Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:16, 25 July 2008

Wait! Are you here because your article was speedy deleted? Click here before leaving a message to find out why.

Copy-edit request

Hey, I saw your name at WP:PRV and wondered whether you could copy-edit List of Naruto characters. It's the last step before a nomination at WP:FLC. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR 06:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look at it today if no one else has. I can't even imagine a less interesting topic to read about, but that doesn't mean I can't add commas where needed :-) Keeper ǀ 76 14:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

At least for me, I still have bad memories of that time a couple months ago where people were going nuts over WP:NFCC concerns, and this is kinda a result of that. I'm not sure what the current consensus is concerning NFCC in relation to lists (although I've seen signs that it's a bit more permissive now). Rule of thumb that I've seen at least in relation to character lists is try to get a group image that illustrates all the characters. As for the ordering, I've seen that protagonists --> antagonists --> other characters is the usual order followed in most character lists. As for the teams, the leaders actually are shown a lot less in the series than the other characters. All of the teams a set of characters modeled to an extent on the main three characters, and the order reflects that: brash/energetic guy --> cool/collected guy --> the female member of the team --> leader. As for your PC, no worries. Take it at your own pace. Sephiroth BCR 22:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I addressed everything. For the "Other" section within "Other characters", it's for characters that didn't really fit into any of the above categories but were worthy of note. I'll think of an alternate name. Sephiroth BCR 01:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for the copy-edit =) Sephiroth BCR 18:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

"Why, pray tell, community, is Kurt allowed to be this disruptive, and yet whenever anyone comments on his disruptiveness, they are admonished?" Some of us tried. ChaoticReality 01:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

What's disruptive about posting an oppose, for whatever reason? The disruption is everyone else piling in to argue about it. Chill! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

PS. As it happens, I agree with Kurt's position on self-nominations. Don't see that as disruptive at all. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't understand the addiction of so many people to the idea that discussion==drama, and thus the infallible urges to stifle all discussion (in this case by moving everything Kurt related to a talk page) because... well... I don't know why. —Giggy 01:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 I don't think he is being disruptive and please note never in my responses to him did I suggest his opinion didn't count. I was just trying to understand him better. What I'm doing here is giving Keeper a subtle chance to lose the fish slapping dance. ChaoticReality 01:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I just made my last post there for the day. If anyone else, other than this editor named "Kurt", had made a post exactly like "Kurt's", they'd get flamed. I'm sick and tired of the "it's just Kurt" attitude. I'm going offline. Keeper ǀ 76 01:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Take it easy buddy. Sounds like you're getting quite worked up about this whole thing. Have a day or two off, it's good for the soul :-) Can you drop me a line when you're back, though (email or talkpage)? Cheers, ChaoticReality 01:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, Chaotic, I'm not upset. I'm not angry, or even miffed. I'm simply tired of the red carpet rolled out for a user that is disruptive. Kurt is an excellent content editor, he is a disruptive RFA editor. Only one man's opinion here. Again, I'm going offline. At no point today, including my last post in re: Kurt's "oppose", have I edited in a foul mood. I don't need a Wikibreak, I'm perfectly sane and stressfree at the moment. Keeper ǀ 76 01:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Keep. Kurt is a dick in RfAs, period. What he does now, he does for effect and for attention. "Robot". "RfA coaching game". "Prima facie" bullshit. You think he's sifting through contribs? Right. Tan ǀ 39 01:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I've come to agree that he's disruptive. The problem is the possible larger disruption of attempted remedies... if Kurt genuinely believes in his opposes, then it would be horrible for the wikipedia community to figure out a way to ban him from RfAs. To be 100% honest here, I've kind of liked the guy on many fronts, but I've been starting to realize that he might be more full of shit than any other editor I've encountered on wikipedia. I think he's loving all of this stuff he is doing to everyone, I'm sure many of you understand/agree with that comment. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 01:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I've been saying all along (ok, not all along- but for a brief time now) that people just need to stop feeding it. xeno (talk) 01:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)To Keeper: I wholeheartedly agree with you on this and I also don't feel people should answer Kurt's CDB question. As I opined at WT:RFA, I don't feel that the question is asked in good faith. Enigma 01:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

<--The biggest irony to me is how prescriptive he is acting in his opposes. Not descriptive, which he honors and glorifies, but prescriptive, which he abhors. Self-nom? Automatic, prescriptve oppose. Fuck Kurt. He is an example of exactly what Misplaced Pages is not about. Ok, now I really need to go offline...Keeper ǀ 76 01:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

