Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:04, 6 February 2010

15 January 2025
From the editors: Looking back, looking forward Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2024 In the media: Will you be targeted? Technology report: New Calculator template brings interactivity at last Essay: Meet the Canadian who holds the longest editing streak on Misplaced Pages Opinion: Reflections one score hence News and notes: It's a new dawn, it's a new day, it's a new life for me... and I'm feeling free Serendipity: What we've left behind, and where we want to go next Op-ed: Elon Musk and the right on Misplaced Pages In focus: Twenty years of The Signpost: What did it take? Arbitration report: Analyzing commonalities of some contentious topics Humour: How to make friends on Misplaced Pages
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Welcome to the Misplaced Pages!

Hello, and Welcome to the Misplaced Pages, Scribner! Thanks for removing the vandalism over on the Bill Frist article. Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Misplaced Pages experience:

• Take a look at the Misplaced Pages Tutorial and Manual of Style.
• When you have time, please peruse The five pillars of Misplaced Pages, and Assume good faith, but keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
• Always be mindful of striving for NPOV, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
• If you need any help, post your question at the Help Desk.
• Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!

And some odds and ends: Boilerplate text, Brilliant prose, Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Utilities, Verifiability, Village pump, and Wikiquette; also, you can sign your name on any page by typing four tildes: ~~~~.

Best of luck, Scribner, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman 13:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

american conservatism

Hey Scribner, nice work with Rick on conservatism. The next area is american conservatism..he is trying to throw more junk in that article as well. :)

Please take a look at the Mediation Case Rick has filed and offer evidence / comments. Thanks, michael 02:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Conservatism

I did not mean to imply that the "Criticisms of Conservatism" section was the work of the people criticizing Rick Norwood. What I meant was that the views of his opponents as discussed on the talk page struck me as ahistorical and ignorant. I'm not impressed with Mr. Norwood, either, and I think the particular criticism section, as it currently stands, is completely unsalvageable. In terms of the specifics, Beneaththelandslide seems to have an idea of conservatism as an almost apolitical theoretical philosophy, to which we cannot attribute any of the actual political views expressed throughout history by conservatives (such as support for established religion, or support for the interests of the aristocracy, and later, the monied interests). Otherwise, perhaps I have been too harsh - I don't see you having written anything ignorant, although there does seem to be a fair amount of ad hominem on your part suggesting that Rick Norwood has no right to participate in the article because he isn't conservative, which I think is a viewpoint that ought to be frowned upon.

As to whether a criticism section constitutes a POV fork, I don't think it necessarily does. I think any contextless list of quotes like the current section is POV. But I think that a section which tries to explain the ways in which conservatism has been criticized by different political schools would be useful, and would not be POV. But the current section is ridiculous. john k 12:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, my particular pet bugbear on this is opposition to two different ways of defining conservatism. I think it is wrong to define conservatism as either being more or less equivalent to classical liberalism (even if this claim is limited to economic and constitutional matters) or as being simply "support for slow, gradual change." Beneaththelandslide's seeming commitment to the latter is what got me going on the mediation page. john k 12:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

shock and awe survey

hi Scribner, Thanks for the Barnstar. Could you look at shock and awe and vote on which version you like. Trying to defend NPOV again. Thanks. ED MD 06:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The survey is on the shock and awe talk page. Thanks... Enjoy working with you. One of the few people with knowldege and fiesty enough to defendsome postions on wiki. ED MD 07:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Getting up to speed on the issue now.--Scribner 07:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

So, you commented out the part I just added, and added the {{unsourced}} tag. Does that mean you think some other part is unsourced? Starcare 00:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep. See the Shock and Awe Talk page.--Scribner 00:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of conservatism

Please see my comment here. GregorB 21:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Replied on Talk:Conservatism--Scribner 06:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Shock and awe

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Shock and awe, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Misplaced Pages:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. KWH 09:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This POV is going to drive us crazy...

Scribner, I see that you withdrew from the mediation. I can see your point, seems to me like Publicola, XASF, and Starcare were brought in from the fringe to push a POV. Somehow, somebody was imitating me to try to get me banned using the profile of EH_MD, which is a pointless endeavor since I get a new IP address almost every other day. Will try and keep the POV out, and realized the opinion pieces like the reference to terrorism is WP:RS. I'm still learning wiki and its nice to have somebody who knows his stuff and defends it strongly. Pseudotumor 22:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

When a member of our side defended the inclusion of op-ed, primary source material, I thought, "Oh, hell, we're dead." Hope you guys get a knowledgeable mediator. I'll follow the mediation.--Scribner 04:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

David Saks

Thank you, Scribner, for taking the initiative to call the Memphis government twice about Saks. As Reneec would say, "your have much fortitude." · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 16:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I just sent you an email.--Scribner 16:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You mind if I pass it on to Vary? · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 00:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, to everyone but the suspects...we're talking to sister Saks, BTW.--Scribner 00:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Jersyko forwarded me that email, and I'm not at all surprised. That's exactly how these things work. -- Vary | Talk

It's amazing to witness this unfold.--Scribner 07:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought you would like to know that Reneec was blocked indefinitely for this legal threat against me this morning. · j e r s y k o talk · 17:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested in this: Official songs of memphis. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The Mayor's Executive Assistant's response

The City of Memphis does not have an “official” song of Memphis. Please see the comments of Kevin Kane, the President of the Memphis Convention & Visitors’ Bureau. You have my permission to publish my comment. Thanks.

