Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:59, 31 January 2009

Welcome!

Hello, Bittergrey, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Misplaced Pages Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few more good links for to help you get started:

• 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!  -- Longhair 00:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

All up to you now

Time to add references to your article. You should work quickly though as it isn't a long term lock down. --OrbitOne 06:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

KAS et alii

Very breifly: I'm looking it over, and I've roped in someone else to look it over. So for the short term I'd suggest just looking away. In fact, everyone involved should just find something else to do for a day or two. I'm more tortoise than hare, be warned.
brenneman 03:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'll be looking into this dispute during Aaron's (uneventful, I'm sure) absence. Please note my comment on KAS' talk page and feel free to pursue the matter in those terms. I am protecting the article, for now (on her version, simply as it is the latest one). Also: If someone is threatening you, or stalking you and you fear physical harm, contact law enforcement in your area, we are not the police. Regards, El_C 08:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Please keep your cool in this matter. If there is a dispute which originates outside of Misplaced Pages then let's not drag it in here. To the extent possible it's best if we pretned we dont' know anyone here, and simply focus on the editing. Feel free to contact me or another admin to help work through tht problems. -Will Beback 08:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Brevity

I know that I can be uncontrollably prolix at times, but enough is sometime too much. Can you put more links and diffs and less prose? Have a look at this and see how much information is crammed into a small space. In particular, contrast with the bit that evaded refactoring. The more tightly you can present the argument, the more likely you are to be heard.
brenneman 09:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll try to boil it down to the sentence below...BitterGrey 18:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal Information

On being bold

On Impregnation fetish: When I say that I don't have the sources, I mean that I looked for them and couldn't find them. So I can easily call an article OR when I haven't seen the published sources given that I cannot find any published sources.

On everything else: When an article says "some believe, some do" etc that is weasel wording, and wikipedia policy is to remove weasel worded statements. Citing sources is a great way to do this because "Sometimes" turns into "According to."

Maybe you should stop worrying about being cool or whatever half insult you think isn't a personal attack-- and adhere to policy like I do-- the burden of citations goes to the people that want the text to stay, and anyone who thinks text is not clear or in bad style can tag it. The article on paraphilic infantilism is mostly clear, but there isn't any reason why I shouldn't ask that it be improved.Lotusduck 16:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I and others have invested many hours, many Saturdays at the library, many late nights, many months of our lives into wikipedia in general and the paraphilic infantilism article specifically. Those who have invested in it - by first learning about the topic, and only then contributing text and references - have helped to make it one of the best paraphilia articles on wikipedia. With this investment comes a seasoned understanding of wikipedia in practice. For example, while references are important, not every sentense has to have a reference number at it's end.

There have, of course, been others. Those who just wanted to make changes, neither adding new references nor respecting references already in place. They wanted to claim articles as their own without investing in them. Marking large numbers of articles as unreferenced without first checking their references is such a behavior.

These others have consumed far too much time from those who actually contribute.BitterGrey 02:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Admirer

I just wanted to say that I saw you webpage about infantalism some years ago. It was a voice in the wilderness and very informative. Thanks for your service to the AB and wider community for helping people to understand all the facts and nuances. :) Bongothemonkey 13:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I'm honored, and glad that the site helped. Thanks. BitterGrey 01:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Source

Hi, you recently altered some links on the diaper page because of copyright issues. I was just wondering if this website would be an acceptable source. Thanks. Coop41 01:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being mindful of copyrights. A superficial check of that site shows some material that is up on other sites as well (e.g.), but no apparent reason to doubt disposablediaper.net as the original source. BitterGrey 03:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Discipline

I'm sorry if you thought my response to Kelisi's message was defensive, I didn't mean to overeact. I have explained why I took offense on his talk page. I can be rather opinionated at times, and I just felt that his attitute towards Fsecret was unacceptable. Again, I apologise if this was out of line or has caused trouble. Coop41 19:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I implied an overreaction. Given the harsh (and easily offensive) language in Kelisi's post, a defensive reaction wasn't out of line. You do not need to apologize. However, I am trying to pull the conversation toward a common understanding. This mutual understanding (or at least acceptance) is necessary, assuming that none of us are leaving Misplaced Pages soon.BitterGrey 02:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Notice of mention on Adminstrator's Noticeboard

Please be aware I have opend a thread (asking for review of my actions) that mentions you: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_for_assessment_of_my_conduct:_warning_someone_when_I.27m_involved_in_a_content_dispute.
brenneman 13:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

So to summarize, if I follow the example set by an administrator, I'll be punished? BitterGrey (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to be able to actually work with you on making this article better. Really. And it's been suggested that a more "gently gently" approach would work. So...

• The source from January 2006 was woeful.
  • But you removed the source, and left the material. You can't do that.
  • I'd certainly not use that source now.
  • But there were no other sources at that time.

As nicely as possible, have you actually read any of the guidelines on sourcing? I know I've linked them to you before, so I won't do so again.

• Things you know are not sources
  • Putting bucketloads of unsourced material back in when it's been challnged is not allowed.
  • Using undo for non-vandalism edits is also not acceptable, it leaves no meaningful edit summary.
• The Geocities source is almost literally the worst possible thing you could attempt to use as a source

You do not (having reviewed the history with you I had forgotten) have a great track record of wroking within the guidelines: You've brought personal disputes onto Misplaced Pages, you've consistantly ignored or misunderstood the core policy, you've focused only on articles that you have strong personal opinions about, you've consistantly re-insetered links to a website you own or moderate.