...or stay on and keep us all entertained. Tan ǀ 39 01:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone missed my original point. ChaoticReality 01:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(ecx2)No, because most of us agree with you. It was MF who started the ruckus, as usual ;-) Tan ǀ 39 01:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with what, exactly? ChaoticReality 01:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's that Prima Fascist was anything but a major pain in the ass, then no, count me out. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 01:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. The first bit of my initial post is in speechmarks, as it is a quote from Keeper on the RfA thread. Asking how come when people try and oppose Kurt, they get admonished. I was pointing out that he was one of those who admonished PF and that maybe there was a bit of irony involved. Sadly, I fear this went so far ober eberyone's heads that it could have been mistaken for UFO. Maybe I shouldn't try sarcasm at 3am in future :P ChaoticReality 01:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I was going to oppose Milk's Favorite Cookie... want to wait until Keeper goes offline though :). Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 01:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Gwynand, MFC (as a candidate) has done nothing but attempt to oblige the opposers in his past rfa's. It was his own naive mistake, because those opposers will easily and quickly oppose once again because he didn't do (what he was uncomfortable with in the first place) what he was supposed to do to "ease their collective minds". If you oppose this candidate, the one with exceptional anti-vandalism work (exceptional enough to get him opposed at RfA), who then switched to article work (enough to get him several featured-level works) on request from his RfA, then I will oppose your next RfA (even though I was your nominator on Rfa#1. Ok. Now I'm really getting angry. Need to go offline really soon, because Gwynand is one of my favorite Wikipedians.... Bah-bye! Keeper ǀ 76 01:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Keep. I was trying to keep it light... I am 99% sure that I will stay away from voting in that RfA though. Certainly wouldn't be a support though, to be honest. It would have nothing to do with his attempts to change to pass an RfA, although I'm not happy with anyone being forced to do that. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 01:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You and I, Gwynand, have differed on many Rfas, that's irrelevant to me, because I am obviously a huge supporter of yours, and think you Gwynand will make one of the best admins we've ever had (I wouldn't have nominated you otherwise). What is your reaonsing to "opposing" MFC? I don't see it! He had two ill-founded rfa's as a noob (and as a panda). He had a well-intentioned, but seriously flawed, RfA as MFC. I didn't vote in it, personally, but the community spoke. They said "get more mainspace work, you bloody reverter!" or some such. MFC has done exactly that, and (according to MFC, and to his surprise) enjoyed it! He has several FAs (lists). So, in conclusion, he is an avid vandal fighter, he knows our blocking policy via AIV, he is an article builder (all the way to FA). What the FFFFFF would anyone oppose for? Because he botched a couple of FLCs? Good lord, those instructions at FLC are convoluted at best. I sincerely hope, Gwynand, that you, or anyone else reading this, would not "oppose" someone else's genuine attempt at improveing Misplaced Pages via adminship based on these qualifications. MFC is an excellent candidate for adminship. He won't hurt Misplaced Pages, he'll make it better. Profoundly better. Keeper ǀ 76 02:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well... since I'm not going to that RfA, I'll answer here, however fair that is. You said the editor shows a lot of CLUE. While he seems like a nice young editor, I don't see a ton of clue. I believe I reviewed every last one of his AfD votes, and he is not helping the consensus building process. He always votes after several votes have been made, and simply copy and pastes some of the acronyms that have already been produced. Never once seen him vote first or second in an AfD, always after the result is a forgone conclusion. Admittedly I might be biased towards interactions in the project space... AN/ANI, but MFC looks like he avoids these areas. It looks like he generally avoids any tough situations, and I see very little to give me enough confidence to give this guy the ability to block. And while you and I both disagree with Kurt, I personally do find a problem when an editor so clearly wants to be an admin. Some of the questions we asked him might have been trapping, and I'm unsure of the fairness of how we asked it, but it just looks like MFC has been trying to figure out how to get through an RfA for the past year, and he basically avoided clear answers to questions about that. I don't see the great policy knowledge, I see a user that is likely young and could use a few years of maturing to be prepared for some of the very tough areas of adminship. Keeper - you've known that I've never voted per WTHN?, and if an editor hasn't really shown much evidence that they can handle the tougher responsibilities of adminship, then I wont support. The underlying problem is that MFC really didnt need all this encouragement to become an admin, he was already helping fine and setting up the measure of success of the community giving him the tools is quite irresponsible in my opinion, because I think the guy just needs more time before it'll happen. And "time", despite the fact that we are on wikipedia, doesn't automatically mean "3 months", in some editor's cases, it can be much longer. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 02:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec to keeper) Indeed. and as I said to you in a dummy edit: bloody well said. but alas, what can be done? My goal is to stop feeding it, something that I oft fail at. xeno (talk) 01:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatcha gonna do, thought, change Gwynand's RfA criteria? Some people have concrete criteria. Some people flit around willy-nilly. Some people after they become admins oppose everyone else because they are jealous they have to share it (Kurt). Some people pretty much support everyone else because they realize being an admin isn't worth a pile of beans (me). Personally, I think Gwynand's admin criteria is way too strict, but jeez, if we made enemies out of who differed against us in RfAs - even ones we believed strongly in - we wouldn't have any friends on here at all. Of course, some people think we should't have friends on here... but fuck that. Tan ǀ 39 02:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've seen this notion about my standards brought up a lot. I'll generally say that there are way too many times where I say to myself "how in the hell did we give that guy the tools". I look at the RfA and see he passed at something like 60/3/2 and it looks like a third were friends, another third supported per friends, and the other third didn't give a shit. Also, I've never understood the massive need to get as many admins through as possible. Let's try to get good admins through, and stop worrying so much about how many get promoted every month. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 02:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think the question is, where are all the bad admins? Does Misplaced Pages have a huge issue with rogue admins? Are we churning out cut-rate sysops that poorly close AfDs, block on a whim, and disrupt the party? Not that I can see. Tan ǀ 39 02:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I could and would make a list, if it wouldn't be the most inflammatory disruptive thing possible. We have a lot of admins poorly using the tools, but more importantly, generally just acting dismissive towards the community and creating a poor editing environment. I really believe that. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 02:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well hell, you might think that about me - and that'd be okay. However, I guess if you are going to hold everyone else to super-strict standards, it might not have been that much of a shock when other people held you to a higher standard. I don't say this as a dig - you saw my support. I'm jussayin'. Tan ǀ 39 02:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that about you. My failure was perfectly valid, I was just surprised that people perceived those things about my abilities and intentions. No one's fault but my own to not deal with those perceptions. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 02:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• I see I'm a bit late to the party and the guest of honor has already departed for the night . No matter -- I just thought I'd offer Keeper a nice Wikilink to insert to support his well-considered use of the term "bullshit". (I nearly inserted it myself, but of course it really wouldn't be kosher to tamper with another editor's comment, even in such a well-intended way.) Cgingold (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

My friend Ernie bought me that book for my birthday last winter. Great book. Tan ǀ 39 02:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

1. I had a good chuckle reading that. xeno (talk) 02:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Kurt knows what he's doing, does it intentionally, and gets some kind of pleasure from the disruption he precipitates. That's the definition of a troll. If we stop feeding him, he'll keep doing it, but get much less pleasure from it. And I found this, which I think explains a lot as well. We know what he's doing, and we know why he's doing it. As long as we do not allow ourselves to be drawn in, he fails in at least one aspect of his RfA trolling. S. Dean Jameson 18:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Is he trolling, or is his viewpoint misguided? Perhaps I should accept that there's only so much that you should attempt to apply logic against. Gazimoff _Read 18:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think he knows very well what he's doing. I think he was bitter after his RfA was roundly rejected, and instead of addressing concerns decided to become a one man trolling-crusade against RfA. He opposes fully 93% of the RfAs he comments on, and even his supports are sometimes quite point-y. While he works well on articles, he offers nothing (and I mean nothing) to the process at RfA. S. Dean Jameson 19:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like it if this discussion about another user was summarily moved off my talkpage. I started it (this time), I know it's my fault. But please, let this archive? Keeper ǀ 76 19:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