Gale Jones Carson

Executive Assistant to

Mayor Willie W. Herenton

(901) 576-6007

(901) 576-6023 (fax)--Scribner 06:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The Mayor's Executive Assistant's Response is Either False or Uninformed

Mr. Kane Does not know of any official songs because he has not spoken with the Memphis City Council. Gale Carson has not spoken with Ms. Crislip of the Memphis City Council. Ms. Crislip, the city council secretary to former councilman chair Lowery, councilman Sammons and others, has acknowledged that the songs were adopted as "Official Songs of Memphis". She acknowledged this fact in February of 2006 in your Memphis discussion pages. Ms. Crislip originally admitted that she was unaware of the songs upon initial inquiry because she began her employment with the city council after the songs had been adopted. The same is the case for Ms. Carson. These songs have rarely if ever been heard by anyone because of a fight that occurred late in 1990 over the use of "One Last Bridge". It became a mild political matter and the composer, Mr. Saks, refused to participate in this debate as to whether or not his song, "One Last Bridge" , or Chuck Berry's "Memphis" should be used in a tourism campaign. The presiding president of the Memphis Convention and Visitor's bureau at that time was Mary Smith. Ms. Smith wanted something familiar to use in the tourism campaign although she believed that Mr. Saks' song should have been used because he was a native Memphian, and perhaps Chuck Berry's song should not be used because Mr. Berry was a convicted felon. The Memphis City Council approved "One Last Bridge" in unanimous resolutions in 1990 as an Official Song of Memphis. "In Memphis" was adopted as an Official Song of Memphis the following year in a special resolution supported by councilwoman Mary Rose McCormick. City council certificates of resolution were presented to the composer and to the studio musicians that participated in the recording presented to the Memphis City Council, which Mr. Saks was unaware of. Mr. Saks was later invited to play the piano in City Council chambers. The current Mayor was not in office at that time. Richard C. Hackett was the Mayor of Memphis. Ms. Carson would not know of the resolutions and has not bothered to confer with the Memphis City Council regarding the matter. "In Memphis" and "One Last Bridge" are the only two songs ever adopted as "The Official Songs of Memphis" according to the Memphis City Council archives. I had been involved in transcribing council sessions for rebroadcast over the public radio forum in the early 90's and know of this matter. Although I'm not a regular contributor to this forum, it was brought to my attention by a friend and local broadcaster. I believe that Mr. Saks' songs are a part of the musical history of the City of Memphis. I disagree with the tone of the debate as Mr. Saks is a modest individual and never intended pecuniary interest from his work. He has a genuine love for his community. There may not be a standing "Official Song of Memphis" in perpetuity, but it is wise to consider that the only two songs ever adopted as "Official Songs of Memphis' in any given year were "In Memphis" and "One Last Bridge".

This is funny

Hey Scribner, check this out: Rfa for Striver. I laugh. Pseudotumor 16:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

20,000. edits? -- Rfa results are damning. Mother of all rejections.--Scribner 07:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Corker/Ford lead ins

Hey, Jersyko and I have agreed that Bob Corker and Harold Ford's pages should not cite thier respective opponents due to NPOV reasons. If you disagree with us, feel free to start a discussion. Thanks, StayinAnon

Where's the discussion?--Scribner 06:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, its on our talk pages, not in the main talk page. See, the polls are not as offical as the ballot itself, and neutrality is better served by the ballot than the poll. Thanks

Tell that to the other candidates ;)--Scribner 07:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to clarify my position--I still don't think this is a neutrality issue. It's about sightliness, and I'd rather have no opponents mentioned in the lead than all of them (and I'm reluctant to argue over a single link in an intro). · j e r s y k o talk · 13:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Semi-prot

Might not be a bad idea. I know the VA candidate articles have been requested, anyway. The Ford and, to a lesser extent, Corker articles are getting a fair share of drive by vandalism from IPs. Sure, let's do it. You want to do the honors? · j e r s y k o talk · 01:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Veganism edits

