| Revision as of 08:45, 11 November 2008 editHJensen (talk | contribs)5,093 edits →Tennis articles: re to Yohan (sorry Skywalker for using "your" space :-)← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:58, 11 November 2008 edit undoTennis expert (talk | contribs)24,261 edits →Tennis articlesNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| :Let me know if you guys need a hand. - ] / ] 12:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC) | :Let me know if you guys need a hand. - ] / ] 12:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::Is Tennis expert attacking either of you, too? I'm concerned that he may have lost all sense of proportion—possibly a ]? Perhaps we can assist him. ] ] 13:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC) | ::Is Tennis expert attacking either of you, too? I'm concerned that he may have lost all sense of proportion—possibly a ]? Perhaps we can assist him. ] ] 13:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::Give it a rest. Where is your sense of perspective? I don't agree with Tennis expert on everything but he is just trying to do what's best for the encyclopedia; there is no need for this frankly derisive diagnosis. What about ] and ]. Shouldn't they be adhered to just as strictly as ]? ] (]) 01:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC) | :::Give it a rest. Where is your sense of perspective? I don't agree with Tennis expert on everything but he is just trying to do what's best for the encyclopedia; there is no need for this frankly derisive diagnosis. What about ] and ]. Shouldn't they be adhered to just as strictly as ]? ] (]) 01:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Tennis expert doesn't seem at all interested in the fact that he is single-handedly preventing the entire tennis project from getting any good or featured content. That is a problem only he can solve but ceasing his continual ] over each and every tennis bio. He was partly responsible for the delisting of Maria Sharapova through his ownership edits, and now the project has just one real tennis GA. No real FAs. Pathetic. What's the point in being part of a Wikiproject when all your edits are about preventing articles getting to GA or FA? What's the point in this project at all if not to create excellent, consistent articles? Tennis expert is simply '''not''' doing what is best for the encyclopedia. Read ], point 2 - articles need to follow style guidelines. If people are supporting the continually linking of out-of-context words and dates then this encyclopedia is going to get worse. ] (]) 07:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC) | ::::Tennis expert doesn't seem at all interested in the fact that he is single-handedly preventing the entire tennis project from getting any good or featured content. That is a problem only he can solve but ceasing his continual ] over each and every tennis bio. He was partly responsible for the delisting of Maria Sharapova through his ownership edits, and now the project has just one real tennis GA. No real FAs. Pathetic. What's the point in being part of a Wikiproject when all your edits are about preventing articles getting to GA or FA? What's the point in this project at all if not to create excellent, consistent articles? Tennis expert is simply '''not''' doing what is best for the encyclopedia. Read ], point 2 - articles need to follow style guidelines. If people are supporting the continually linking of out-of-context words and dates then this encyclopedia is going to get worse. ] (]) 07:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::::It's also worth noting that, for now, the ] is clear and unambiguous - only link dates which provide useful context. The hundreds of thousands of linked dates in these tennis articles provide no context whatsoever, they are merely used for autoformatting which, per the ''current'' MOS, is deprecated. Editors unlinking these dates are doing '''the right thing''' because that's why we have guidelines etc, to make the encyclopedia better and more consistent. If there's a problem with this unlinking then it should be '''discussed''' somewhere appropriate, like ], and not in edit summaries, which seems to be the only way Tennis expert is prepared to communicate with those he disagrees with. ] (]) 07:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC) | ::::It's also worth noting that, for now, the ] is clear and unambiguous - only link dates which provide useful context. The hundreds of thousands of linked dates in these tennis articles provide no context whatsoever, they are merely used for autoformatting which, per the ''current'' MOS, is deprecated. Editors unlinking these dates are doing '''the right thing''' because that's why we have guidelines etc, to make the encyclopedia better and more consistent. If there's a problem with this unlinking then it should be '''discussed''' somewhere appropriate, like ], and not in edit summaries, which seems to be the only way Tennis expert is prepared to communicate with those he disagrees with. ] (]) 07:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::::So? this is still no excuse for being uncivil. You're mischaracterizing the situation on a massive scale. The issue of datelinking, which is superficial in comparison to most others, is not the reason why there are no tennis FAs or GAs, and datelinking only sprung up a month or so ago. I assure you that he is not "single-handedly preventing the entire tennis project from getting any good or featured content"; it has been a team effort. Operating within a single field and taking concern over the articles is what a lot of tennis editors, including myself, do, and it does not mean WP:OWN in this case or any other. Tennis expert usually makes productive edits towards the project and has only had to go on the defensive