To the TPS lot, or Keeper himself

Wondered if anyone could lend a hand over at my pet project Robert F. Kennedy assassination? I want to feel happy leaving it alone, but it's the best chance I think I've ever had at helping something get up to an FA (apart from The Apprentice (UK) that is) and want some advice on anything that might improve it enough for that. I ask here rather than PR, because I sent it to review a short time ago, before its GA, and I know there are people here who have done FA work before. Also, because I'm on my own on that article at the moment, and want to inspire some of you to be "hangers-on" to help get it through! Fritzpoll (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You need to be careful with dates; either link them all or unlink them all, preferably the latter. A few more pictures would be nice as well, to break up the text a little. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Never was sure about linking dates, but assumed the principle of "link the first occurrence" applied. Will fix that, and see what I can do about the pictures. Not many around for this, is the trouble Fritzpoll (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Any other copyeditors around here?  :) Fritzpoll (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm around for most of today, gone all day tomorrow, and will try to take a look over there. If malleus has already combed it though, you should go to FA with confidence, at least prose wise. He's one of the tops at the CE-ing. Keeper ǀ 76 14:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

EFD

I find it wildly inappropriate to close your own EFD. At least change you sig first, ala Acalamari!!! Sorry about the baseball thing. It's 16 hours later! I figured it was safe now. You can't wait until the next night to watch and still expect not to hear. Hell, I once tried to wait 4 hours and someone ruined it anyway, by shouting out the result. Enigma 18:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The least you could have done is pointed me to this hysterical EFD. This comment alone was worth the few mouse clicks. I'm disappointed that you didn't ask me to contribute. I know all that bullcrap might have gotten in the way, but still.... and it was funny. OrangeMarlin 18:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry OM, my bad. As a consolation, I'll be sure to notify you if any, *cough*, "other" committee tries to delete me. Zing!... What, too soon? Keeper ǀ 76 18:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I would have voted "delete" just because. So there. OrangeMarlin 18:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Me too. 'Bout time that non-article writing admin bully gets what's coming. Alas and alack, Keeper has been technically made undeletable, as his talk page has more than 5000 edits. So much for the RTV...Keeper ǀ 76 18:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You could blank it and fully protect — Oh, wait, half your stalkers are admins. Darn it. J.delanoy_adds 20:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Half plus one. Soon soon, and well deserved. Keeper ǀ 76 20:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Boy, I got a shock when I clicked that link and read "request for adminship that did not succeed" - then I twigged it was J's first RfA, and not his current one. Seraphim♥Whipp 21:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Aye me! I didn't know J.d had a "first" rfa, didn't know this was a second, or if so, I forgot anyway....sorry J.d, didn't mean that to look/sound as mean as it apparently did :-) Keeper ǀ 76 21:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

And your choice in sports team and colleges are unacceptable. Just thought you should have one opinion. OrangeMarlin 21:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey now. Careful there. I have extra buttons that I'm not afraid to use inappropriately...and in all honestly, I've never cared for my alma mater's teams. I dislike hockey in general (the only team they've ever had that is even remotely competitive. I'm actually an Illinois fan when I'm not watching pro sports. Go figger. And, if you're username is any indication of your affiliations, it's sure nice to meet a Marlins fan. I've now met two of them. In other words, I've now met all of them. Keeper ǀ 76 21:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Zing zing! Well played, Keeper. I'm an Illinois man, myself. :) GlassCobra 14:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry boss.

Didn't mean to exacerbate things. Shutting up now. Gazimoff_{(mentor/review)} 20:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Where did I tell you to shut up? Did I tell you to shut up? Corn-fused. Keeper ǀ 76 20:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

He may be referring to the above discussion I just closed for you. –xeno (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, lightbulb. Thanks for the archive. It didn't click because my comment was more closely related to the direction that SDJameson was taking it, not Gaz. Again, I'm the most guilty, I'm the one that snapped yesterday (I'd seen enough). I've repurposed my vow to not combat Kurt, it is too aggravating and too time consuming, and too circular. No need to apology Gaz (I saw your well worded thoughts to Kurt on that RFA-talk page). Keeper ǀ 76 20:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what I did wrong, as I was making my statements in a (very) public forum, and they were not laced with insults or anything like that. It was a simple, straightforward look at how I view that user's "contributions" to RfA. But, again, I apologize if I crossed the line somehow. S. Dean Jameson 20:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Less with the apologies. What is this, some kind of a love-in? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well worded? That was pretty blunt for me. I swear my opinions are going to get me in to trouble.Gazimoff_{(mentor/review)} 20:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

So my understanding from reading the WP:RBK and WP:PERM is that one can request rollback permissions from an admin's talk page, so here I am doing just that. I'm requesting it because I've seen a recent uptick of vandalism on a few of my watchlist pages and think having rollback would help me respond to them more quickly. While I'm more of a content creator than a rabid vandal fighter, I do think I could get some good use out of it. I'm trustworthy, I've been here a bit, and never gotten blocked or anything like that. So, if Keeper or one of the other admins who hang out in these parts would take a look and see if it would be okay to give me rollback privs, I'd greatly appreciate it. If the answer's no and that rollback is saved for people who do more vandalism work or whatever other reason, that's fine, just say something here one way or the other. Thanks! Vickser (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You had me at hello :-). I've already added rollback to your account, you are an editor in good standing, you understand what wikipedia is here for, and you understand quite clearly what rollback is, and what it isn't. I believe you'll find "rollback" to be a monumentally useless tool, except when you use it. Have fun with it, don't get into too much trouble :-) Keeper ǀ 76 22:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I find this to be an egregious abuse of process and move for Keeper's immediate desysopping. (ec's - jk, of course - i was going to grant it too =) –xeno (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You already tried to delete me outright. I'm undeletable. Until the devs find a way to delete me, I'm gonna go down with swords-a-flailing :-) Besides, RFR is for n00bs that don't have any admin-friends :-) Keeper ǀ 76 22:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Keeper! Vickser (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

One day, my talk page will have over 5000 edits too. Then you'll see............... <bides time> –xeno (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This edit is made simply in the hopes that it causes an edit conflict. Tan ǀ 39 22:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion?

