| Revision as of 02:32, 2 June 2008 editGreenJoe (talk | contribs)8,770 edits New rules← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:33, 2 June 2008 edit undoGreenJoe (talk | contribs)8,770 edits FixNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{nobots}} | {{nobots}} | ||
| <center>]</center> | <center>]</center><br> | ||
| <div style="background-color: #FF6600; border: 2px solid black; padding-left: 1em; padding-right: 1em"><font face="arial" size="4"> | <div style="background-color: #FF6600; border: 2px solid black; padding-left: 1em; padding-right: 1em"><font face="arial" size="4"> | ||
| '''Read <u>BEFORE</u> Posting''':<br> | '''Read <u>BEFORE</u> Posting''':<br> | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| *If you don't agree with a change that I've made to an article, please let me know '''''nicely''''' and I will address the issue.</font><br> | *If you don't agree with a change that I've made to an article, please let me know '''''nicely''''' and I will address the issue.</font><br> | ||
| </div> | </div> | ||
| *(Note: I got the above from ]). | *(Note: I got the above from ]).<br> | ||
| ==Lansbridge University== | |||
| Hi GreenJoe, I rewrote the Lansbridge University article because it was written like an advertisement. I was responding to the notice: Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view. I was also responding to the notice: Mark blatant advertising which would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic for speedy deletion, using (January 2008). I note that you reinstalled the old data because you felt it was cited. I provided the infobox and rewrote this section in response to the notice: The factual accuracy of this section is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.(March 2008) | |||
| I don`t represent Lansbridge University and am fine with walking away. | |||
| == BC Uni == | |||
| I thought it made sense that anything starts with University of x goes with the 'U' group and not with the x group as the word is part of the university's name, granted by law. Much of the listings I can find online uses the alpha order I used, I did, however, find AUCC uses your way of alpha system.--] (]) 19:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : 10-4.--] (]) 07:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Bob Parsons== | |||
| I noticed you monitor the Bob Parsons bio page and were involved in the talks about my possible conflict of interest. Well, that discussion was removed from the noticeboard by someone. I was wondering if you could provide me some insight on why the "Advertisement" flag is still on Bob's bio in two seperate places. My goal is to make his bio accurate. I freely admit I am affiliated Bob Parsons and Go Daddy. However, I don't think the edits made by me were "advertising" based. If there is a portion you feel is too "markety," please let me know what section and I will try to clean it up. ] (]) 20:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Bearcat == | |||
| No. I don't think you have a point in regards to RFC tags; he quickly reversed himself on the deletion of ] by undeleting it and listing it on Categories for Deletion; and while writing edit summaries is a good idea, it's a guideline, not a policy and, in any case, I don't think it's sufficient grounds for an RFC. Are you sure you don't have some sort of personal issue with Bearcat? If so maybe you should try to resolve it in a less formal manner - ie rather than be accusatory and threaten to open an RFC with him just talk to him - perhaps there are things you've done that annoy him as well? ] (]) 18:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Nevertheless, I honestly don't see anything that rises to a level that would require an RFC. I've never had any problems with Bearcat and have always found him to be a good editor; if I'm the only person you could think of asking to certify an RFC against him that suggests to me that there isn't a groundswell of concern out there or, at the very least, that an RFC is very premature. ] (]) 19:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Talk page comments== | |||
| Firstly, I was busy offline this weekend and barely around here at all. | |||
| Secondly, as has been pointed out to you on more than one occasion, your own edit summaries are also quite frequently less than helpful — "+" and "GreenJoe to the rescue!", for example, aren't particularly informative either. Yes, I forget to fill in the edit summary sometimes, especially when I'm doing a batch job. But taking me to task over it hardly gives you the moral high ground when you have the very same problem sometimes too. | |||
| Thirdly, CFD has ''long'' held a clear and unequivocal precedent against categories for individual television and radio stations. There's nothing even remotely inappropriate about how I handled that; it falls ''entirely'' within administrator discretion to delete a category that's explicitly invalid under Misplaced Pages's categorization rules. You certainly had a right to object to that, and by taking it to CFD instead of simply deleting it again, I handled your objection wholly correctly. But I'd also invite you to familiarize yourself with ], keeping in mind that this is ''exactly'' the kind of thing that guideline is talking about: the process had ''zero'' chance of ''ever'' producing any result other than a delete, because the precedent was ''already'' established. | |||
