Revision as of 14:15, 12 October 2007 view sourceJagz (talk | contribs)6,232 edits →UU info: moved most info to another location← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:07, 23 October 2007 view source Brusegadi (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers7,059 edits →3RR: new sectionNext edit → | ||
Line 153: | Line 153: | ||
As a UU and a former Boy Scout, thank you for placing my contribution in a proper article and context. ] 05:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC) | As a UU and a former Boy Scout, thank you for placing my contribution in a proper article and context. ] 05:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
== 3RR == | |||
Just to avoid trouble, watch out for ]. ] 23:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:07, 23 October 2007
Welcome
Hi, I notice you've been editing since September and no-one has been thoughtful enough to give you the official welcome yet! So...
Welcome!
Hello, Jagz, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Francs2000 17:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Re: Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America
Apologies for this oversight, Jagz. This is the first time I have used the POV-check template, so this purely PEBCAK on my part. Apologies again, I will correct this. Thor Malmjursson 02:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC) Thor's pet yack
- I'm going away, but if the restructuring is redone, go ahead and revert if it you disagree with it. This is a FAC-- edits this major shouldn't be done without a strong consensus. --Alecmconroy 18:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Please take a look at the current format. I have removed the sub-sub-headers, assuming that this was the source of your comment about if being "divided." Any other concerns? --NThurston 20:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Alecmconroy and Jagz--First, congrats again on the fine job you did getting Boy Scouts of America membership controversies to FA status. I noticed it's had lots of edits lately and looked it over. I'm concerned about it possibly in the future losing it's FA status as things like a section with a bulleted list, poor punctuation and formatting, and loosely joined facts have crept in. I can help with formatting, refs, and such if you like, but as I am not an expert on these controversies, I would likely be of only limited help on the prose part. Let me know if you'd like me to help. If you care to repsond, leave a msg here on your page. Rlevse 02:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe you can start by explaining to NThurston that an article isn't supposed to have bulleted lists, etc. --Jagz 02:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Jagz-- good work trying to clean up some of the recent edits. I'm sorry I wasn't around more to help out. I tend to think that even your new suggested organization isn't as good as your original organization, and I suggest a revert. Obviously, if you yourself like your new organization better, then I won't be quite so emphatic on that suggestion. But if you like your original organization better but just did the new organization as a way of compromise, then know that you don't need to feel like the recent edits compel you to reconsider the organization. Quite a large number of people liked your old way of organizing things, and if you and Rlevse still like the old way too, then the "burden of proof" is 100% on those who want a change, and I suggest ya'll just revert back until such time as you and everyone else is convinced that a change is warranted. Conversely-- I have a lot of faith in your judgement, and I haven't looked at the reorganization as closely as you-- so if you DO feel that NT is on to something and you understand where he's going with it and strongly agree, then please feel free to not take my own impassioned pleas for reversion too seriously-- I trust your judgement, and if you do now think there was something majorly wrong with your original formulation, then i'm sure I will too once i've the rationale fully explained to me. --Alecmconroy 06:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- I still like the old way better myself. The main reason we care about the loss of funding is that, presumably, it's a form of opposition to the policy-- people pulling their support of BSA because of the policies. If it's not a form of opposition and doesn't have anything to do with the membership controvesry, then it's not really part of the this page and it's just a minor budgetary issue that the main BSA page should handle. But I think the loss of funding _is_ a form of disagreement with the policies. The cited sources for that paragraph certainly are of the opinion that the loss of funding was a form of opposition, and no one's disputed that claim as far as I know. --Alecmconroy 06:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Congrats! on FA Status
Yay! We did it. You did an EXCELLENT job on that page. After TEN months of excellent contributions, you no doubt deserve a barnstar, and just as important, deserve to not be a red-linked user anymore. :). --Alecmconroy 11:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Youth Organization Criteria
If it doesn't make sense with that title, then it shouldn't be in this article. The article is about opposition to the BSA's policies regarding their membership. --NThurston 19:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- I am withdrawing that comment. It was unfair and uncalled for and I respect you as a hardworking good editor. The Youth section being separate will be an improvement. --NThurston 20:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Support paragraph
I like the new paragraph!! --NThurston 00:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
BSA
Just trying to make that first paragraph more neutral. --evrik 17:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Opus Dei RFC