I'm all at sea with this WikiSpeak idea of "incivility".

Does this cross the line? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I was going to mention something , it did go a little far. –xeno (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Nah, ignore Xeno. He's just trying to get me deleted. I noticed the "switch" that that editor made. Good gravy, he cited "question 12" as his reason for switching. The candidate (as of this post right here) hasn't even fucking answered question 12. Your post is just fine malleus, but do be careful. Good lord, don't make me unblock you. :-) Keeper ǀ 76 22:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I was being serious, I think Malleus could have chosen his words a bit better (the "sheepishly following your heroes around, repeating what you think they think." bit - a pointing to a "arguments to avoid essay#per x" may have been more tactful - but that's just my opinion). –xeno (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I've made my point, I'm going to be backing away from that farce of an RfA now. Nothing more to say. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Still, use of the term "sheepish" is borderline..errr..rude? MF, you certainly do have a way with words sometimes : ) Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 22:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Borderline is a good term for it. Crossed the line? Nah, but it's visible from there =) –xeno (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

He's Collie Parker, for sure. Tan ǀ 39 22:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Holy longest hatnote ever batman! –xeno (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've certainly never won any prizes for tact, and nor am I ever likely to. *sticking tongue out in a friendly playground kinda way* --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

PS. You having reminded me about Collie Parker again, I do now begin to see the similarities, and I think you may be right. We probably have much in common. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, it's not all that surprising to see the support being withdrawn in light of question 12. We have no reason to assume that someone would lie about their DYK credentials, but it was surprising to see an article listed in MFC's list that he had no contributions to at all. It may have been more reasonable to wait until he answers the question, as I am, but I think it will cause him some problems if he doesn't have a good explanation. No comment on Malleus' statement. GlassCobra 22:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty disappointed with the way MFC is approaching this whole RFA thing, but just to play devils advocate, perhaps the person who left the DYK template on his page left the wrong one? The "created or expanded" instead of "nominated" template? That's what I'm thinking. –xeno (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that could be it, actually. I didn't even think about that possibility. On that same note, though, it doesn't really seem kosher to claim credit for a DYK just because you nominated it... GlassCobra 22:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you were right, Xeno. MFC nominated that article, and noted that it was by someone else. So it's not really stealing, just a matter of whether or not it's appropriate to list DYKs for ones that you just nominated, not wrote. Do we have a template for "nominated" instead of "created or expanded," though? I don't recall ever seeing one. Strike this part; I did a little digging, and we actually have both {{UpdatedDYK}} and {{UpdatedDYKNom}}. I didn't know about either of these, though, and it's not like we can expect MFC to, either. GlassCobra 23:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Big can of worms. There has been a recent discussion at FAC about what credit a copyeditor ought to get, for instance. The bottom line for me, however, remains that someone not suited to, or skilled at, content creation ought not to be forced down that road just to pass an RfA. The only fault I can find with MFC is gullibility, taking to heart the poor advice offered by those who opposed his last RfA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

My disappointment is with those who pushed him down this path. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(@ cobra) yes, most of the other things he's got listed on that page linked in q12 are awards for one's he "nommed". still, perhaps he should have handhacked them to be the appropriate template. *shrug*. my concerns lie in other areas. –xeno (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Lots of editors claim credit for stuff they haven't done, even some administrators—nobody here, of course. Fundamentally, MFC should not have allowed himself to pushed down that content road. Perhaps his lack of conviction could be held against him, but you've got to be a hard-nosed bastard like me to tell people where they get off. So I really couldn't, in all honesty, oppose someone just because they weren't a hard-nosed bastard. MFC wants to help. Why not? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

But if he did nominate it, why not answer the question saying so? (Sorry, assuming bad faith, so sue me) If we are at the stage where a candidate is worried that telling someone "sorry, you're wrong" will get them opposition, they RfA isn't a process I want to be associated with. —Giggy 06:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

In case you missed it, mfc actually complained when he didn't get a dyk spam template for Dorothy Canning Miller, which he says he expanded. - Bobet 08:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

