Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:42, 7 April 2008

Template:Talkheader4

• Please continue a discussion on the page where it was started.

• This means that if I have left a message on your talk page, please DO NOT post a reply here.
• Reply on your talk page instead. I will still be notified of your response.

• Click on this link to start a new discussion.

• I will reply on this page.

This is Equazcion's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 5 days

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Hello

How are things going? Basketball110 04:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine thanks. Er... do I know you from somewhere? Equazcion •✗/C • 04:12, 30 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you do... I'm the "troll", remember? Basketball110  Talk  21:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't exactly narrow it down. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:14, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)

The Uga Man troll... Basketball110  Talk  00:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, still not ringing any bells. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:39, 2 Apr 2008 (UTC)

A Troll? That's a new one..:) Misplaced Pages is Trolls haven! Igor Berger (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean, Igor. Here is the MfD page, for Equazcion. I removed most of my comments, and so did you (look at the history). Basketball110  Talk  02:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes now I remember. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:19, 2 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Not that you're thrilled, I'm sure, but I just wanted to check (how you were doing, as so says my first comment in this section). Basketball110  Talk  02:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

← I'm doing fine, as it says in my first comment in this section. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:29, 2 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as so I noticed. Basketball110  Talk  02:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The interlacing of signatures in this section is very pretty.--Father Goose (talk) 05:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Must be The Da Vinci Code..:) Can you read the tea leafs? Igor Berger (talk) 05:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think that's because my signature is so good-looking. FG, you should hop on the bandwagon, jig up your signature. Devote some time to a senseless diversion, for who knows how long it'll be before even custom signatures are banned on Misplaced Pages? Equazcion •✗/C • 06:42, 2 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Ha, ha! I thought you going to say that You are Good Looking! Igor Berger (talk) 06:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Check this out really funny Igor Berger (talk) 06:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

All right. Father Goose (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that's more like it. Nice and annoying, just like everyone else's. Good job. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:47, 2 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Recent MfD post

Hello. I've reverted your recent MfD post. Riana is free to bring things up for MfD. You're free to do so as well. However, bringing up something for MfD on behalf of another editor without their permission is not allowed. Had Riana wanted to post there, she would have; she knows her way around the site. ; - ) Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

K, thanks. I've now made my own nomination. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:08, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)

"but the list is so large that I'm not sure how that would be possible.", AWB maybe? MBisanz 07:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no clue how to use AWB, and it doesn't work all that well on my machine. I ended up doing it manually, its all done now. Thanks for the suggestion though. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:37, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)

AWB's only useful for mass-deleting spoiler tags.--Father Goose (talk) 09:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Secrets

Could you see my comment at the bottom of the MfD (at the time of this message)? Simply south (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:26, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Thats not quite what i meant. I was just meaning (although i missed that it had been mentioned before) that not all secret pages were secret pages. Simply south (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I know that. Don't worry, non-"secret" pages won't be deleted just because I placed an MfD notice on them. I was working off an auto-generated list that wasn't too accurate. The actual deletions, if they happen, will be carried out by a human being who will read the pages and determine which are "actual" secret pages. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:16, 3 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I may use your help with User:Life.temp and anti-Americanism

New user editing Anti-Americanism and Abortion.

Sort of deja vu, maybe? Anyway, he/she is intent on triming the article. I am AGF, just keep an eye on it. Thanks, Igor Berger (talk) 11:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I need your help with this. The user is bent on removing the external links. When I prevented him/her from doing that, he/she removed the peer-reviewed subheading in the external link section. The user keeps saying that the articles are not peer-reviewed, eventhough they are from NYU, Princeton and the Pew Research Center, besides others. I brought the discussion on the article's talke page and tried to discuss it with the new editor, but he'she is intent to have it his/her way. I wanted other editors to participate with the decission and have a consensus develop, but before others could join in he/she reverted my edit back to their stance. I do not want to have slow edit warring with this new editor. If you think the editor is right by all means we will leave it as it is now, with no peer-review subheading. I sort of get the feeling the editor is a bit fixated with this article. Just starting out a little bit ago, he/she has been sitting on this article, with most of his/her edits to the article. Am I being overly conserned? Could be, after what went through on the article recently. Please take a look and advise. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 10:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This is getting to be a waste of time. It is WP:TE bordering WP:DE. Can we try some other form of WP:DR, being the editor clearly is here to WP:POINT. Misplaced Pages has many other articles besides this and abortion. I think we assumed abundant good faith and to entertain discussion just for the sake of discussion is totally unproductive. If the editor tries to reinsert their POV just revert the edit. I will try to do the same and avoid polemic argument. If the editor has a problem with our reverts he/she can follow WP:DR Igor Berger (talk) 03:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

