement of fact. And you seem to forget that you are strictly stating an opinion, not a fact; the deletion article is an exchange of opinions to build a consensus on an article’s value, not a challenge to irrefutable facts about Dr. Klein's value to both his profession and this web site.

A friendly exchange would’ve found you stating that the rival view was “mistaken” or “off-base” – with those words, you would’ve acknowledged a disagreement, added your view that the rival opinion is lacking, and refrained from creating ill will with poisonous language – few linguists consider “ignorant” to be a positive word.

Opinions do not exist in their own space and energy – they are an extension of individual’s personality, mind and passion. In this case, they are an individual’s entry into what is supposed to be a mature conversation that will enrich the Misplaced Pages content base. You are not insulting an abstract concept; you are insulting a person by insulting how he thinks and how he expresses himself.

I would not be offended if someone said my opinions were "mistaken," but I take serious offense when someone says my opinions are "ignorant." Whether you intended to create ill will and intentionally demean a rival view is something I cannot determine. That you are deaf to the concerns raised by your choice of verbiage is something I cannot understand. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for butting in uninvited, but there seems to be a misunderstanding here. Calling someone "ignorant" does not imply an insult to "how he thinks or how he expresses himself"; it simply means that he does not know something. I'm taking this page off my watchlist now. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 17:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• No apologies needed, S.S. -- but your definition of "ignorant" is wonky. Scope out this page: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignorant -- the word goes somewhat beyond "does not know," and the negativity associated with it is not pleasant. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In my field, ignorance is not treated with negative connotations, but rather is simply the lack of knowledge. My apologies if you take it to be negative, as that's not my intention. ⇒SWATJester 20:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

...And since Eecoleetage deleted my comment off his talk page, I make free to repeat myself here (repetition being the mother of learning): Ignorance is lack of knowledge, not an insult. You seem, I am sorry to say, ignorant of the meaning of the word itself, Ecoleetage. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the dicdef(s). I myself am ignorant of many things, as is everyone - no one can know everything. KillerChihuahua 21:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• In my field, the lack of knowledge is the opportunity to bring a new insight with a positive message. There are empowering ways of alerting people to their lack of knowledge, but that's another story. In any event, don't feel bad -- at least you didn't say I was "bitter"! Ecoleetage (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

ze blog

cool...what did you mean by deeplink? xenocidic (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I was reading some other site, which linked to a second site, which linked to a third site, which linked to your blog. i.e. I didn't know about it and just stumbled across it, not through google. ⇒SWATJester 02:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

ahh...cool! glad to see that it's getting some exposure out there in the webbish wide world =) xenocidic (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Chiropratric

I don't know if you noticed but you made this edit after the page was protected. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice. My revert was reverting vandalism though, so it doesn't matter whether it was protected or not. ⇒SWATJester 16:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)