If you can simply accept that there are quasi-rules, that you need to follow them, and that you and I both want the best article that can exist within those rules, all will be well. I'm happy to attempt to work with you on this.

The alternative is as stated above: A probably topic ban. I don't want this to sound like a threat per se simply as a statement of fact. It's what happens when someone is unable to colour within the lines. In order to avoid this, if you nominate an article totally outside this subject area, we can work on building it up together. This will help you undertand (and internalise) good editing practice in a safe space without any personal issues interfering.

Oh, and please undo your recent undo, or find some sources, ok?

brenneman 02:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The notice was archived to here. To summarize, support for the above admin's actions dissolved when it became clear that he was not acting on good faith. Assuming good faith involves giving users the benefit of the doubt, gathering facts before making accusations, not deleting a user's contribution in article B just because of an open disagreement with him in article A, etc. I do hope that this editor will correct his ways and learn to set a good example, as opposed to merely finding "easier users" to pick on.BitterGrey (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Support or retract this accusation now.

"you've consistantly re-insetered links to a website you own or moderate" - Please support or retract this accusation now. I find it extremely difficult to assume good faith when someone with administrational authority is going around making false accusations. BitterGrey (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm to worn out from this already to go dig up diffs from years ago. I'm not perfect. It's possible I'm mistaken so I've redacted based on that possibility with the caveat that I will go look for evidence later, ok? But which bit are you saying is false, that you moderate the website or that you inserted it into articles?

As far as you failing to assume good faith, well no kidding. It's clear that you feel like I'm persectuing you. It's possible that I've added fuel to that fire unintentionally. It's true that I'd rather not be having the same arguements from over two years ago, and that I may be more snippy than I could be.

But FFS, look at my contribution history. Really, look please: ] (] · ]). I cover a wide range of topics, and I routinly slash through bushels and pecks of unsourced material. That's what we are supposed to do. If you're the appeal-to-authority type, Jimbo our GodKing has said that "no information is better than wrong information."

So, c'mon, put down the stick and step away from the horse. Quit attcking the messanger. Because, while you may find this hard to believe, in the spectrum of cranky block-happy admins I'm pretty far to the side of cuddly. If you want a list of guys who will be far harsher than I, I can point them at you if you want. (ahh, that sounded like a threat again, didn't it?)

I'm trying to give you space to edit, to have a good time here, to be a valued contributor. Really.

brenneman 03:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

A good time? All the fun has long since left Misplaced Pages. It was drained by those who thoughtlessly delete the work of others, make accusations they can't support, apply double-standards, and abuse power.

Making the accusations didn't wait. Supporting those accusations shouldn't wait. Support your accusations now.BitterGrey (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You're killing me here. But *shurg* knock yourself out: User_talk:Aaron_Brenneman#Recall_request. - brenneman 03:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Here says to me that understanding.infantilism.org is owned or moderated by you. Is this not correct? Here you insert as a reference a survey that my understanding continues to be was operated on and from your website. please correct me if I'm wrong, and I'll continue to provide diffs as I find them. - brenneman 03:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No, that survey was compiled in England. I'm in the states. My survey <original research> is at http://understanding.infantilism.org/surveys/</original research>. You will note that I refer to my survey results on the talk pages, but have NOT inserted it into the articles. I would hope that you looked into references before deleting them, but this appears not to be the case. BitterGrey (talk) 03:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering that the linked survey had zero attribution, that it wasn't a previous version of "your" survey eluded me totally. Nothing even remotely like a reliable source, of course. Does it occur to you at all that it's easier to talk about stuff than shrieking and waving your arms? You're surely spending a lot of energy here that probably could be better used. - brenneman 04:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm utterly confused by this edit, happy to have it explained. - brenneman 03:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Here you add a link to understanding.infantilism.org. - 03:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you please respond to this one, at least? See, it's really easy. You just go, "Yeah, I included a link to my website. Yeah, it's been there for like two years. I see now that that was a mistake." Potentially you'll get some push and shove on how you managed to be au fait with esoteric stuff like cite tags but that it totally eluded you that you shouldn't have your website down there. You might even get some grief about how could you not notice that there was traffic being directed from WP, or asked how much of your total traffic came from here. But then all will be right with the world. We learn, we grow, we move on.

Instead, you create a tremendous amount o' drahma at every turn. You fling invective like crazy, and made "demands" that you are totally not in a position to enforce. Forgive me if I speak for Misplaced Pages as a whole here, but we like people who are friendly and contructive. Hopefully both, but we'll accept the occasional Phadreil or Gianno. Right now you're neither: Your being really difficult over stuff that's not currently suited for inclusion.

I'm going to go for a walk in the sun and get some perspective on life. Mate, this is just a website. If you're not having fun (as you said above) then why are you here? Because if you're trying to spread a mesage, or right some wrong, or heal from some past hurt, this isn't the place for it.

Talk to you later,

brenneman 04:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I thought I had responded. It must have gotten lost in an edit conflict. The point was that that link was from the original article that you deleted. I replaced the links in their previous order, although I should have restored all in the same action. That was my second day on wikipedia, three years ago. Now would you like to fully retract your generalization?

This is a website that I and many others have put a lot of work into developing. It is not _just_ a website. It is the work of hundreds, possibly thousands. Work goes into improving articles. A lot of work goes into defending articles from people who couldn't be bothered to check their facts. This exchange puts you in that second category. BitterGrey (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)