| And fourthly, if you'd like to propose a clearer process for Canadian-related RFCs, be my guest, but I haven't violated ''any'' process that presently exists. ''Most'' Canadian editors, in fact, will ''only'' list RFCs on ] if they're Canadian-specific and don't need any outside input — generally speaking, only broader topics, or ones which for some reason need input from someone ''outside'' of the Canadian crew, will actually get listed on the general RFC board. It's ''standard'' operating procedure for almost everybody at ] to do it that way — so could you kindly explain why you ''only'' seem to have a problem when ''I'' do it that way? | |||
| I'd also ask you to consider that you have a bit of a habit of simply ignoring established consensus if it conflicts with how you personally think things should be. Please familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages's actual policies and precedents, because you appear to approach a ''lot'' of situations with an attitude of pure tendentiousness. For example, calling somebody petty just because they don't ''agree'' with you, even if they're being as polite and civil about it as ] was, is inappropriate Misplaced Pages behaviour. ] (]) 17:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Mike Milligan== | |||
| GreenJoe - Please have a look at the following article and give me your feedback: ]. | |||
| I've linked it to the GPNB page (there is another ] out there - some soccer player). | |||
| == Template:WPCanada Navigation == | |||
| For starters, non-admins are allowed to close XfD discussions that don't require deletion. Admins hold no more authority over any other editor. I'm not sure what you think you'll accomplish with a TFD nomination of ]. There is about a ] of it being deleted. Would you mind at least explaining why on earth it should be deleted? Even your nomination text doesn't make any sense. -- ] 05:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Student Christian Movement of Canada== | |||
| . | |||
| :Yes, I removed your of the ], and then you me of COI, saying that I was the one who wrote the article. Thanks, but wrong. ] it, not me. Your actions here may appear to some as terse and rude, so it might behoove you to be aware of who you are accusing of what. Peace out. --] (]) 06:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: | |||
| :::Here's a quote from {{tl|Db-spam}}, which is what you put on the ]: | |||
| :::"If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with its proposed speedy deletion, please add:" | |||
| :::I didn't the article, so I was totally within my rights to do what I did. Also, you skirted ] when you my comments. Incidentally, what "policy" did I violate when you used the edit summary of "(Didn't follow talk page rules.)" | |||
| :::Even if all that wasn't true (which it is true), ] did not qualify for {{tl|Db-g11}}, since it was not "blatant advertising." Also, it seems that your AFD is pretty close to getting snowed out, even with your . So, clearly, it didn't qualify as speedy anyways. Rock on. --] (]) 05:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi, I note that a) you placed notability tags on this article twice; I deleted them as I was working on the article, adding sources; b) you then gave it a speedy-delete tag. This was most inappropriate. Take it to AfD if you wish, but it clearly should not have been a candidate for speedy deletion. --] (] • ]) 19:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :(copied over from my talk page:) Well, I'm taking it through deletion review. It was clearly not a case for a speedy. If you had concerns about the tone, that's what the talk page is for. --] (] • ]) 19:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::(copied over from my talk page:) Absolutely. The problem is you chose not to do any editing. I welcome your editing contributions should you feel that the article is problematic. --] (] • ]) 20:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, GreenJoe. What problem do you currently have with this article? I don't see any. ] (]) 21:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Discography opposes == | |||
| I've noticed you've weighed in on a couple of discographies currently at FLC, which is fantastic. I thought I would point you towards ], which is a current proposal for a style guideline for discographies such as the ones you've recently opposed. I mention it since the majority of the discography lists you've commented on are based upon this guideline - either directly or in spirit - including the requirements/standards for citations in discographies. In most cases, there are reasons for the way they implement in-line citations, which is somewhat explained in the guideline proposal. Anyways, I didn't want to tell you that you were wrong in your opposes, just to show you the method behind the madness and hopefully add a bit of context to the style of the lists you've commented on. Thanks! ] (]) 01:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == eNom == | |||