He didn't create, expand, or nominate it—details under Question 12 on the RfA page. — Athaenara ✉ 11:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Athaenara, I apologize. I made a presumptive comment (here) about you withdrawing your support for MFC before he answered the "question" that you cited as your reason. I didn't investigate further to understand that you had a vested interest in the specific DYK that MFC was being asked about. Again, my apologies. Malleus, I completely agree with you that MFC was pushed down a road he was not comfortable with, and has made some errors that have developed into new, fresh opposition. He was damned if he didn't "add content", and now apparently, he's damned because he did. I'm actually quite disturbed by the (unrelated to DYK) Anetode's and WJBscribe's opposes, enough so that I need to unfortunately revisit the RfA myself. I have the technical ability to see the deleted image in question. MFC did not take that picture, its an Aston Martin pro-photo. Very discouraging. Instead of just saying "oops, my bad" and moving on, he wrote a paragraph concocting how he took three separate pics and photoshopped them together? Not possible, any admins that look at the obvious professional photo will agree. Very disappointing, and dangerous. Keeper ǀ 76 14:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the photo seems to be a rather large issue IMHO. The number plates are most decidedly British, specifically England, Soctland or Wales so MFC's assertion that that element of the image was taken in Rhode Island seems, well, unlikely. But the RFA is the best place for this. Shame.Pedro :  Chat  15:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm more disturbed that he said the "pond" in the picture was from his house. You know, the pond with the hazy, ripply reflection of the Aston Martin in it that is quite obviously not doctored or altered. Keeper ǀ 76 15:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh that pond :) Yeah, well, I'm afraid I can't abstain given that, but as I say it's unfair to the candidate discuss it on your (very highly watched) page; I've given my opinion at the RFA. I can live with lots - but out and out fibbing is really not on. Pedro :  Chat  15:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)...and to finish off my rant from a few days ago, it was the community's fault to continuously tell MFC how he will supposedly pass his next RfA and to encourage him to go about doing it. We really have to stop doing this, some candidate's just need time to mature. I have a sick feeling that he has dissapeared due to dissapointment in his RfA and I'm even more bothered that he might be a young kid totally confused by all the stuff being thrown at him right now. Not a great way of doing things. Issues with copyright certainly need to be discussed with anyone regardless of maturity, but it's a shame that its done under the heavy scope of an RfA, specifically sad for someone who has run unprepared 4 or 5 times now because it's seen as uncivil to suggest waiting. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec re to pedro). I've asked MFC a rather direct question on his talkpage before I change anything on his RFA in regards to my opinion. He deserves a chance to answer before anyone, myself included, radically changes stances. The links from Anetode are serious, and dangerous, but they were from February. I've asked MFC for evidence of how that got settled, or if it ever did. Sigh, Keeper ǀ 76 15:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This is all made rougher by the fact that MFC hasn't edited since the 21st, and is not available to answer these questions. Keeper, I saw the thread that you left on his talk page, and thought you stated your concerns very well. Hopefully he'll have some good answers when he gets back. GlassCobra 15:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this also seems to be a trend, and repeated criticism, against MFC. When a question arises that needs clarifying, he disappears. Could be many good faith reasons, like oh I don't know, real life, but it seems in a bad faith way to be way to convenient. How did he respond to Anetode back in February? Why was he tardy answering questions with his FLCs? Why hasn't he answered the DYK concerns? It's a lot to be concerned about, and he is letting down his supporters atm, or at least, me. Keeper ǀ 76 15:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep, I try to assume good faith about his not being around, but my instincts tell me otherwise. It looks like he hasn't missed a day editing for about a month, then as soon as some opposes come along and he sees tough but valid RfA questions, he's nowhere to be seen. No edits in around 36 hours now. The sad part for me was that I, like Pedro, took a lot of what you and others wrote to heart. If he was a product of a messed up system, it doesnt mean he wont be a good admin. Also, "power hunger" couldnt really be more misleading here... I think MFC thinks being an admin will be "cool", and in all honesty I bet he is dying to get that status, but I have pretty solid confidence that he doesn't desire the power-over-others aspect of it. I think he just wants it badly, but not for bad reasons. So, while I was considering putting in a supportive neutral, or possibly a weak support with caveats, I started to become concerned as to why he was avoiding questions that were quite relevant. Even Xeno's situational Q4 question... I'm not too sure at the moment that MFC can explain himself through that situation, so he's just decided to ignore it. I want good-faith, honest attempts at answers, and MFC is coming up short. I just hope that he returns as a productive editor after this. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

<----- My switching back to oppose may seem faithless, without awaiting a response, but AGF is not a replacement for assume blind faith - he really has done a very silly thing here IMO ... Pedro :  Chat  15:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

But we really shouldn't be using Keepers page when the talk page of the RFA would be better..... Pedro :  Chat  15:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, but I view this as a fair "discussion amongst friends" type thing, just thinking things through. Not sure such a discussion would be possible within the RfA or its talk. Keeper and I have discussed RfAs here before, I generally never thought of it as unfair. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This discussion thread is already linked at the RFA anyway (by Giggy I believe). It's a pretty safe bet that MFC is reading this or has read it. Keeper ǀ 76 15:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Keeper, please close the RFA. The image in question was not entirely made by me, but I had every right to use it. The recent image that you deleted does not apply in this case. I'm sorry I have violated your trust. Hope you understand, « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The image in question was a photograph taken by Dave Smith of Auto Express (). It's from an old article that doesn't exist on the internet anymore, but is available in translation on a Greek site here. How can you claim that this was not made entirely by you, or even in part? How can you claim that you had a right to use it? Shereth 20:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've closed the RFA Milk. Suggest you look at the external links in the last oppose before you dig any more holes by lying to Keeper et. al. about partially making that image. You didn't. Pedro :  Chat  20:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Milk, Pedro and Shereth are very correct here. You need to stop. That link proves that that photo existed before you were even a Wikipedian. Stop lying, stop trying to rationalize and cover your tracks. Own up. I also strongly strongly strongly suggest you go back through your other image uploads, and write out a list of other images with questionable attributes. Two were found during your RfA. I'm going to be a bit mean here and surmise that there are probably more. Type one of two things here on my talk. 1) there are no other copyright problems with my uploads, or 2) here is the list of my other questionable uploads. You need to understand how serious a problem this is, so very very far beyond stupid DYK stuff. Those are copyrighted, Milk. Do you understand what that means and what can happen to Wikimedia if not curbed? If you type sentence #1, that you have no other image problems, and it is found out later that there are other egregious image problems, I will have no other recourse than to block you to prevent you from uploading what you do not understand. Please understand the seriousness of this issue. I will crosspost this at your talkpage. Keeper ǀ 76 20:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Tense Question

In PiQ, the lead notes that PiQ "is an American popular culture magazine once published by PiQ, LLC, a subsidiary of A.D. Vision from March to July 2008." A newer editor is arguing that it should be "was" rather than "is" because the magazine is out of print. I'm arguing that "is" is correct because the magazine still exists in a physical form. The same is done with television series, even if its canceled it still "IS" a television series. Since you are a copyeditor, would you be willing to offer a neutral third opinion on the talk page as to which is correct? -- ] (] · ]) 05:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Going there now, Collectonian, Keeper ǀ 76 14:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Ended up being a rather interesting discussion :) If you are taking any copy edit requests, would you be interested in giving Shojo Beat and Shonen Jump a going over? I'd like to send both up for GA. SB has already been peer reviewed, so a CE is its last stumbling block, and I applied comments from there to both articles. -- ] (] · ]) 03:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Lowbrow

Hello I accidentally deleted Heath and Dave Lowbrow. We are a writing/directing duo. Can you please undelete.