MFD of secret pages

I think you are quite brave nominating over 100 'secret' user pages for deletion. Putting secret in the title of a supposedly 'secret' or 'hidden' page is stupid, it's like putting a big X where your hidden treasure lies. If they aren't deleted I'm going to sign every single one and get over a 100 barnstars! then create my own. Those kind of barnstars are much easier to get than say editing articles to featured status. :) --Otterathome (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't exactly nominate them. A discussion broke out at WP:ANI, courtesy of User:Riana, in which she announced her intention to delete all secret pages she could find beginning in 24 hours, unless there was an objection. I found it pretty ridiculous to basically start a mass-delete discussion at ANI rather than MfD, to not inform any of the users whose pages were being considered for deletion, to give the discussion only 24 hours instead of the usual 5 days, and for the nominator to also act as the closer of that discussion -- so I tagged the pages and started the discussion at MfD. If you look at my comments at that discussion, aside from my nominatory comments, I'm actually against this deletion. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:51, 3 Apr 2008 (UTC)

All the more galling considering she's a member of the Bathrobe Cabal.--Father Goose (talk) 06:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Mmm... that does seem rather contradictory doesn't it. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:24, 3 Apr 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the objections raised about "cabals" apply to the bathrobe cabal as well. It's also an exclusive group. Yet somehow, only for certain "groups" or "cabals" is being exclusionist a problem. The whole thing is a very silly discussion, but admins should at least be consistent. Enigma 06:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Admins are people too. Stupid people, in some cases. Not that I'm naming anyone in particular. But for all the "fun" things Riana participates in, she's the last person to dictate what fun things others are allowed to partake in here. The deleters admit to doing fun things on Misplaced Pages, but somehow this has got to go. Most of the deleters' rationale boils down to "the fun things I like are okay, but your fun things are stupid so they should go." It's sheer nonsense. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:46, 3 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. I simply find some of the arguments made here and other places to be wrongheaded and hypocritical. We'll make criteria for whether a cabal is useful or not, and then we'll decide when to apply said criteria. Or maybe we'll say you can only be part of a cabal if you're an admin, or if you have a certain amount of mainspace edits, or if your user/user talk edits comprise less than 40% of your overall edits. Whether the cabals stay or go doesn't really affect me, but some of the opinions being espoused disgust me. Oh, and citing Ignore All Rules to do directly the opposite of a just-closed MfD is laughable. Somehow, I don't think WP:IAR would say to simply ignore everyone else and do what you think is right (especially when it involves unilaterally deleting scores of pages without discussion). Enigma 06:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Off topic, but I like that protection on Israel. Nice. Enigma Review 05:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) Equazcion •✗/C • 05:31, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Thanks for the interesting discussion. It'll be interesting to see what the ultimate outcome of the MfD is. Cheers, --- Taroaldo (talk) 05:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. I can tell you right now though, it'll probably end up being a no-consensus. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:08, 3 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Please do not edit my Talk contributions

I've reverted your insertion of a new section header,, your section "This is the end" covered it. Please do not edit my Talk contributions, it is rude.--Abd (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You didn't seem to be responding to anyone in that section. I thought you'd appreciate the sentiment. I was wrong and I hope you can forgive me. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:19, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)

No harm, then. The "the sky is falling" comment was a direct reference to your section heading "this is the end." Good night....--Abd (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I argumented out of debate

I made some comments on Ned Scott's talk page that I should have done on the nomination debate, and they could have been interpreted as trying to influence the closing admin out of the deletion process. I stroke those comments and I left only my justifications for invoking IAR. I'll try to keep more to the debate itself next time. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it's nothing personal against you or your ideas. I'm just being anal about policy interpretation, as I usually am --Enric Naval (talk) 09:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't be anal about policy interpretation, as we call that lawyering. Policies are secondary to their underlying spirit. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:28, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Must resist.... temptation.... to argue about policy.... :D Nah, I always try not to wikilawyer. When I need to defend the underlying spirit in front of some rule, I can always just invoke IAR, which has the nice virtue of being a policy too, and one of the 5 pillars. Very useful as a blunt instrument on debates that are stuck on debating subtle interpretations of policies, like I think that was happening at that debate.