After lots of NPOV problems, I have recently done a major rewrite on the Opus Dei article and am requesting comments on its talk page. I don't know if you know much about Opus Dei-- I still don't actually know that much about them, but you strike me as a fair, honest judge of articles, and I have no clue what your religous point of view is, which makes you an ideal candidate to serve as a fresh pair of eyes. Could you look over the page and comment on whether the rewrite is an improvment and maybe help out in the ensuing discussion? I'd like it to be my next FAC. --Alecmconroy 16:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Scouting problems and controversies
I think you should have moved the original International Scouting problems and controversies and made that a redirect. There is no need to speedy delete. You have also lost the history. --Bduke 01:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- I have moved it now. --Jagz 01:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Excellent, but why does Scouting problems and controversies redirect to Souting? A mistake? --Bduke 01:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- I was trying to move the original article to "Scouting problems and controversies" but that name was already in use by the second article I created. I moved the second article to a nonsense name but it did not free up the name "Scouting problems and controversies". I came up with a new article name so I could move the original article. --Jagz 01:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- OK, you can just ask an admin to speedy it, as nobody but you have edited it. You can of course edit the redirect from Scouting problems and controversies to Scouting controversies and concerns rather than Souting. --Bduke 02:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- The name "Scouting problems and controversies" was in use for just a short time. You can redirect it if you want. --Jagz 03:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Souting was deleted. I'll request that "Scouting problems and controversies" be deleted also. --Jagz 03:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- The name "Scouting problems and controversies" was in use for just a short time. You can redirect it if you want. --Jagz 03:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- OK, you can just ask an admin to speedy it, as nobody but you have edited it. You can of course edit the redirect from Scouting problems and controversies to Scouting controversies and concerns rather than Souting. --Bduke 02:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- I was trying to move the original article to "Scouting problems and controversies" but that name was already in use by the second article I created. I moved the second article to a nonsense name but it did not free up the name "Scouting problems and controversies". I came up with a new article name so I could move the original article. --Jagz 01:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Excellent, but why does Scouting problems and controversies redirect to Souting? A mistake? --Bduke 01:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Scouting
The para you just added to this does not have the ref in proper format, it's not consistent with the others, and you left your see also link to the same article in. This is especially not desireable when an article is a FAC. I've fixed this for now, but please be aware of these things in the future. Thanks. Sumoeagle179 12:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep FA status
You may want to fix the external jumps in the BSA controveries article. When non-FA stuff like the occurs to much, someone will come along and FARC it. Rlevse 10:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'll get to it soon. --Jagz 00:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- I fixed those but there are some new ones I have to fix soon. --Jagz 13:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
You're a difficult person
Don't try insulting me because I was removing the 404 link. If, after the website comes back up again, you want to add it - please do.
Please explain why having an outdated link is good. --evrik 16:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've never known you to miss an opportunity to not cooperate. --Jagz 18:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- You're the one adding 404 links to articles. Is it that hard for you to wait until you have good sources to cite? --evrik 19:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- There you go again. --Jagz 00:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Dick Cheney
Hi there - I think perhaps the fact that Cheney did not graduate from his doctorate is noteworthy. Maybe needs backing up with a source, but it seems to fit with the content in that section. Just my thoughts? MackSalmon 23:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- But what was the reason, if it is even possible to find out the real reason? Maybe he was staying in school to avoid the draft. Maybe he quit because he was tired of it, romance intervened, money problems, got a good job offer, wasn't a good enough student, etc. Saying he started his doctorate but didn't finish seems to imply something but it just leaves people hanging without providing them with useful information. If he ever provided a reason for quitting, what he says may not be the truth. That being said, if it gets put back in I will not remove it. --Jagz 00:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
More on Dick Cheney
You may have noticed that I reverted your recent change to this page. If there is verifiable evidence that he "flunked out" of Yale, please feel free to add (and cite) it. However the absence of statements to this effect does not, in my view, support your removal of properly cited information about his recent honorary degree; the characterization of that degree as "useless" would seem to be a departure from NPOV. DagnyB 13:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Sidis
I'm sorry that I didn't reply to you sooner; frankly, I didn't know that you'd posted anything to your talk page, nor do I see it now. How did you notify me? My email, as a note, is sj_cohn@yahoo.com.
