Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:52, 25 November 2008

Re:Intel Core i7 Extreme image

There must have been an exact duplicate of the image in question on Misplaced Pages at the time, with the one you linked me to not in use. I'm sorry I can't be more specific, I delete a lot of images and I don't remember this one specifically, so I can't show you the other, identical one. I do remember a lot of these logos being uploaded at once- is it possible you accidentally uploaded the same file multiple times while uploading several similar images? J Milburn (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

Given the history, your restraint and even supportive comments in the Pigsonthewing thread are very laudable. I've been consistently impressed for a long time now. I hope to be able to support (or nom if you want) you for adminship some day. A long way from where we started. --CBD 14:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. =) While I appreciate the sentiment, I think you'll agree that given how RFA operates it's highly unlikely I'd ever be given a fair chance. Hopefully the situation with Andy is resolved now and he can get back to doing good things for the encyclopedia. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know it could be tough... but don't rule it out. The ability to be fair to and make peace with your 'enemies' ought to be the baseline for adminship, and in that regard you're well ahead of the curve. Other stuff tends to fall away over time. --CBD 12:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

date cleansing

Try this for starters, gathered only at the very beginning. Tony (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Just ignore Tony

As somebody who has unfortunately let Tony get him riled up on more than one occasion, I would recommend to you that you simply ignore him and his comments. Nobody takes him seriously, everybody knows he's full of it, and it does you no good to argue with him. Let him scream into the wind and you should continue fleshing out your ideas with the people who actually feel like listening.

As for the edits by Lightmouse, Greg, et al. you should feel free to revert them. There was never any consensus for removing the date links (despite what some claim) and your opinions on the matter are just as valid as anyone else's. If you have the time, it would be better to re-link the dates they've unlinked but to make sure the date format remains consistent throughout the article (I believe they're "fixing" both, although only the consistency fixes are actually fixes, IMHO.)

There is a bugzilla ticket that should (hopefully) resolve this issue with a technical fix soon, and from there we can proceed with improving date autoformatting to eliminate the same concerns that Tony (et al.) have.. which really makes you wonder why they fight us so.. but whatever. --UC_Bill (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree. Tennis expert (talk) 08:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Concur with edits in regard Lightmouse, Greg, etc. I've commented on that at WT:DATES. In fact, I'd say the reverts should be exempt from 3RR, but it's not going to happen, so be careful. Feel free to E-mail me if you're blocked for this reason. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Note

Hello, I've noticed for the last several weeks you have been edit warring at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Please remember that Misplaced Pages is not a battleground and we operate under the principle of discussing changes to reach consensus. None of us own any of the pages on Misplaced Pages and edit warring, even if one is certain they are correct, is never acceptable. I fear if you do not stop edit warring that I will need to block you for disruption and edit warring. Happy editing. MBisanz 01:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

An identical post was made on my talk page and that of Arthur Rubin, although I've removed the post from my page. I found it offensive in its assumptions, the way-premature and overbearing threat, the sending of an elaborate prefabricated message that would be more appropriate to newbies, and the most inappropriate "Happy editing" sign-off. Several tenets of the policy on admin actions and behaviour appear to be at issue. Tony (talk) 13:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems we're all in agreement on that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

And on mine, despite my only having edited that page twice in recent times, both today. My request that the false accusation be retracted was refused. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

USS Monitor

This edit broke conformance to the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) in that it removed a version that conformed to the MOS and in its place restored a version that had a mixture of different date formats. These mixed-format dates will be visible to the majority of readers, who are neither logged on nor have any preference setting for dates. Please do not do this. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The MOS is currently disputed and it's inappropriate for editors with a vested interest in one format over the other to force those changes despite the obvious dispute. I will however attempt to make the dates consistent per your note. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Note

Hello, Locke Cole. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:AN regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic WP:AN#Review. Thank you.MBisanz 20:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Your bullying and intimidation

I am taking absolutely no notice of this attempt to bully and intimidate me into submission, by someone who is pursuing his own self-indulgent crusade. I will continue to assist editors to comply with WP's style guides. Your threatening notice is laughable. You are not welcome on my talk page. Tony (talk) 11:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I note that you have been issuing threatening messages on the talk pages of other users, as well as embarking on what appears to be a campaign of disruption in the project, despite the clear objection of numerous editors who do not go along with your date-linking frenzy.