| Hi GreenJoe, would appreciate your weigh-in on whether "Accreditations and awards" is appropriate content in ]. Content dispute. Neutrality flag at top of page appears to be a good-faith (though drive-by) opinion; citation flag mid-page, not so much. ] (]) 01:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Revised: Actually, multiple choice question: should "Accreditations and awards" be in, in with revisions, or out? ] (]) 01:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for the two cents; worth every penny. Helpful to have a review from a more experienced editor who also is pretty well steeped in the history of this article. Please also share any feedback on the tags that have been added. ] (]) 04:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == List of Philadelphia Eagles first-round draft picks == | |||
| for the ] were you saying that it needs more citation in lead or some other place, and I have added them in the lead. ] (]) 13:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *also the general references (sites where I got the draft picks from) are listed at the bottom under references, so I don't think it needs any more. --] (]) 13:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| **I only added notes for picks that were involved in a trade, I don't know if I undersytand very well, so do you want the ref for all drafts in notes. ] (]) 13:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ***added refernces for all drafts. --] (]) 13:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Your recent comments == | |||
| Your recent comments are becoming . Please stop. Several editors have brought up valid concerns about your votes, and responding with "get a life" and posting templated messages telling people to AGF doesn't help the situation. Please stop. Thanks. ''']''' <sup>'']''</sup> 13:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :GreenJoe, I just wanted to comment here. Looking at your comments, I can see that you had good intentions. What people are concerned about is it appears that you just went down the list of FLC's and made a short comment on each one within a very small time frame. What this looks like to others is that you did not take the time to properly review each list before commenting. Now this isn't always bad, I have opened up a list and seen something blatantly wrong and not even read the whole thing before commenting. What others are trying to tell you is that this process is not a vote, it doesn't matter how many people say '''Support''' or '''Oppose''', what matters is that each FLC is thoroughly reviewed and any problems are addressed. The thing with your comments are they are a little to vague for someone to be able address your objections. Stating that there are not enough in-line citations, while it may be true, does not allow the nominator to address your concerns. Now if you stated "The lead section needs more in-line citation, especially the following sentence: ... and it would be nice to have a "Notes" section in the table so that each addition to the list can be sourced" will allow the nominator to address your comments. As you stated to Rudget, very few people are addressing your supports. I think that people are addressing your supports, they just aren't saying "this support vote." See any quick '''Support''' per nom, or '''Support''', a good list, holds just as little weight as '''Oppose''' not enough references. What other editors are telling you is that if you want to make positive contributions that are going to have weight when the FL Director reviews the nom, then you should take more time to review each list, being as specific as possible. Your contributions will have more value if you just thoroughly review 2-3 lists, then if you make short comments on each FLC. I hope that you don't take offense to this, and that you do not decide to leave Misplaced Pages over this. Everywhere who is commenting is truly trying to help you out. Best of luck to you, and if you have any questions, let me know.<span style="white-space:nowrap"><font face="Harlow Solid Italic">] ''(] ♦ ]) @ ''</font></span>'' 19:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have found that a well-thought out comment is much better and serves a better purpose than as you put it, the "mob" response. Always try and give people the benefit of the doubt, even if they don't give you the benefit of the doubt. Some people get a little worked up over things, and sometimes it is best if we all just step away and cool down. Like I said, if you ever need any help, just let me know.<span style="white-space:nowrap"><font face="Harlow Solid Italic">] ''(] ♦ ]) @ ''</font></span>'' 19:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Clarification of your comment on EVula's RfB== | |||
| Hi, when you have a moment, could you clarify the comment you made at ]. You seem to be opposing "per WJBscribe" but I haven't opposed, merely responded to the person who comment above you. Seeing as that person has now withdrawn their opposition, it would be useful if you could clarify whether you still oppose EVula and, if so, the reason for your opposition. Thanks, <font face="Verdana">]]</font> 05:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| FYI, I've also commented there regarding your revised oppose, possibly prompting further explanation from you. ] | ]•] 14:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Not to be a pest, but if you could revisit your comments, I'd really appreciate. I'm not likely to fail, so I'm not badgering you change your !vote or anything, so please don't think that's why I'm dropping you a line. I've re-read your comment several times, and it ''does'' seem like you think it's an Rf''A'', which it isn't; I've been an administrator for over a year and a half (the exact time can be found at ]). Some of the other concerns you brought up don't quite jive with the other commentary that you are apparently referencing, so I'm left in a bit of a lurch when it comes to lessons I can take from the RfB. Any clarification you make would be appreciated. Thanks! ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 20:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == College infoboxes == | |||