Many thanks, Heath & Dave Lowbrow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.211.162 (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. Why are you posting here? Are Heath and Dave Lowbrow (you) notable? What have you written? Just write it again, add sources that explain why you are notable, and it won't get deleted. Keep in mind that Misplaced Pages is explicitly not here to establish your notability if you are an upstart wrtiing/directing duo. We are here to encyclopedically explain and regurgitate why other people, in other sources, have already found you to be notable. Keeper ǀ 76 17:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll go one step further and state they aren't notable. Please read WP:NOTABILITY Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

And I'll go another step to say (sorry admin only) :-( they've had their article deleted three times already. Keeper ǀ 76 17:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Argh! Thwarted. You really like to rub it in... :) Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: ANI archiving

That bot goes either too slow or too fast - not that I can blame it; it'll never know if something is actually resolved or not. It's set at archiving threads that don't get responses for 24 hours. I wanted to archive about 10 resolved threads (some aren't marked either!) yesterday, but thought I'd leave it for a day - got rid of them into the archives with some more now. :) Not using any real parameters - generally, if it's something that's done from my own judgement, I've put it away. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

On a separate note, when you get a chance, I'd appreciate your input on the Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Article_Probation proposal on the Obama pages, so that it can either be enacted or dismissed soon (and then this bit can be archived :D heh). Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Actionable attacks ;)

You might want to have a word with User:Brewcrewer, he's speaking ill of your boys. See, aren't these attacks we like? PS: Back finally TravellingCari 20:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's pretty bold of Brewcrew, seeing as how he's the only one in the discussion without the block button. My boys ain't farin' to well at THTRB, que sera, they never do. Tis a long season, and I'll call it right now, save the diff. Here are the post season teams: ALeast: Bosox (begrudgingly, I hate them). AL West, Angels. AL Central: Twins (they are statistically better than any other AL central team in all important cats - RPG, hits with RISP, hits with two outs, ERA, bullpen, fielding %. AL wild card: Chi-sox. NL east,west, central, who the hell really cares, they'll lose in October on an AL field anyway. First round Twins will play the Angles, and win 2 or 3. BS will beat the WS. Twins will beat the BS in 5. Twins will beat the NL team in 7, at home, as they always do. Game 7 will go extra innings. NL team will be either the cards or the cubs. (central is clearly stronger than E or W.). No brewers, they overpaid for CC. Oh, and welcome back, Carianne! You didn't miss much, except everything...:-) Keeper ǀ 76 20:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I scanned my watchlist and decided to start anew. It was too much. I mostly agree with you actually, although I think the Yankees will make it interesting and may come out ahead of the BoSox especially if they can't get a solid bridge to Papelbon. I'd love to see it be the Cubs, NL East -- Philly and NYM will wear themselves out trying to outdo one another. So glad to be settled, with furniture so I'm not on an air mattress, though the sheets will make you laugh. TravellingCari 20:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice sheets. Better than the other "sheets" I suppose. Rather childish though really. And is that a urine stain I see? I kid. Speaking of kids, my own has twins sheets, and a twins comforter. He is slowly (heck, he's not quite 3) learning to love and respect baseball. Whenever I have it on, he says "ta, ta?", (which means Thomas and Friends) or "Say? Say?", which means Big Bird and Friends, and I usually respond with "There is nothing more interesting on television right now son than this baseball game. You will watch it and enjoy it, I ain't turning the channel." Keeper ǀ 76 20:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that their damn near antiques, I can't complain :) They suited the purpose of not sleeping on a bare air mattress for the week. I remember going into the den while dad was watching the '86 Series and him telling me I was going to see history. At most times in summer there is nothing better than baseball on. "Say Say" is just no good without snuffy. I miss him. TravellingCari 21:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA

Hey, Keeper. I've read your comments recently on some of the opposes on RfA and I just want to let you know that I agree with you that RfA is deteriorating and opposes are increasingly facile and "out of a hat." I've even noticed some Kurt-copycats recently. I want to explain to you what I think is the cause of this and hear your thoughts. The cause, ironically enough, is nothing more than Kurt's Answer to the Ultimate Question of RfA, the Universe, and Everything: power hunger. The WP community has adopted a wolf-pack "survival of the toughest" mentality and we are starting to value RfA opposes as the quintessential example of toughness. If you want your RfA to succeed, or so it seems, you must oppose every RfA in the immediate months before yours. Opposing, however lame your rational might be, demonstrates to many users a cynicism and anti-status quo mentality they want in an admin, If you dare to throw in a single support, you've somehow "not participated in admin areas", "don't have enough edits to the Misplaced Pages namespace", or are guilty of the ultimate capitol crime: "violating WP:NOTMYSPACE". And then once one goes, they all go. I observed this disturbing trend at MFC's sadly failed RfA: Oreo was guilty of being too nice. And so users create facile oppose reasons on others' RfAs to prevent equally as facile and invented opposes from appearing on their RfA. This trend and others ("don't participate in admin areas or show any eagerness about becoming an admin before your RfA, or else we'll oppose you. Oh, well, we'll oppose you anyways then for lack of admin area edits and no eagerness.") have scared me personally and probably many others away from adminship. (I'd never accept any nom until I've accumulated at least 2,000 more edits anyways, but now I don't even want to go under the huge microscope that is RfA.) Maybe you could comment on my reasoning here, or perhaps suggest something to be done about this? Sincerely, Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If I may say so, I believe that you have completely misunderstood how RfA works. The best way to guarantee success is to nominate other editors. They and their friends will then be grateful to you, and will support you in turn. Easy. Job done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

From what I've seen, I don't think it's anything to do with showing "toughness" - the repeated opposers fall into one of a couple of categories in my experience - not naming any names here, but you can probably recognise a few. (a) overly jaded current or former admins that have extremely exacting standards due to past bad experiences, (b) non-admins with fringe viewpoints on WP policy who like to use RfA to push those viewpoints, (c) people who skim over the opposes, see something that disturbs them, then oppose because of it without further research, and (d) people who just don't like people very much and enjoy making other peoples' lives difficult. Obviously many candidates have valid reasons for opposition, but so many of the 'usual suspects' that scupper RfAs are one of those four things. But that's what you get from having a wide community, I've never come up with a good alternative and neither has anyone else that I've seen. ~ mazca 13:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Depends on your definition of "good alternative". There are many good alternatives in my view, and very few worse ones. Sadly though there is deep-seated resistance to change in this best of all possible wikiworlds. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts on "opposes" in RFA are mostly contained here. I've also said in places that RFA is the worst possible way to find our admins, except for all the other ways", but I don't believe that anymore. There is a better way, probably several improvements, none of which will likely happen. Community is too big, and has borged itself into hivemindedness. Lemmings, we are. Keeper ǀ 76 16:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

