Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:24, 31 October 2009

Archives

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2
• /Archive 3
• /Archive 4
• /Archive 5
• /Archive 6
• /Archive 7
• /Archive 8

Nobel Barnstar for Liberty and Integrity

		The Barnstar of Liberty
		I hereby award you the Nobel Barnstar for Liberty and Integrity. Despite incessant provocation and harassment from the most abusive policy violating POV pushers, you maintained your calm and kept your focus on article content issues. Given your persistence and the long odds that came with your being greatly outnumbered, the outcome was predictable. Yet your refusal to renounce fundamental liberties of expression and your unwillingness to give in to the hideous pack of snarling beasts that stood against you will always stand as an inspiration to Wikipedians who value fairness, inclusiveness and truth. Kudos. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Grundle2600 (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. As far as I know you are the first ever recipient of this award, so it is a historic moment unparalleled in the history of Misplaced Pages. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This is the most notable thing that has ever happened here. It deserves its own article. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely! And I look forward to working with you on the encyclopedia going forward and to discussing many interesting subjects that aren't political with you. Of course I'm dismayed at your being unjustly censored from discussing political subjects. I think your approach could have been more incremental, but there's no question in my mind about your good faith and dedication to the encyclopedia, as demonstrated by your many susbtantial article contributions. I admire your willingness to continue discussing article issues that interested you no matter how many times you were smeared, personally attacked, and harassed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I also look forward to working with you. Grundle2600 (talk) 10:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Music discussion: My 100 Favorite Albums Of All Time

My 100 Favorite Albums Of All Time. These are my 100 favorite albums of all time. This list is arranged in order of preference, starting with my #1 favorite. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Good call on http://rateyourmusic.com/artist/the_waitresses . She was very very good. PhGustaf (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree - she and the rest of the band were awesome! Grundle2600 (talk) 00:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

All those cigarettes didn't exactly enrich her career. PhGustaf (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I know. But she was only 40 when she died of stomach cancer. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

She was a gay lesbian, enough said..Waterjuice (talk) 06:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If she was a lesbian, then yes, she was gay. But even if she was a lesbian, so what? Why would that matter to anyone other than her and her partner? Grundle2600 (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions for my mentor (and anyone else who's interested) about my topic ban.

During the discussion and enaction of my topic ban, User:Master of Puppets offered to be my mentor. Even though my topic ban has been enacted, these seven questions that I asked about Presidency of Barack Obama during the discussion of my proposed topic ban have not been answered. To Master of Puppets, and anyone else who is interested, please answer these questions. Thank you.

1) There was talk page consensus to have a single sentence about Van Jones resigning after it was revealed that he was a self described "communist" who blamed the 9-11 attacks on the U.S. government. Why should I be punished for adding that info to the article?

2) Please explain why you think the article should mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling.

3) Also please explain why you think citing Obama's actions against offshore drilling, without simultaneously citing his actions in favor of offshore drilling, does not violate NPOV, which states, "All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."

4) How is it not noteworthy that Obama's choice to head the "Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools" has an extensive history of illegal drug use?

5) If there's going to be a section on Obama's claims of transparency, why shouldn't the section mention cases where Obama was heavily non-transparent?

6) How is Obama's nationalization of General Motors, and firing of its CEO, not notable to the section on Obama's economic policy?

7) How is the questioning of the constitutionality of Obama's czars by two different Senators from Obama's own party, not relevant to the section on those czars?

Grundle2600 (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me put this as politely as I can; your input into political articles is no longer valued or desired by the Misplaced Pages community, hence the indefinite topic ban. Posting this same insipid list in every forum you have touched in the last few weeks is wearisome and unproductive, especially as some (if not all) were addressed by grsz at one time already. That they were not answered to your specific and particular liking is just, I'm dunno, too bad.

Advice? Walk away. Go help ChildofMidnight write better bacon articles, or find a nice non-political corner of the Misplaced Pages and settle into it. Surely you have other interests or hobbies that your energy could be directed towards. Tarc (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That is not an answer to my questions. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Some were answered; others that weren't were likely deemed irrelevant, given your past tendentious track record of such things. Sorry to be blunt, but that's the joy of a topic ban; no one has to deal with this anymore. I'll be unwatching this lately today, pending further replies, so unless you have an interest in grunge or 80's/early 90's alternative, here is where we part ways. Take care. Tarc (talk) 14:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I created a section to discuss my 100 favorite albums on this very talk page. Perhaps you might be interested in that discussion. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, 1 out of 100 at least; the pre-sellout Liz Phair. Tarc (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoo hoo! Grundle2600 (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd answer those, but they're fairly loaded. Also, as your mentor I'm supposed to help you get a better understanding of policy and help make the editing process as painless as possible; I don't have the power to change the opinion of others. If, as Tarc says, people have already weighed in on this and they've had their final word, then I can't do anything about it. I can urge them to reconsider, but they don't have to do that.

However, I could try to work through a few of these with you. For example, the last one (about the czars); are there any reliable sources questioning their constitutionality? Master of Puppets 04:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Although Tarc claims that my questions have been answered, he has not cited any quotes of or links to those alleged answers.

My questions are not "loaded." They are legitimate questions.