| Hi GreenJoe, I was about to drop a note at ] about edits to infoboxes, saw your message there, so thought I should discuss with you first. The editor is adding mailing addresses to the infoboxes in quite a few articles. I think this goes against common practice and contravenes ], as it's not encyclopedic information. What say you? ] (]) 19:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, WP:CENSOR certainly doesn't apply, although I remember when postal codes were thought of as a dirty word :) As far as finding the contact info for a college, you can easy enough click on the link to their website, where they -always- have contact info. | |||
| :I've looked into things a little more, and this seems to be a specific misuse of {{tl|Infobox University}}. That template generates searchable ] information, so the locality and country-name fields are now wrong, while street-address, the desired info, is not being provided. So it seems to go beyond just a style issue. ] (]) 20:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah, the template mentions street-address but I don't see a field for it, which is a little confusing. I've asked VE to hold off 'til we figure this out. BTW, do you mind if I refactor your replies over here? I'm a keep the convo together kind of guy. ] (]) 20:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Our mouse-clicks crossed, I just did that :) ] (]) 20:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hey, , the timestamps don't lie. Except for that time when one of the mirror servers had the clock set wrong :) I'm gonna ping the university project too. ] (]) 20:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I've taken care of your citation issue by adding a citation/reference to every season. Thanks, and I hope I have met your standards. '''«''' ] ] 00:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Lists with small scopes == | |||
| I've opened a discussion at ] regarding the Head coaches lists. Feel free to join in. <span id="Matthewedwards" class="plainlinks" style="color:#002bb8">] (]{{·}} ]{{·}} {{·}} ])</span> 08:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == AGF and all that stuff == | |||
| Sorry about the bad faith comment, but when the cites are readily available in the ] article, as I pointed out in my edit (I didn't know about the necessity of inline citation for everyone in "list of x university people" articles, a working wikilink with the info seemed fine), a helpful edit would have been to add the inline cite yourself instead of removing the entry for a second time. You seem to be quick on the undo/delete options, without considering what kind of edits would be more helpful. When a cite is needed, an inline tag like this {{fact}} is usually better than removing an entry, especially when the information is easily accessible, as was the case here.--] (]) 17:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Without a clear policy to point to (not just some obscure RfC in another article), don't expect users to add inline citations immediately with new entries for such articles, especially when the info is given in the main wikipedia article for the entry. I still don't think automatic removal for new uncited entries is helpful when the source is easy to reach. If it were the case, why not be ] and completely remove all the uncited cases?--] (]) 20:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am very familiar with ], ] and ]: these are general policies and guidelines. What I'm asking for is something stating specifically that all entries on a list should have inline cites. Otherwise, you cannot expect other Wikipedians to automatically have cites with new entries. Usually, sources are needed for statements that are ''likely to be challenged''. An entry on a list with a valid Misplaced Pages article is not, by itself, likely to be challenged. So the point still stands, removing such entries just because the cites are not there yet is unhelpful. I myself regularly remove dubious statements and entries in lists that shouldn't be there, but I always check if removal is necessary and whether a reference can easily be added first.--] (]) 20:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:33, 2 June 2008
Read BEFORE Posting:
- Vandalism and other offensive commentary/trolling will be deleted expeditiously.
- If you want me to respond/take your comments seriously, sign them with ~~~~.
- Be sure to be signed in. Anonymous users will have their messages deleted without comment.
- I will respond on your talk page, but I will not return to your talk page after that unless you've responded on my talk page. Sounds convoluted, but I'd rather be editing articles than reading your talk page.
- Add your comments to the bottom of the page.
- If you don't agree with a change that I've made to an article, please let me know nicely and I will address the issue.
- (Note: I got the above from User talk:Tyciol).