| Revision as of 19:00, 22 June 2011 editMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 30d) to User talk:Terra Novus/Archives/2011/March.← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:09, 4 July 2011 edit undoHuskyHuskie (talk | contribs)6,963 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
| University of Oregon | University of Oregon | ||
| ] (]) 18:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC) | ] (]) 18:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC) | ||
| == Completely new abortion proposal and mediation== | |||
| In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (], and ]) to '''''completely''''' new names. The idea, which is located ''']''', is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated. | |||
| The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles ] and ] can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. '''Even if your opinion is simple ''indifference''''', that opinion would be valuable to have posted. | |||
| To avoid accusations that this posting violates ], this posting is being made to '''every''' non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. ] (]) 20:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:09, 4 July 2011
| Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic. |
| This is Terra Novus's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Template:Archive box collapsible
 |
|---|
| 15 January 2025 |
|
- And yet, here we are again. To Criticism of the Israeli government, you added a "see also" wikilink to our article about the logical fallacy named straw man. I think it was C.S. Lewis who said that he'd rather play cards with someone who didn't cheat at cards than with someone who was just morally earnest about not cheating at cards. Likewise, I'd rather you kept your promise to recuse yourself from editing controversial articles than, every time it's pointed out to you that you've violated it, just saying you shouldn't have done it. How many "slips", as you call them, does this latest edit bring the total to? The number is high enough that, for me, I'm finding it next to impossible to go on assuming that you intend to keep this promise, especially with this latest edit coming so soon after we just completed (as I thought) the above discussion, and in just the same exact topic area.
- You need to revert your edit, and to keep your promise, going forward, without it being necessary for other editors to keep constant watch to make sure that you do. Your ban from controversial topics is, as you've rightly observed, self-imposed, at present. Please don't waste any more of your fellow editors' time by requiring us to go through a whole new round of sturm und drang at ANI to make it formal. I'm sure your fellow editors are very, very tired by now of seeing your actions bring you there, and I doubt you much care for the experience, either. I'm not going to take this latest "slip" to ANI, but even one more breach of your promise, large or small, and you'll leave me no alternative. Reply if you like, but I don't see any point in repeating the civil "oops, I did it again" language you've used so many times in the past. Just as you wish, of course, but any more of that kind of response isn't going to make the least impression on me: I've heard it far too many times before. – OhioStandard (talk) 09:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I see you haven't been online. Another editor evidently noticed your "straw man" edit, and reverted it. – OhioStandard (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have two notices on my talk page, one in normal mode and one that comes up in edit mode, that indicate my preference that a discussion be kept on the page where it began, to preserve the continuity of the thread. I'd appreciate it if you'd adhere to that, and would stop posting replies to this thread on my talk page. Once again, I've copied the message you posted to my talk page here, below. – OhioStandard (talk) 07:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- I not understand how the straw man edit was related to the issue about the One state solution. Is there a problem with me editing in this whole topic? I think our misunderstanding is rooted in the fact that you thought I am banned from editing the whole Israel-Palestinian topic. I will do my best to shy away from specific articles that do seem to be in a contentious editing pattern, but I think that you were assuming I would move away from the whole topic altogether. I am happy to do so, if you communicate in a way that convinces me that I am somehow not editing constructively on this topic. I have ceased from editing the One state solution per your request, and I welcome any comments you might have in regards to this issue.-- Novus Orator 02:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- There's nothing remotely ambiguous or hard to understand about the offer you made to avoid sanctions previously, and I'll not go round and round with you while you pretend there is. I quote:
- The only words I'm interested in hearing from you are, "I agree to abide by the promise I made." Nothing else: no additions, no qualifications, modifications, or hedges, no arguing, no more temporizing, and no more debate. Say that, keep to it, and we're done. Say anything else and we'll be back at ANI to see whether admins will formalize and enforce the offer and promise you made to avoid a block or ban last time. – OhioStandard (talk) 08:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Okay...I will abide by promise I made. As to the ban, its already in place for other topic areas, and I certainly do not want to see it expanded. Cheers!-- Novus Orator 08:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- The affect of the informal agreement you made re what you edit will have to be just as if it had been formally expanded; it just won't be recorded in the logs, is all. That, and reaffirming your agreement here saves both you and the community the strife of another round at ANI, and circumvents the possibility that instead of just formalizing and recording what you previously agreed to, the community might elect to block or ban you entirely. I'll have nothing more to say about this, but be advised that I will not issue another warning before posting to ANI if I see you disregard what you've promised. – OhioStandard (talk) 09:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of Classical liberalism (political parties) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Classical liberalism (political parties) is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Classical liberalism (political parties) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. TFD (talk) 04:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
This is now concluded, with an extension of the topic ban recorded:
Terra Novus is indefinitely banned from all articles and discussions relating to the topics of Creationism or Pseudoscience broadly construed, and from all controversial articles and discussions including but not confined to those related to politics, religion, climate change and the environment.^ Sanction imposed after discussion here and extended after discussion here
^The extended topic ban is somewhat vaguely defined. If in doubt, Terra Novus is to approach an admin for clarification, preferentially User:Dougweller who proposed the extension.
Rd232 04:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Loquiris Latinate?
Simplici latinate contribuere potes? Legi "Media latinate contribuere potest", sed fortasse ut tu latinate contribuere potes quoque sum contribuere possum. Did you understand that (or was my grammar just horrible?). You should consider contributing to the Latin Misplaced Pages, if you don't already. I do! --RayqayzaDialgaWeird2210 will respond much more timelyIf you respond on his talkpage! 00:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Interested in a YEC encyclopaedia?
You may want to check out this one. We could use more editors. LowKey (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Research survey invitation
Greetings Terra Novus-
My name is Randall Livingstone, and I am a doctoral student at the University of Oregon, studying digital media and online community. I am posting to invite you to participate in my research study exploring the work of Misplaced Pages editors who are members of WikiProject: Countering Systemic Bias. The online survey should take 20 to 25 minutes to complete and can be found here:
https://oregon.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_cSHzuwaQovaZ6ss
Your responses will help online communication researchers like me to better understand the collaborations, challenges, and purposeful work of Misplaced Pages editors like you. In addition, at the end of the survey you will have the opportunity to express your interest in a follow-up online interview with the researcher.
This research project has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Research Committee as well as the Office for Protection of Human Subjects at the University of Oregon. For a detailed description of the project, please visit its Meta page. This survey is voluntary, and your confidentiality will be protected. You will have the choice of using your Misplaced Pages User Name during the research or creating a unique pseudonym. You may skip any question you choose, and you may withdraw at any time. By completing the survey, you are providing consent to participate in the research.
If you have any questions about the study, please contact me via my Talk Page (UOJComm) or via email. My faculty advisor is Dr. Ryan Light. If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact the Office for Protection of Human Subjects at the University of Oregon.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Randall Livingstone School of Journalism & Communication University of Oregon UOJComm (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Completely new abortion proposal and mediation
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.
The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.
To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)