Of course I cited reliable sources when I added the info to the article. This is the edit where I added the info about the czars. Here is what I added: "In February 2009, U.S. Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) expressed concern that Obama's czars might violate the U.S. Constitution, because they were not approved by the U.S. Senate. U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) expressed a similar concern in September 2009."

1. Byrd: Obama in power grab, Politico, February 5, 2009
2. Feingold questions Obama 'czars', thehill.com, September 16, 2009

Grundle2600 (talk) 12:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Answers

1. Because your input into political articles was determined to be a net-negative to such an extreme level that the cost of vetting edits you make that are ok is more than the value of the edits.
2. I have never edited the aritcle you discuss, but I know that your input into political articles was determined to be a net-negative to such an extreme level that the cost of vetting edits you make that are ok is more than the value of the edits. What you construe as people disagreeing with your points is actually them ignoring them.
3. I have never edited the aritcle you discuss, but I know that your input into political articles was determined to be a net-negative to such an extreme level that the cost of vetting edits you make that are ok is more than the value of the edits. What you construe as people disagreeing with your points is actually them ignoring them.
4. I have never edited the aritcle you discuss, but I know that your input into political articles was determined to be a net-negative to such an extreme level that the cost of vetting edits you make that are ok is more than the value of the edits. What you construe as people disagreeing with your points is actually them ignoring them.
5. I have never edited the aritcle you discuss, but I know that your input into political articles was determined to be a net-negative to such an extreme level that the cost of vetting edits you make that are ok is more than the value of the edits. What you construe as people disagreeing with your points is actually them ignoring them.
6. I have never edited the aritcle you discuss, but I know that your input into political articles was determined to be a net-negative to such an extreme level that the cost of vetting edits you make that are ok is more than the value of the edits. What you construe as people disagreeing with your points is actually them ignoring them.
7. I have never edited the aritcle you discuss, but I know that your input into political articles was determined to be a net-negative to such an extreme level that the cost of vetting edits you make that are ok is more than the value of the edits. What you construe as people disagreeing with your points is actually them ignoring them.

Sincerely. Hipocrite (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You did not answer my questions. My questions were about the content of the article, not about the person who added the content to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

But I did answer your questions. Your premise in every one of them was flawed. You assumed that

Q2 "you think"

Q3 "you think"

Q4 you imply that I think something is or is not noteworthy.

Q5 you imply that I care about some section in some article.

Q6 you imply that I think something is important in some article.

Q7 you imply that I think something is relevent.

I don't. It's pretty clear to me that my only opinion is that you are incredibly disruptive, and you're not going to stop it. The reason you can't get any changes in articles (that's your real question), is that you are so transparently trying to make articles reflect what you think they should reflect, as opposed to what reliable sources say. Hipocrite (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Please cite an example of where what I added to the article, was different than what the reliable source said. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I was invited on my talk page to post here because I commented at the ANI discussion. The only thing I know about Grundle2600's work is what I said at the ANI, namely that the first few diffs cited in evidence showed a tenacious desire to inject POV, but what persuaded me to comment was this discussion where an interesting and detailed response was provided regarding some questions of a similar nature to those posed at the top of this section. Grundle2600 totally ignored the response and raised another issue, then capped it off by saying "You have not answered my questions". That kind of discussion goes on all the time in endless political forums, but it simply is not the purpose of Misplaced Pages. Articles should record notable information that is likely to be helpful even when read in a few year's time; articles are not a place to hold all the factoids with a negative association that original research can dream up. And the reason I have not attempted to answer the questions above is that that is not the purpose of Misplaced Pages. We cannot satisfy every participant in a debate. Johnuniq (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion that you linked to, which I started, is called, "Why is it OK for the article to cite Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling?" That is a very legitimate question. NPOV states, "All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." Therefore, for the article to cite Obama's actions against offshore drilling, without simultaneously citing his actions in favor of offshore drilling, violates NPOV. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• I just wandered in here by following a link you posted on someone else's talk page. You may recall we interacted once before several months ago. That conversation was considered humorous enough to be listed here. You seem to feel that the community owes you answers to the questions you pose above. It does not. You have been told in the plainest possible language that the problems around your editing of political articles outweigh any benefit you may have had on those articles. This topic ban is a not-so-subtle hint to you that you need to let it go and move on to something else.

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Now drop it already, you're not going to get what you want by continuing to pursue this, it can only make things worse. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Daniela Cicarelli

I think that linking a sex video(at Spike)is a violation of WP:BLP. Evidently you did not think so at the time you linked it. Has your opinion changed? Rich (talk) 09:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

Grundle2600 (talk) 12:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• I appreciate your point of view, and to be honest I wasn't sure of the policy myself,(although I thought it was a bad policy if allowing such links was the policy) until I emailed an admin who specializes in celebrity articles. In addition I recently looked up WP:BLP and found this:

Presumption in favor of privacy

"Misplaced Pages articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Misplaced Pages editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. It is not Misplaced Pages's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.

When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.

This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Misplaced Pages editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."

I also explained some of my thoughts about it as a question on the Help Desk and other points on the Daniela Cicarelli talk page.

• Best wishes, Rich (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It says, "This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions."

But this is an action that the subject chose to do, on a public beach, during broad daylight, in front of an audience. How does that have anything to do with "privacy"? Grundle2600 (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

Happy Halloween

Richard (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Ha! That's great! Thanks! Happy Halloween to you too! Grundle2600 (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)