User:Badlydrawnjeff/Projects
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is my projects area, where I'm holding information for merging or personal projects.
- For my attempt at bringing R.E.M. to WP:FA status, see User:Badlydrawnjeff/Projects/R.E.M.. It needs major citation overhaul.
- User:Badlydrawnjeff/The Legend of Zelda: The Triforce Saga . It was well-sourced when written, but we're backed up a bit in terms of our current reliable sourcing policy. This needs to be updated with more reliable sources that aren't blogs, or put together in a way that is well sourced if we ever update the policy.
Contents |
[edit] Others
[edit] Bro
Bro refers to a fashion style which is most popular in the Southwestern United States. Categorized by both the fashion style (mesh caps, spiked hair, and tattoos) and similar interests (vehicle customization, rap music and hardcore music), the term was created by the subculture, most likely due to the word being a common way to greet one another.
The bro subculture is mostly caucasian, although some Latino people identify with it. Few black people consider themselves "bros" in this context, often due to a nativist feature prevalant in much of the subculture.
[edit] References
- Jeremy Iversen, High School Confidential. New York, Atria Books, 2006.
- Orange County Weekly: "Trendzilla: The Bro." Vickie Change, 21 September 2006. URL accessed 13 January 2007.
[edit] Prairie Muffins
Prairie Muffins is a term used by some conservative evangelical Christians in the United States to refer to married women who choose to pursue what they hold as the biblical role of women as quiet homemakers who protect the innocence of their children. The idea is taken from the New Testament passage in Titus 2:4-5:
Admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed. NKJV
The origin of the term stems from an incident when R.C. Sproul, Jr., in a good-natured, joking, and in-passing manner, referred to his wife as a "Prairie Muffin." The term is proudly worn by those who self-define as such, although people who see the term and its lifestyle as form of patriarchy may use it as a pejorative. The husbands of those who self-define as Prairie Muffins sometimes refer to themselves as "Prairie Dawgs". Prairie Muffin women are likely to be Quiverfull, homeschoolers, and to live in a rural area.
[edit] See also
[edit] References
- Are you a Prairie Muffin?
- Prairie Muffin Update: So Called "Biblical Patriarchy" on the Rise.
- The Prairie Muffin Manifesto by Carmon Friedrich
[edit] External Links
[edit] Gregory Kohs
Gregory Kohs is a market researcher in Media, Pennsylvania. Gregory operates the Inside Market Research and MyWikiBiz.com web sites.
[edit] MyWikiBiz.com
In 2006-7, Kohs launched MyWikiBiz.com, a service that offered to write Wikipedia entries for businesses for $49 to $99. A few days after he put out a press release in 2006-08-04, MyWikiBiz's account on Wikipedia was blocked.[1]
Over the the next few weeks, Kohs claimed to get about 10 clients into Wikipedia.[1]
[edit] References
^ a b Bergstein, Brian. "Idea of Paid Entries Roils Wikipedia", The Washington Post / Associated Press, 2007-01-24.
[edit] Further reading
Read, Brock. "Wikipedia Blocks a Pay-for-Play Scheme", The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2007-01-24. Bergstein, Brian. "Microsoft Offers Cash for Wikipedia Edit", The Washington Post / Associated Press, 2007-01-24. Mathias Peer. "Wikipedia-Artikel, die man kaufen kann", Die Welt, 2006-08-24. (in German) Ruth P. Stevens. "Web Watch 2.0", Direct magazine, Prism Business Media Inc., 2006-12-02. Bernd Graff. "Wikipedia und ungewollte Artikel von Werbern "Schmutzige Spielchen"", sueddeutsche.de, Süddeutsche Zeitung GmbH, 2007-01-26. (in German) "Empresa cobrava por verbetes na Wikipedia", G1.com.br, Globo.com, 2006-01-25. (in Portuguese)
[edit] Statement by badlydrawnjeff (talk • contribs)
According to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, a guideline "is any page that is: (1) actionable (i.e. it recommends, or recommends against, an action to be taken by editors) and (2) authorized by consensus." In late December 2006, W.marsh (talk • contribs) (who's involvement in this conflict ends here, and has no dog in this fight) made a change to Wikipedia:Notability (music) ([1]) and WP:BIO ([2]). This went unnoticed by me and without comment by any parties involved at the talk pages of the individual guidelines or at Wikipedia:Notability, which these edits allegedly stemmed from. On 24 January, Dragonfiend (talk • contribs) (who also has no dog in this fight) made a similar change to Wikipedia:Notability (web) to match the two that were changed in December. ([3]). Noting the lack of consensus or discussion regarding these changes, which appeared to me to be a fundamental change to our long-standing notability guidelines, I reverted at WP:BIO ([4]) and WP:MUSIC ([5]), while an unrelated person made the reversion at WP:WEB ([6]). At this point, I started/joined in on conversations at the talk pages of all three guidelines in question. (Long conversation, so instead of diffs for now, see WP:WEB, WP:BIO, and WP:MUSIC. Please use these links as talk page evidence in the coming sections). After taking some time to think about it a little more following comments from someone I respect and trust, JzG (talk • contribs), I reverted back again. And then the problems began.
Over the course of over two weeks, beginning on 29 January, Radiant! (talk • contribs) began a large-scale revert war with me on the pages ([7] [8] [9] [10] [11]), sometimes with discussion at the talk pages, sometimes not. Upon realizing this situation, I decided to place a disputed section tag in the areas while attempting to get a grasp on the consensus at the talk pages ([12] (I initially used the wrong tag at WP:BIO) [13] [14]). These were also removed by Radiant!, typically with little (WP:BIO, WP:WEB) or no (WP:MUSIC) discussion over a multiple-day period. ([15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. Note some of the edit summaries, where the discussion Radiant! was not part of was ignored, and many of my edits were considered "nonsense" or dismissed as "WP:IDONTLIKEIT").
At all times, I have tried to begin/continue a discussion at the talk page. Rarely was that reciprocated by Radiant!, the chief edit warrior against me in this conflict. I have not been a saint by any means - I did my share of edit warring, and occasionally made a comment or two that could be considered uncivil ([23]), but I feel I was protecting consensus, a guiding principle. Contrasted with Radiant!'s activities at other project pages, such as WP:CREEP's history, which resulted in page protection after he promoted an essay to a guideline without consensus, Wikipedia:Overcategorization, which eventually gained tangible consensus, but not without my pushing the issue on the talk page, and Wikipedia:Multiposting, now a redirect [24], which was promoted to guideline with no discussion, consensus, or demonstration of current practice. ([25] [26]).
Per the essay at Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, I believe Radiant!'s activity on the pages in question meet this standard. Furthermore, his activity fits the description at Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing as well, as he has "edit[ed] an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors." He has also "resist[ed] moderation" (Community-enforced arbitration proposal; RfM; MedCab) and his activity felt like a "[c]ampaign to drive away productive contributors" (me) with his continued behavior, as I nearly left the project last week due to this conflict. Again, I have hardly been a saint in this ordeal, but I have been trying to do things properly in an attempt to figure out if said changes had any consensus or bearing, and, essentially, one person has stood in the way. I believe my comments about Radiant! being a tendentuous and/or disruptive editor in this ordeal has merit based on the evidence, but I want a resolution to this somehow, and this is all I can figure out at this point.
As an addendum to this following a comment below, it is my belief that this is not a content dispute as much as a dispute regarding how policies and guidelines are reached, consistent with the principles put across in past cases regarding consensus, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tony_Sidaway, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability , Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics, and perhaps ownership. I've been involved in more than enough content disputes over the years to understand when it evolves past that, and I believe this has.