in the past few months (certainly not " edits are about preventing articles getting to GA or FA]]" - you really think that is the intention?). When there isn't a consensus (I've seen enough to suggest that there isn't) you can't get upset when widescale bot/automated script changes meet with some dissension. | :::::So? this is still no excuse for being uncivil. You're mischaracterizing the situation on a massive scale. The issue of datelinking, which is superficial in comparison to most others, is not the reason why there are no tennis FAs or GAs, and datelinking only sprung up a month or so ago. I assure you that he is not "single-handedly preventing the entire tennis project from getting any good or featured content"; it has been a team effort. Operating within a single field and taking concern over the articles is what a lot of tennis editors, including myself, do, and it does not mean WP:OWN in this case or any other. Tennis expert usually makes productive edits towards the project and has only had to go on the defensive in the past few months (certainly not " edits are about preventing articles getting to GA or FA]]" - you really think that is the intention?). When there isn't a consensus (I've seen enough to suggest that there isn't) you can't get upset when widescale bot/automated script changes meet with some dissension. | ||
| :::::Also, the Sharapova article was never a GA. I've seen the version that was pushed through and it isn't good enough. ] (]) 18:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC) | :::::Also, the Sharapova article was never a GA. I've seen the version that was pushed through and it isn't good enough. ] (]) 18:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::::: |
::::::So you are saying the information on the Sharapova talk page is wrong? It says it is a delisted GA. | ||
| :::::: |
::::::Also, I agree that we should all be civil. I must, however, agree with The Rambling Man that Tennis Expert's continuous crusades against every policy change and/or strong and undisputable new consensus on various subjects are very counterproductive. And in my opinion it takes a form that is very incivil. --''']''', '']'' 08:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
| (1) Of course the information is wrong. The Sharapova article was never actually a GA. The tag that said the article was GA is clearly erroneous, as a 5 minute review of the history of the article would plainly show. (2) I have had a long dialogue with ], now temporarily known as ] (RMOT), only to be met with blatant hostility, incivility, threats, and intentional mischaracterizations of my intentions, not only in those dialogues, but in many other Misplaced Pages locations. I now have no intention of accepting his invitations (or those from others like him) to join discussions where the question is equivalent to "when are you going to stop beating your spouse" when, as he knows, I have never beat my spouse. I am not going to participate in his attempts to continue harrassing myself because no self-respecting person would. (3) I am one of many people who continue to argue, very reasonably in my opinion, that there is no consensus to delete existing date links in any Misplaced Pages article and that there certainly is no consensus to delete existing date links in tennis articles. See ] where I have discussed this thoroughly already. RMOT's assertion that I have been unwilling to discuss these issues is patently false. (4) It is ridiculous and absurd to argue that any one person can prevent an article from becoming a GA or FA. In fact, I would put my record of tennis-biography-improvement against anyone else's in English-language Misplaced Pages. (5) I have not engaged in a "crusade", continuous or not, against any policy change that is supported by consensus. And the incivility is entirely yours, ]. Rest assured that I've seen the contentious comments you've posted in various places about myself, and I'm asking you to stop. ] (]) 10:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Your nightclub is getting deleted. == | == Your nightclub is getting deleted. == | ||
Revision as of 10:58, 11 November 2008
Status: Unknown 
| This is SkyWalker's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 |
Tennis articles
Hi Skywalker - just to let you know, Tennis expert undid a lot of your unlinkings, and I've subsequently repeated the unlinking exercise, in an attempt to bring these articles in line with the MoS, but he's now busying himself undoing my work on those articles too. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Let me know if you guys need a hand. - Dudesleeper / Talk 12:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Is Tennis expert attacking either of you, too? I'm concerned that he may have lost all sense of proportion—possibly a major depressive disorder? Perhaps we can assist him. Tony (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Give it a rest. Where is your sense of perspective? I don't agree with Tennis expert on everything but he is just trying to do what's best for the encyclopedia; there is no need for this frankly derisive diagnosis. What about WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Shouldn't they be adhered to just as strictly as WP:MOSNUM? Yohan euan o4 (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Tennis expert doesn't seem at all interested in the fact that he is single-handedly preventing the entire tennis project from getting any good or featured content. That is a problem only he can solve but ceasing his continual ownership over each and every tennis bio. He was partly responsible for the delisting of Maria Sharapova through his ownership edits, and now the project has just one real tennis GA. No real FAs. Pathetic. What's the point in being part of a Wikiproject when all your edits are about preventing articles getting to GA or FA? What's the point in this project at all if not to create excellent, consistent articles? Tennis expert is simply not doing what is best for the encyclopedia. Read WP:WIAFA, point 2 - articles need to follow style guidelines. If people are supporting the continually linking of out-of-context words and dates then this encyclopedia is going to get worse. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 07:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's also worth noting that, for now, the WP:MOS is clear and unambiguous - only link dates which provide useful context. The hundreds of thousands of linked dates in these tennis articles provide no context whatsoever, they are merely used for autoformatting which, per the current MOS, is deprecated. Editors unlinking these dates are doing the right thing because that's why we have guidelines etc, to make the encyclopedia better and more consistent. If there's a problem with this unlinking then it should be discussed somewhere appropriate, like WP:CONTEXT, and not in edit summaries, which seems to be the only way Tennis expert is prepared to communicate with those he disagrees with. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 07:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- So? this is still no excuse for being uncivil. You're mischaracterizing the situation on a massive scale. The issue of datelinking, which is superficial in comparison to most others, is not the reason why there are no tennis FAs or GAs, and datelinking only sprung up a month or so ago. I assure you that he is not "single-handedly preventing the entire tennis project from getting any good or featured content"; it has been a team effort. Operating within a single field and taking concern over the articles is what a lot of tennis editors, including myself, do, and it does not mean WP:OWN in this case or any other. Tennis expert usually makes productive edits towards the project and has only had to go on the defensive in the past few months (certainly not "all edits are about preventing articles getting to GA or FA" - you really think that is the intention?). When there isn't a consensus (I've seen enough to suggest that there isn't) you can't get upset when widescale bot/automated script changes meet with some dissension.
- Also, the Sharapova article was never a GA. I've seen the version that was pushed through and it isn't good enough. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- So you are saying the information on the Sharapova talk page is wrong? It says it is a delisted GA.
- Also, I agree that we should all be civil. I must, however, agree with The Rambling Man that Tennis Expert's continuous crusades against every policy change and/or strong and undisputable new consensus on various subjects are very counterproductive. And in my opinion it takes a form that is very incivil. --HJensen, talk 08:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
(1) Of course the information is wrong. The Sharapova article was never actually a GA. The tag that said the article was GA is clearly erroneous, as a 5 minute review of the history of the article would plainly show. (2) I have had a long dialogue with The Rambling Man, now temporarily known as The Rambling Man on tour (RMOT), only to be met with blatant hostility, incivility, threats, and intentional mischaracterizations of my intentions, not only in those dialogues, but in many other Misplaced Pages locations. I now have no intention of accepting his invitations (or those from others like him) to join discussions where the question is equivalent to "when are you going to stop beating your spouse" when, as he knows, I have never beat my spouse. I am not going to participate in his attempts to continue harrassing myself because no self-respecting person would. (3) I am one of many people who continue to argue, very reasonably in my opinion, that there is no consensus to delete existing date links in any Misplaced Pages article and that there certainly is no consensus to delete existing date links in tennis articles. See WP:TENNIS where I have discussed this thoroughly already. RMOT's assertion that I have been unwilling to discuss these issues is patently false. (4) It is ridiculous and absurd to argue that any one person can prevent an article from becoming a GA or FA. In fact, I would put my record of tennis-biography-improvement against anyone else's in English-language Misplaced Pages. (5) I have not engaged in a "crusade", continuous or not, against any policy change that is supported by consensus. And the incivility is entirely yours, HJensen. Rest assured that I've seen the contentious comments you've posted in various places about myself, and I'm asking you to stop. Tennis expert (talk) 10:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Your nightclub is getting deleted.
See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Skywalkers nightclub :) MuZemike (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
re:Empire: Total War
Even if that wasn't copy-pasted from the official site, it would still be unacceptable. These things need to be described concisely if put in prose, not dumped in with several paragraphs worth of fan material. This is where the other Total War articles fall down, often only telling players and fans how to play it through the faction details. Misplaced Pages is not an instruction manual, so this sort of stuff simply doesn't belong in the article. -- Sabre (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
For you
|
The Cleanup Barnstar | |
| For your work at Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 in cleaning and expanding the article. Keep it up, I am sure if we all work on it, GA-status is not far away. :-) SoWhy 19:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC) |