To be sure, one had ought to cite one's references when altering any Misplaced Pages entry, and particularly a political or religious one, given the potentially incendiary nature of such edits. Biographical entries, however, can be changed in ways that are slanderous, so I appreciate your concern. However, I would note that my two edits were within minutes of each other, and that the change was a simple one... as I recall it, one that merely removed a solecism.
As for said changes, I can substantiate them with references. Would you like me to send these references to your personal email, or will you permit me to post them with the references and review them on the page. Regardless, I'd suggest that neither of us get bent out of shape over this. Sidis was a considerable figure in the annals of genius; assuming that neither of us are, let's not take this business to seriously.
And I say that with sincerity. For me, life is too short for me to get my stomach in a knot over the veracity of Misplaced Pages's material. Much of it is WAY farther from the mark than that which you and I have shared here.
The better part of my references were, at any rate, the following:
--The Animate and the Inanimate, by William James Sidis --A letter from Dr. Abraham Sperling to Helen Sidis which said, "I visited Mr. McDowell at Greenberg publisher's on Friday and received the material from your brother's manuscripts.... Mr. McDowell's comments on the manuscripts were these. Both of them he thought were rather scholarly and thus would not lend themselves to publication for popular sale. He suggested that you have some one or more of the outstanding scholars in the fields of philology and anthropology respectively read both manuscripts for the purpose of passing on their mertis and suggesting possible agencies for publication." --I'll have to look for the source of the information on the material Sidis wrote on transportation systems. One web site, which is only a second-hand source, said that, in reference to these guides, it was said in Sidis' time that "Several volumes, including two for the Boston area and one for the District of Columbia, are now ready to go to the printer, and several more are almost ready."
Also, I made no changes to the section on Sarah Sidis' education, of which I know nothing. I'd suggest you track down the author of this material, if it is not substantiated or is outright erroneous.
Best regards,
76.193.116.241 23:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Steve
I hope that you'll accept my apologies for omitting these sources; they are widely available in text and/or .pdf formats. As for the inferences I drew related to his state of mind and the genius that the breadth of his investigations represented... I stand by that assertion.
pardon me even more
Oops. I just figured out that you and the user Chryen are not one and the same. It was he/she who fucked with my changes, and I see that you had similar problems. What did you do? Sidis deserves fair treatment in this huge online encyclopedia, riddled with inaccuracies as it is.
- Unfortunately Chyren does not like to leave edit summary comments, which causes difficulties. --Jagz 13:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Scouting barnstar
-for outstanding long term work in improving and maintaining articles about the Boy Scouts of America.Rlevse 11:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! --Jagz 14:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Visa (document)
I asked a question on this talk page that you will probably want to see. Thanks Spartaz 18:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
DP-Scouts
Phips started a workshop for this article at User:Phips/workshop/DP-Scouts, I've added to it, we could use your practiced help! :) Thanks, Chris 02:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
UU info
Thought you may be interested in this for some article material...
<http://www.uuworld.org/news/articles/45487.shtml>
Scouting alternatives draw UU youth
Navigators and SpiralScouts offer inclusive programs
By Donald E. Skinner 9.21.07
Also saved here: User:Jagz/Alternatives
--(sidebar)--
RELATED RESOURCES
SpiralScouts. Earth-centered youth program sponsors 80 groups nationwide. (SpiralScouts.org)
Navigators. New York youth group offers alternative to Scouting. (NavigatorsUSA.org)
Work to Change Discriminatory Policies of Boy Scouts of America. Resolution adopted by the 1999 UUA General Assembly. (UUA.org)
Media Archive: Boy Scouts, Gays, Unitarian Universalists, and the Supreme Court. Includes media coverage of UUA's 1999 dispute with the Boy Scouts of America. (UUA.org)
Unitarian Universalist Scouters Organization. Officially recognized organization for Unitarian Universalists in the Boy Scout movement. (UUScouters.org) Rlevse 13:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Boy Scouts/UU Controversy
As a UU and a former Boy Scout, thank you for placing my contribution in a proper article and context. Unidyne 05:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
3RR
Just to avoid trouble, watch out for WP:3RR. Brusegadi 23:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)