Please don't remove large sections of well cited material from Veganism. Instead try to synthesize the criticisms into a coherent paragraph and leave the citations in place. Kellen  16:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Redundant statements (five) to make one point is overkill. False and misleading information was removed. For the benefit of other editors, post your comments on the article talk page. Thanks--Scribner 16:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Memphis crime

Hey, I left the response on the Memphis talk page to keep the discussion in one place. If you want to respond, do it there, please doxTxob \  20:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay doxTxob, in the future use the edit summary box and discuss major changes on the article talk page. I wasted ten minutes finding and undoing your edit. --Scribner (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I spent a few hours to restructure the Memphis article, splitting it into sub articles and transfer information from the crowded main article to the sub articles, and all that was months ago. If you go through the Memphis talk page you will find that the restructuring in general was discussed and documented. Furthermore I asked other editors for input, ideas and contributions. You could have followed the restructuring and contributed your idea then, if it is so important for you. I do not say that you are wrong, I just found your accusation, that changes were made undocumented, unfair and unfriendly (and also untrue) because you had not familiarized yourself with the changes when they were made. Instead you chose to complain months later.

You will understand that it would have been a waste of time to discuss where every little subheader should go, 99% are fine and you found one that - in your opinion - should go some place else. You must not forget that Misplaced Pages is also about being bold. If a majority of the changes are obvious, there is no need or requirement to discuss every change. You could have left a friendly (!) message on my talk page and I could have fixed it in 30 seconds. You see, maybe my reaction that you considered unfriendly was just a result of your not so friendly note ... Take care. doxTxob \  19:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

For the fourth time, you removed an entire section without comment on the article talk page or the edit summary. This action and your failed response will likely come up again if you're ever apply for adminship.--Scribner (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The section was not removed as you claim, it was moved to one of the sub-articles the main article was split into (Culture of Memphis, Tennessee#Crime). That makes a difference don't you think? And again, at the time the article was split, every editor had ample opportunity to follow the split and to contribute ideas, and criticism, too. This link to the history of the articles shows you that the move was well documented. The crime section was part of the People & Culture subheader in the article and the complete People & Culture subheader was moved to the Culture of Memphis, Tennesssee as documented here: ]. doxTxob \  20:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Semantics--the section was removed from the main article with no mention of "crime" on the article talk page or the edit summary box. Just follow basic editing procedures and refrain from committing personal attacks in the future. This horse is considerably dead. I've restored the section to the article.--Scribner (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis edit war

Hi, you've been reverting my edits to the article Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis. I tried to defend my edits (which are very well cited, I might add) on the article's talk page, but rather than responding and explaining yourself you just claimed that I was adding "false info" and that my summary of Krugman's quote is wrong. Please tell me what exactly I added that was false, and why my summary of what Krugman said is worse than yours (Krugman CLEARLY stated that Fannie and Freddie did NO subprime lending whatsoever – something that is clearly contradicted by the sources that I cited , whereas the version you reverted to leaves a very different impression). Also, we can discuss whether or not the sentence that I removed wholesale really belonged where it was, but I'd like to DISCUSS IT, not have an edit war. Ssmith619 (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Your edit on Krugman is absurd and disingenuous. I checked the cite and he mentions factually that Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac historically applied higher standards to the mortgages they bought, which is true. That's was Krugman's point, not, as you claim, that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made no subprime loans at all, that point is taken out of context, disingenuous at best. Scribner (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Krugman

If you think that The Economist is not a reliable source for BLP start a discussion at WP:BLPN. If discussion establishes that it is not a reliable source, I will accept that conclusion. -- Vision Thing -- 17:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not the publication at issue, it's that the article is an Op-Ed and contains unverifiable material that is derogatory toward the BLP subject. Scribner (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ron Paul

Hello, Scribner. I've put forward another proposal in an attempt to resolve the content dispute at Ron Paul. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Thanks! Nick Graves (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Apology

I want to apologize for being a little miffed at you on the Krugman talk page. I think we share similar sentiments, and there is no need for us to argue. Let me explain where I'm coming from, if I can't convince you, then at least I hope you can understand my viewpoint. I believe in utilitarianism as a moral philosophy, and so, believe that there is a moral imperative to redistribute income to the poorest, as they can use it best. Last year, I gave 20% of my income to various charities. I'ld favour a 20% annual land and wealth tax to fund a great social program and basic income system. I think this puts me pretty left on the political spectrum. However, I believe that a free competitive market is a good way to organize markets. And that undue restrictions on a market is unnecessary restriction on people's freedom. There are some market restrictions that help few, but hurt many. Trade restrictions and rent control are examples. Krugman and I share similar sentiments on this. Best, LK (talk) 23:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment but no apology is necessary. A significant number of other economists disagree with Krugman on this note. The edit is really a positive for Krugman in that he thinks outside of ideology. Scribner (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)