Misplaced Pages

♦My Spellbook♦ (Or, "How I Learned to Stop Hatin' & Love All the Crazy")
Arc 001 Arc 002 Arc 003

What was archived

* What has gone before...

Unblock

I'm sorry to have left you with a 'bitter taste', but I don't see what the problem is here. The public issue -- whether MZM should be allowed to run an admin script -- was not resolved in private. On the contrary, the quick resolution of that bit of drama means it is now possible for the script issue to be discussed in public.

All that was resolved in private was MZM's giving me his assurance he would not continue using his script until it had been discussed (and my asking Pilotguy whether he objected to my reversing his block, which he did not). This only had to be made private because the dialogue on MZM's talk page was so confrontational as to make him uncomfortable replying, for which I don't blame him a bit. I too dislike doing these things privately, but in this instance it seemed like the least problematic course of action. This is not a case of cronyism, but of respectful discourse in a quiet place, so to speak. My intuition seems to have been right, and for the moment the problem has gone away. If this is not an appropriate implementation of Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules then I do not know what is.

Please do let me know if any other complications arise from my decision, and I'll be glad to deal with them. Kind regards — Dan | talk 05:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Also I have only just noticed the comment about the Bush administration. I don't think this is a very helpful way to debate. Might I suggest you keep your similes apolitical, and your comments focused on argumentation rather than rhetoric? — Dan | talk 05:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. - Arcayne () 05:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: When reverted

I agree with everything you said in theory. But let's look at the cases in point: the "little shop" mentioned in a direct reference to two previous episodes. That's in no way speculation, it's a blatant reference. I don't fully understand what you mean by synthesis, but I assume it's along the lines of making very contrived links to previous events (such as the archaeologist-benefactor relationship point that you quite rightly removed). It certainly ain't that. Squareness gun: a weapon that has been seen in a previous story, given the name that Rose Tyler coined in that previous episode. Again, nothing wrong with that. I reverted under the assumation it was a mistake, as these points are blatantly notable. I will not revert a second time without discussion, but I would conversely invite you to explain exactly how these points are not relevant/notable. U-Mos (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
(Discussion moved to the user's talk page) - Arcayne () 20:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to look at how you are using the word "referencing", U-Mos. In the episode, the Doctor did not say "remember when I said I like a little shop?", which would in fact reference something that happened before. However, he does not say that. The reference to the earlier situations is one we are making ourselves. That is the core of synthesis. We cannot connect those dots; we can however, cite (a reputable, reliable and verifiable) someone who connects those dots for us. It doesn't have to be "very" contrived. Anything where it the connection relies upon you - and not a citable source - to do the connecting is synthesis. It's a form of original research, and we aren't allowed as editors to contribute in that way.

If you would like me to explain more about some of the subtleties of synthesis after you read the WP:NOR bit on synthesis, please feel free to ask. :) - Arcayne () 20:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, the removed paragraph did not use the term "referencing", which I guess is minorly incorrect in my above comments. There is no difference, in my mind, between this and the messaging through the psychic paper point that remains. That was not specifically mentioned, but it had been seen before. In fact, the sonic blaster's previous appearance was more specifically mentioned, as the Doctor used Rose's name for it. And the "little shop" is a reference, pure and simple. It was a point of comedy in New Earth, refrenced a year later in Smith and Jones and referenced in exactly the same way in this episode. It's akin to the "are you my mummy" line in The Poison Sky, which I don't think anyone can deny is notable. On a side point, I opened a section on the talk page of the article as you advised so of course your views on the issue are welcome there. U-Mos (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Control

Can you take control over me, i mean when i'm editing, just to control if i brake some rules and inform me, so i wont be blocked every time when i writte something about Macedonians ??--Makedonij (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(Moved to the user's talk page) - Arcayne () 20:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

To the talk

Replied on Talk:Silence in the Library. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 22:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Don not

Post comments and threats on my talk page. If you have something to say, say it on the article talk pages. --Kurdo777 (talk) 07:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Arcayne, there is absolutely no need to editwar with Kurdo on his own talkpage. The page is for communications not posting permanent shame messages. All your warnings are kept in the history of Kurdo's talk page anyway. BTW, the request to have article-related matters on article's talk do seem reasonable it would help a third party to get their opinions Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

300

I understand your concerns, I really do. But I have followed that particular issue for some time now and I am engaging in the talk pages of pertinent articles. I do not have to repeat everything in every article, for the same "issue". An accurate summary, directing to the relevant sections and discussions, in the ...'edit summary box' is most sufficient, I think. --157.228.x.x (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Warning

This is a warning for your recent behaviour. If you delete this message; fine. If you delete it with a rude edit summary, or persist with any of the disruptive edits you have been making recently, you will be reported to WP:ANI.

• Civility. Tossing about accusations of being aggressive, when there is clearly no aggression, is incivil and a personal attack.
• Disruption. Filing frivilous RfCs, deleting talkpage comments, quibbling rudely about politeness with other users, making threats, claiming others are always in the wrong, claiming that only your view is valid and all others are beneath contempt and wiping valid talkpage comments with inflammatory edit-summaries is disruption.
• Trolling. I don't know if you're intentionally trying to cause trouble, but it sure looks that way. Such behaviour is trolling and is not tolerated.

Please take note, particularly of the following passage (repeated due to its importance): If you delete this message; fine. If you delete it with a rude edit summary, or persist with any of the disruptive edits you have been making recently, you will be reported to WP:ANI. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 17:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)