A potential AfD

I'm bringing this here, because I'm up in the air about it. I found this article while doing some major construction on the main John McGraw article. I was wondering what your (or your TPSers) thoughts were on whether it's as prime an AfD candidate as it appears at first blush. S. Dean Jameson 07:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

At first glance, he seems non-notable, but don't go to AfD without searching for him in Google and Google Scholar separately. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm in the middle of some pretty serious article work, and was hoping someone here might do the honors. I don't have the time to research this other John McGraw while also doing the work I've set for myself. I just wanted to put this guy out there, since I'd happened across his page in tangential mainspace work. S. Dean Jameson 10:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I'll look at it over lunch Fritzpoll (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That guy has marginal notability, so I would not recommend an AfD. I added two links to the article, including the fact his book was an award winner (funny he didn't put that in -- he appears to have created the article). Ecoleetage (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Rosie Ruiz

Keeper, mind weighing in on the talk discussion I started there in regards to sourcing issue? Anyone else is welcome as well. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

An other one for your viewing pleasure

Enjoy! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 16:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You've got to admire the honesty. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh. that's excellent KoS. This is still one of my favorite IP edits of all time. Keeper ǀ 76 16:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"Just passing through to vandalize your page". That easily beats my personal favorite. J.delanoy_adds 17:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

My personal fave: . –xeno (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This one didn't quite make my cut, cauuse you can't have too many jesus/religion/type funny vandalism Still good though. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 17:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I thought this one was pretty humorous...  Frank  |  talk  17:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I LOL'd hardest at J.delanoy's. :P GlassCobra 18:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Matuomal hughways um Japam

Hi please could you try to stop the creator of these new articles creating pages with wrong category. He s created over 300 of them and despite my efforts to try to contact him he hasn't resonded or seemed to notice. Could you take the necessary course of action to make sure times isn't wasted by rectting them later. I appreciate him adding the articles but would equally appreciate him in changing the errors ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ 17:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"matuomal hughways um Japam"?? You feeling alright blof? Me thinks you're fingers might be a bit off on the keyboard at the moment. Is there really a category called that? What editor? Keeper ǀ 76 18:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

NOOOO. LOL. I didn't create it. Please please try to stop User talk:RushdimIDlike using it. He isn't repsnding and proceeding the start about 10 articles a minute ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ 18:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind. I'm catching up to this (checked your contribs). You didn't create that cat. We do already have Category:National highways in Japan, with hundreds of articles. These new articles need to go there. I'll get on it. Keeper ǀ 76 18:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Perhaps he means Category:National highways in Japan? GlassCobra 18:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC) Hah, wow, I'm way behind. Officially taking my nose out of other peoples' business. :) GlassCobra 18:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else that has WP:HOTCAT, all of the 300+ articles need to have the redlink cat removed from them (above), and need to have Category:National highways in Japan added. Blofeld, I gave a warning to the editor to stop adding until these are addressed. Please let me know if he adds even a single new article (with a broken cat) after my post's timestamp. Oh, and GlassCobra, feel free to help to atone for your redundant edit conflict :-) Keeper ǀ 76 18:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC) I asked him a few hours ago kindly to change but he didn't respond and added another 200 odd articles wrongly cateogrized. Its not a huge problem but it is silly to waste time and not have him respond at all and other editors having to clean up after him. Will do, if he proceeds to ignore ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ 18:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Aaargh the vast majority of the article have fruitless commons links too ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ 18:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Hes started AGAIN!. Check the new pages. Please take the necessary action. Thanks ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ 18:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he's seeing the messages. He is editing as User:SignIDlike, which redirects to User:RushdimIDlike. I don't think he's seeing the messages. I just typed a message for him on the redirect page. Keeper ǀ 76 18:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted, He also needs to be aware that if he wants to change his user name he can't just redirect ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ 18:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That's getting more and more bizarre to me. He did have a username change, by a crat. over two weeks ago. I don't know how the hell he is continuing to edit under his old name, other than that he re-registered it and actually is running two accounts. I blocked the User:SignIDlike account, and will summarily block the User:RushdimIDlike account (which hasn't edited for hours, only one edit so far today). Check all his articles, they were "created by SignIDlike", not "RushdimIDlike", and all of our warnings are going to User talk:RushdimIDlike. Bizarre. Keeper ǀ 76 18:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats very odd. I am also slightly concerned if the editor can be trusted though. Judgin by the article deletions on his talk page and the unreferenced material too mmmm. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ 18:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Anybody have a road atlas for Japan? TCari, didn't you live there before? Are any of his articles legit? (Click on the cat to see the list). Baldy, I also posted to WJBscribe (who did the user rename) to see if he had any clue what's going on. If I change my name to Methuselah, I can't edit as keeper anymore, can I? Keeper ǀ 76 18:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 Doing... with AWB on my sock account. J.delanoy_adds 18:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Beautious. And shit, you're fast. You and your automated tools...if you ever run for RFA, I'll be sure to oppose, you unhelpful, non-writin' robot. Oh, wait. Keeper ǀ 76 18:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks (I think...) Only 294 pages to go.... If anyone else is reading this, and has AWB, generate a list from his category, and use find and replace to fix, I could use a hand. J.delanoy_adds 18:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm of course only being ironical in my post there. You rock JD. Get back to work! And blofeld, I've been doing some digging. It seems just about every road in japan is called "national road" this or that, including what we in the states would call connectors or feeders. Many of them are referenced elsewhere on-wiki from several years ago in city/town articles, at least in my random sample. Keeper ǀ 76 18:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the links to Japanese wikipedia account for something but references would have been nice to verify it. I think they are legitimate but who knows if the data is correct. To me it looked as if he was ignoring us on purpose when several people kindly asked him to correct it. Follwing this he went and added another 200 without references and with the same category, hecne the large rmessage to try to get him to notice the mistake.I think it may have been a language barrier thing as you suggested. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ 20:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, that user received a final warning for creating inappropriate pages on June 26. He/she/it continued. I believe a block is warranted. Enigma 23:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: AWB

When I replaced all those categories, I used AWB's find-and-replace functionality. This is, IMHO, the most useful feature of the tool. I can fix all those grammatical errors with AWB as well, but I may or may not be able to do it this evening. I have to go somewhere in just a couple minutes, and I don't know how long I will take. I'll do it as soon as I get a chance. J.delanoy_adds 20:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you guys make of this?

