Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:40, 20 April 2015

Please don't use this page to complain about, argue against, etc., my edits. You can of course thank me for them here if you want! But per WP:TALK, any discussion (argument, debate, dispute, whatever) over article content belongs on that article's talk page, not here. That way, other interested editors can see the discussion and participate. (Who knows? Consensus might go against me! But if nobody else sees the discussion, that can't happen.)

Christian Mythology

Okay, a couple of things. Before we talk about the article, let me just give you a few pointers as you said you are new here:

1. This discussion should be occurring on the article's talk page. Anytime we discuss changes to an article, it should be done there. I'm not going to make a big deal out of that, as I think we're fine here. We've both given edit summaries which sum up the discussion so far. If necessary, I can transcribe this discussion there.
2. I would recommend reading the Talk Page Guidelines. That page contains pretty much all you need to know regarding talk page discussions, such as good practices and editing format.
3. You should really get into the habit of signing all your comments to talk pages with four tildes ~~~~. There are a number of bots that will take care of signing after you if you forget, but it's generally considered rude not to sign them yourself.
4. Feel free to ask me any questions you might have. I may not known the answer, but I usually have a good idea of how to find it.

Okay, with that out of the way, let me talk about the sentence in the lead. Right now, I'm fine with the way you handled it. Excising it from the lead and giving better info at the beginning of the 'Christian attitudes' section is pretty much an ideal solution from where I sit.

My issue with the sentence as it was (lacking the last two words, 'among Christians.') was that it suggested that there was serious disagreement among scholars and academics, as well as among the population as a whole. The truth is that there's no real controversy except among lay Christians. Atheists, pretty much by definition, believe the stories are false and thus have no problem with the term, while academics and scholars and even amateur experts would almost entirely agree that they are myths, because the word 'myth' does not imply falsehood. In the end, there's really no controversy at all. It's only those few lay Christians who don't know what the word means in a scholarly sense and also take notice of the fact that their mythology is considered mythology by scholars, object to the term.

On Misplaced Pages, we don't give undue weight to fringe views, and views which only exist due to a lack of understanding of jargon are pretty much by definition fringe views. So what Misplaced Pages should portray is that there is no controversy over whether or not the word 'mythology' is appropriate, but that there is a vocal minority who object to the use of the word. In the section 'Christian attitudes', this is fairly and neutrally portrayed in that each objection is mentioned, sourced and explained.

So right now, we have no disagreement, and I believe we understand each others' position. So let me wish you happy editing. :) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 06:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Murder of Kylie Maybury

See here for context

I just wanted to give Kylie a decent article. She deserves that. I'm sorry. Paul Austin (talk) 07:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

No worries Paul Austin. I wasn't stating in any way that your request didn't have merit, or wasn't an upstanding thing to be doing. I just declined because it didn't follow protocol and didn't qualify for the particular type of dispute resolution you requested.

I hope your efforts to improve the article succeed. If you could use my help with any part of it, let me know, and I'll see what I can offer. —Lightgodsy_CONT) 07:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying, I'm just not sure how to do it. I've contacted journalists who reported on the case on the time and I sent an email to VIctoria Police asking if their Cold Case Squad can help. Paul Austin (talk) 08:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hearthstone: Heroes of Warcraft, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Third party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Missed the main thing

Thank you for your attempt to help us at Talk:Odin! I have now read your entry several times but I see no mention of the word Oden, there, which is the main topic of the section. Would be nice if you'd read the arguments about that and address that too. In case you mentioned something about it indirectly, I am not knowledgeable enough on some of those technical-linguistic terms to grasp that. --22:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: I did read the arguments and thought I had conveyed my stance, though perhaps I wasn't abundantly clear about my position on the specific issue at hand. My apologies. I have made an update to clarify. —Lightgodsy_CONT) 06:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Batman: Arkham City