Again, sorry for going to the throath of your arguments, but the debate was stuck and the page was worth saving, hence using IRA as blunt instrument. I'd say we are both interesed on defending the spirit of policies and not the letter, just using different tools, so let's not get bitter over this. There are plenty of pages to get saved or stamped upon. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

K. On another note, I hate to burst your bubble but you didn't close the debate. Declaring a discussion closed using bold lettering and referring to IAR does nothing. Just letting you know. And also, if this turned bitter it's due to your insistence that I drop the issue. I don't take kindly to that. If you want an issue to drop, then you drop it. You don't demand others do. It's as simple as that. Verbally declaring your insistence that an issue be dropped is the best way to keep it going. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:22, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Lies! :D Using IAR on bold can make wonders for stuck debates as soon as the argument behind it is a sound application of IAR as it was intended to be used, see how the debate closed a few hours after my "final final comment" after the poor thing dragging for days as a wounded animal. You are right, thought, that I shouldn't have asked you to "drop it". Arguing why I thought that your argument was wrong should have been enough. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Role account

"Role account" means an account operated by multiple people for a single task - that there is a single identified person behind this account precludes it being a role account regardless of anything else. You are embarassing yourself by repeating this over and over. This isn't "User:GroupLensStudy", it's a specific account belonging to a single PhD student. --Random832 (contribs) 21:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Single-purpose account, then. And I appreciate your concern but I'll worry about whether or not I'm embarrassing myself, thanks much. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:18, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)

DumziBot change

(following on from WP:VPPR)

Please keep in mind that no one here is getting paid for editing. Saying (as you did on the user talk page) The most important thing about references isn't really the title of the page, but the root site they're located on can be seen as questioning the entire usefulness of the bot. I know that wasn't your intention (and I think you're wrong, since most URLs that the bot is fixing are in fact from reliable sources). It's much better to suggest that something can be even better without getting into the relative merits of the current system versus the improved system. Talking about "improving" something that is good at least puts the other editor in a better mood to think about your suggestion

And personally, if I were you, I'd give strong consideration to apologizing for this posting "How 'bout answering the polite and accurate ones then?". The editor had all of six hours to respond; you have absolutely no reason to demand a quick answer, even if you felt that the editor was responding to others before he got to you. The editor doesn't work for you or anyone else; he's not a government employee paid by tax funds; he's someone who has done something good for Misplaced Pages, using his own time. And what he gets back is mostly complaints from people because his bot isn't 100% perfect. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right about the way I made the suggestion; I could've worded it better. As for "How bout responding", that wasn't just based on the lack of response to my suggestion, but others as well. The author seemed to only respond to the rude or easy comments on his talk page, but not to any serious/polite suggestions. "The most important thing about references isn't really the title of the page, but the root site they're located on" -- I stand by that. Your reason for disagreeing is that most of the URLs the bot is fixing are from reliable sources, but after they're "fixed", there's no way to tell what the source is without rolling over the link. The fact that the bot fixed them is not apparent except when editing the article, and how is anyone supposed to know which particular sources the bot has set out to fix, or that it's only fixing certain sources altogether? The most important thing about sources isn't their title, it's their domain name, and replacing naked URLs with titles isn't all that helpful in a practical sense, even though it might make the reflist look prettier. We can agree to disagree there if you like. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:50, 5 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Topfreedom images

Due to your edit summary here, I reverted my own edit and took the discussion to the talk page. If you would like to weigh in, please do so, otherwise I will reinstate my edits depending on whatever consensus is reached there. Thanks! -kotra (talk) 08:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)