This IP is placing frivolous fact tags in photo captions at Ashanti (singer) that don't contain controversial facts. Here's the last diff. He's a determined warrior, who has been warned for vandalism very recently. I'm finished dealing with him. Any TPSers (or Keeper himself) that could take a look would be appreciated. S. Dean Jameson 23:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think tagging that sentence - "The video showed a sexier side of Ashanti than had previously been seen." is valid. Unsourced, POV... Tan ǀ 39 23:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't think that the fact that it's a caption for Ashanti in a bikini makes it kind of common sense, that statement? S. Dean Jameson 23:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. Did she never wear a bikini before? Are we assuming that people think she is sexier in a bikini than whatever she wore for photo ops before? WP:V, man. Even if the statement was not POV, something like - "The video showed Ashanti in a blue bikini, which is different than has been seen before," it would STILL need a citation. Tan ǀ 39 23:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed all potentially "controversial" or "challengeable" portions from all captions. S. Dean Jameson 23:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your edits. Tan ǀ 39 23:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't, as they take all the life out of the prose, but whaddaiknow? (Seriously, it's sad when wikiprocess forces you to make edits you don't even agree with.) S. Dean Jameson 00:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure what to say. It's not like this is new; requiring citations for all material and maintaining a neutral stance are two fundamental pillars of Misplaced Pages. Tan ǀ 39 00:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a reminder

When archiving, the {{discussion top}} part goes below the header, not above it. :) Enigma 23:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Keeper, how could you!? This is grounds for recall!--KojiDude 23:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Keeper maintains that he cannot be desysopped because the attempt at deleting him failed. We'll show him... Enigma 23:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Félix Houphouët-Boigny

I am trying to help Félix Houphouët-Boigny through FAC. It needs proofreaders however, and I think you can do a decent job at it. Please help. --I'm an Editorofthewiki 23:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm one of Keeper's TPSs, so I'll take a look at it and see if I can help out. Enigma 23:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with that. It needs a lot of work I think. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'm seeing. Most articles I see that are going for FA have eliminated basically all of the simple mistakes. This one suffers not only from an awkward writing style, but also a plethora of basic spelling and grammar errors. For example, I was attempting to reword a sentence, but a name I didn't recognize was red-linked, leaving me unsure of whether it was a location or a position. I discovered that it is a location on the Ivory Coast, and it was only red-linked because the writer had misspelled it. Enigma 00:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It occurs to me that Keeper's talk page is now becoming the new League of Copyeditors. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what it is, although I think we need another three to become a league according to the arbitrary standards set forth by nobody in particular. Did you see this? Enigma 00:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw that yesterday, and I wish it luck. I won't be signing up though. Copyediting is a black hole unless it's to help an article through GA/FA. Hell it's a black hole even then. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. Enigma 01:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I mean that it can as often as not be wasted effort. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This project is wearing on me

Could someone take a look at this and close it? We have an editor who hadn't even participated in the discussion and debate that is reverting our consensus-based resolution. I'm really weary of all this stuff. S. Dean Jameson 01:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it should be closed. Enigma 01:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh my god, I'm done. LOOK AT THE FLIPPING DISCUSSION!!! There's no real dissent there. S. Dean Jameson 01:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Stay calm. One RfD is not a big deal. The discussion started recently. Recommend you withdraw it instead of closing it. As you nominated it in the first place, you can simply withdraw your request. Let me know if you would like for me to do it for you. Enigma 01:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do. That guy has stomped into the discussion and raised the OMGDRAHMA quotient with his reversions. I'm officially withdrawing it. And redirecting the page to the article space the rest of us (save that one guy who reopened it) agreed it should go. S. Dean Jameson 01:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of drama... Tan ǀ 39 01:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Would someone just withdraw it already? I'm not sure how to do it, and that would end that guy's crusade to keep it open against consensus. S. Dean Jameson 01:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done Enigma 01:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've removed the tag from the redirect, and the drama should be over now. Unless he reverts you now, that is... S. Dean Jameson 01:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

When I closed it, I posted on his talk page. It should put an end to this. Sorry about the delay. I was editing something else and I didn't immediately notice your acceptance of my offer to close it. In the future, don't let something minor like an RfD get under your skin. I would suggest dumping the responsibility on someone else (feel free to try me in the future) and moving on to another area, if it bothers you that much. Happy editing! Enigma 01:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is the first time I've really experienced something like this, where I worked with a group for consensus, reached a "best interests of the project" solution, and someone went to battle with me over it. Does this happen a lot? S. Dean Jameson 01:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• I haven't seen it, myself. Unusual situation there. Enigma 01:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Since the argument primarily centered on User:Eusebeus's !vote, I think the best course of action would have been to ask his opinion on your new proposal and whether he would be amenable to the retarget. A lot of heat could have been avoided. Arguing over someone else's opinion is fruitless when you can get it straight from the horse's mouth. Regards, Enigma 02:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

  I thought I left a note at all three of the other editors that had participated (Ned Scott came by later) to ask about it. Perhaps I missed his talkpage. S. Dean Jameson 02:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

We need someone to create a template so we can easily notify someone when they're the subject of a discussion at WP:AN/K. Enigma 02:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done See if you can find it. No cheating by looking at my contributions! It was plagiarism, so it may be deleted. :D Enigma 02:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)