We've had it of your editing on Batman: Arkham City and trying to justify it for no good reasons, pal. You better leave as it or you'll going to blocked for disruptive editing. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@BattleshipMan: Simply trying to improve the article and it seems that both of you dislike any changes/improvements to the article, verging on WP:OWN. Starting to wonder if WP:SOCK isn't at play here as well. I didn't infringe on the 3 revert rule and User:Darkwarriorblake did. —Lightgodsy_CONT) 19:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Lightgodsy: You reverted about 6 or 7 edits in the last five days. Your editing on that article is not an improvement and it was a feature article. @Darkwarriorblake: will tell you about that. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Lightgodsy, these are the changes made to the article since the 27th of January here. So accusations of OWN and SOCK come across as petty lashing out because you're not getting your way. And you were given the warning because you were on the verge of reverting three times, my making an edit is not a revert. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake: You broke the actual text of the WP:3RR rule by reverting 3 times in row today (24 hour period), I have not done that. You also like to use the term petty etc. to try and disparage others comments, that have potential sound backing that you don't agree with. —Lightgodsy_CONT) 20:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Since Jan 31, you've reverted myself, Battleship, and Y2KCrazyJoker. So justify it however you wish, you're reverting against the wishes of others and the second you didn't get your way you accused two editors of being hte same person and myself of OWN. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I can assure you that Darkwarriorblake and I are right. You reverted myself, Darkwarriorblake and Y2kcrazyjoker4 since that time, you didn't get your way and you wrongfully accused the two of us of being the sockpuppet, which we are not. You want to bet that kind of wrongful accusation could lead you being blocked. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@BattleshipMan: I stated that I wondered if that could potentially be the case, I never accused either of you directly of being sock puppets. Users such as the both of you get the idea that just because as you stated, it was a featured article, it can't benefit from any changes or improvement. Above that, Darkwarriorblake's revisions on several batman related articles are in the spirit WP:OWN because they feel a visceral attatchment being a major contributor to them. Frankly I'd have and would welcome a talk page discussion as opposed to this pointless back and forth. The fallacy of your ludicrous belief that you're both completely in the right is amusing. —Lightgodsy_CONT) 22:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@BattleshipMan and Darkwarriorblake: Also, any other reversions I've made have been due to lack of an edit summary when it was a clear reversion AND after discussion without response here. So your idea that I've infringed up on the WP:3RR really holds no weight. Darkwarriorblake however CLEARLY broke this rule. Also WP:BRD that you've brought up is not a Misplaced Pages policy or guideline, and I wouldn't necessarily consider the edits I made really that bold.

@Lightgodsy: You have reverting our edits since 8 days as well, which is considered a violation of WP:3RR, regardless of some others might say. Think about that, pal. You're just blowing off steam due to the fact that you're not getting your way in that article. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@BattleshipMan: Well Pal, you seem to like to make blanket statements without citing actual text of the rule, or providing sound backing/examples. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. I never did that. —Lightgodsy_CONT) 20:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Lightgodsy, Darkwarriorblake, and Y2kcrazyjoker4: Newsflash, Lightgod. You committed 3RR either way, regardless of how long it supposed to be. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@BattleshipMan: Again stating something (incorrect by the way), with no backing. And the reply to tag to bring others in to potentially back you up, because you lack your own reasoning, or the ability to state it. I'm done with this, it's unproductive. Guard the article if you like (WP:OWN), everything I've done as been an attempt to improve the article. I'm done with it. —Lightgodsy

WP:REFERS

You reverted a few of my recent changes without explanation. These were all badly worded lead paragraphs that had problems that are explained in WP:REFERS. If you read WP:REFERS I think you will understand my edits. Bhny (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see you are taking revenge for an edit I did. This is a bit childish. Bhny (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Bhny: I simply disagree with the style you are choosing conform/standardize the encyclopedia with. The accusation you brought here is unprofessional and if conversation is to continue in any manner here, it should be kept civil. WP:LEAD (specifically but not limited to WP:BOLDTITLE and placement in lead) should clarify potentially. WP:BOLD should handle any concerns not covered by the preceding. Editors are allowed to edit any pages they so desire, no one owns any of them. Simply trying to improve Misplaced Pages.

Help

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

When responding to a COI (or any other kind for that matter) request edit, do I remove the {{request edit}} tag after responding with {{request edit|A}}. Read the instructions, but either missed it, or it was unclear. For the time being I removed it thinking this was the thing to do. —Lightgodsy_CONT) 21:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, though it may be a little quicker to simply add a parameter to the existing template instead of replacing it by a new copy. Huon (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader Freikorp (submissions) owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:

• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
• AHeneen (submissions) worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
• Rodw (submissions) developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
• And last but not least, Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email)

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Misplaced Pages:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Your attention needed at WP:CHU

Hello. A bureaucrat or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. --I am k6ka _{See what I have done} 02:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Nazi Gun Control

Hi, this article has been the subject of a lot of controversy in the past. If you look at the talk page, you can get a good picture about that controversy. Basically, any kinds of edits to this article by anyone are apt to boomerang in some way, and thus have the opposite of the intended effect. Anyway, I am going to undo a bit of what you did, and please understand that sometimes a smaller edit is more lasting than a big one.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: I went ahead and changed a bit myself as well. My edits were split quite a bit, the one was big because of the references. I just noticed how the language in the article isn't very neutral. The opinion that this is a minority view can be conveyed with due weight and without such condemning tone. I personally don't have strong feelings either way about the validity of this subject, but I see that some do.

Thank you for the message. Moving forward though we should discuss anything concerning this on the articles talk page, so other interested editors can see the discussion and participate. —Godsy_CONT) 00:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

His or her v they

Hello, according to Misplaced Pages guidelines we are to use gender-neutral language. According to the Misplaced Pages article on gender-neutral language (which the guideline references), the use of "he or she" is perfectly acceptable usage.

And then further, taking a cue from the manual of style where it talks about dates, we are not to change from one perfectly acceptable style to another unless there is a good reason to do so based on a consensus view.

Personally I use the singular they in all my writings in all contexts but I do not get to control how Misplaced Pages operates. A consensus was formed and I abide by it. If you think there needs to be a new guideline then propose your change and work to build a new consensus. SQGibbon (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@SQGibbon:"As of January 2010, there is no consensus either for or against the use of the singular "they" in Misplaced Pages.". There are other examples where users systematically edit Misplaced Pages to their personal taste such as the user behind this essay WP:COMPRISEDOF. I have not gone nearly that far, I merely changed a few instances, which I think is fair game under WP:BEBOLD. If someone disagrees it is there right to revert me. Unless I feel the need to specifically gain a consensus for that particular articles usage, I would leave it at that.

As for as the dates are concerned, the only instance (that I recall) changing is Noah's Ark, which was changed by a user in this edit. I changed it back accordingly (as it is a better fit and there is no consensus per WP:Era).

If there is a place that says point blank do not change without consensus in a policy or guideline (not an essay which doesn't state that clearly anyhow), please bring this to my attention. —Godsy_CONT) 21:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The "comprised of" issue is not necessarily one of style but of what is considered grammatical usage in the prestige dialects of English. The "they vs him/her" is not an issue of grammar on Misplaced Pages but merely one of style. That's why I brought up the point about not changing date styles -- Misplaced Pages frowns upon people changing styles when either one is perfectly acceptable. Changing "improper" grammar is a different issue.

As for as the dates are concerned, the only instance (that I recall) changing is Noah's Ark. Sorry, I did not mean to imply that you had done this, I was only creating an analogy by pointing out the guidelines with respect to date styles with the consensus view that we not change the from one equally valid style to another. What you were doing is the same thing as changing all the "BC"s to "BCE"s -- changing from one acceptable style to another without consensus/good reason.

If there is a place that says point blank do not change without consensus in a policy or guideline (not an essay which doesn't state that clearly anyhow), please bring this to my attention. I never said or implied any such thing and at this point believe you are being disingenuous. People are allowed and encouraged to edit Misplaced Pages without consensus. But changing from one perfectly acceptable style that has already been established in an article to another just because you like the other does go against general Misplaced Pages practice as it leads to pointless edit wars. In all of these article the "his or her" style had been long established, thus achieving a silent consensus from the people who have edited the article, and seeing as it is a perfectly acceptable style, then one should not go around changing it without first building a new consensus. SQGibbon (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I see your point. I will take your advice under advisement, and be more selective if I choose to change that in the future. Perhaps a consensus would be more appropriate in most cases. I do not plan to continue to change it in the manner or amount I did a few days ago, unless something changes (i.e. guideline/consensus changes, or new information arises). Thank you. —Godsy_CONT) 02:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

DS/alert - gun control

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

I'm not putting this here to be a jerk, but it occurs to me today that you actually may not be aware of this. Lightbreather (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

" Constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. —Godsy_CONT) 21:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC) "

Godsy - Regarding this message you put on my page, what the heck does it refer to? (Please do NOT answer on my talk page.) Lightbreather (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems clear to me that it refers to this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Godsy exceeded three single edits/series of edits in last 24 hours at Nazi gun control theory:

• 21:41, 18 April 2015, UTC (single edit)
• 22:26, 18 April 2015, UTC (single edit)
• 22:35, 18 April 2015, UTC (series of two edits)
• 20:34, 19 April 2015, UTC (single edit)

What I'm asking him to explain is why he thinks that's not a violation of 3RR (and removed my warning). Lightbreather (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The username "Godsy" has been registered a little under five months, but their edits show more knowledge about and/or confidence with policy. Lightbreather (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that the last one is a revert, as the edit summary suggests Godsy may have been undoing what Godsy reasonably believed to be his own error. But I'll butt out now and let you two enjoy each others' company.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Revert 2?

Calling this "revert 2" is a technicality, which THE BIG, RED BOX at WP:3RR makes quite clear. I would revert if I were you. Lightbreather (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)