Please relax and consider the situation in balanced terms. There is a solid groundswell against DA and year-linking, and while your feelings about it are noted, it's unlikely that your current behaviour will achieve what I suspect you want. Tony (talk) 11:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I would think that you might assume good faith and wait for a hopeful dispute resolution through an RFC, request for mediation, or third-party discusson before preparing for the worst. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I've asked, repeatedly, for editors involved in the dispute (and those making disputed edits) to stop and participate in a process that could resolve this, to no success. Edits continue and scripts continue to be enhanced/modified to further proceed with this disputed practice (both automated date unlinking as well as the actual reason for it). It is my belief that given the activities of all involved (specifically the proponents) that this will likely head to Arbitration since my pleas are basically being ignored. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I've yet to witness this "groundswell" against date autoformatting, and if you're so confident of this issue I'd suspect you'd wish to have it resolved in a community wide discussion so your position could be legitimized. But so far you (and others involved) seem to be avoiding this, I suspect, because you fear your preferred choice won't prevail. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As I'm not the one being a "bully" (by forcing the issue through massive automated edits pushing your preferred form of article) or trying to "intimidate" (suggesting my opinion doesn't matter because I don't join you in doing this kind of work on Misplaced Pages), it's amusing that you feel you're being bullied/intimidated. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you as result of your continued edit warring at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). On November 10 you (and others) were warned to stop edit warring, or risk the chance of being blocked. You responded to that warning with claims of optimism. Despite that, a short while ago you made yet another revert. This has been going on for weeks, and it is time to stop.

In addition, you are also actively edit warring at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (links). Please review WP:EDITWAR and try to understand that edit warring is disruptive.

You have a history of being blocked for edit warring, so this block has been set for a 1 week duration. Add {{unblock|your reason here}} to this page to contest the block. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Er... I didn't edit war. And neither did Kotniski. He changed the tag I suspect because he wasn't aware there was a talk and talkpage parameter to {{disputedtag}}. I changed it back to the tag that was appropriate given the present circumstance. As an aside, twelve hours for Kotniski and one hundred and sixty eight hours for me seems a bit lopsided... blocks happen. It's been months since I was blocked so ratcheting them up seems inexcusable. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Locke Cole (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was not edit warring, I made one edit (the first in a couple of days) to correct what I assumed was a mistake. My previous blocks are months old, and in most cases, over two years old. Please see my response directly above as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

After checking your block log, I must emphasize this point: edit warring on policy and/or guideline pages is purely unacceptable. Period. You've now been blocked numerous times for it and other forms of edit warring, and given the numerousness of them, the time between blocks is 100% irrelevant.

I'm definitely biased against edit warring in the first place, but in my opinion, there is a definite trend emerging from your block log. Circumstance or not, it doesn't excuse your repeated edit warring— especially on policy/guideline pages. By now I would have expected any other user to voluntarily adhere to 1RR to avoid being blocked. Moreover, having stumbled upon an arb case mentioned in your block log, I truly am surprised that this finding of fact— from 2006— still hasn't sunk in by the end of 2008.

On top of that (and even ignoring all of that— if that's even possible), I feel that this edit summary assumes substantial amounts of bad faith; and, given that, I'm not sure how much good faith I can assume when you claim that you were assuming that the editor made an accident. — slakr 07:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Apparently when requesting unblocks you're supposed to admit you're wrong and suck up as much as possible. Unfortunately I lack the capacity for both, especially when I know I'm being wronged.

• My block log is irrelevant, some of it is over six months old with the remainder being over two years old.
• Rjd6000 was involved in a dispute with me regarding WP:BOTS many months ago, so this entire block seems vindictive. If he's so sure I violated policy, he should have gotten another admin to block (there are, afterall, hundreds of admins available for the task).
• My edit to WP:MOSNUM was the first edit I'd made to the page in almost a week (six days), and it was the ONLY edit which lead to this block. ONE edit in one week is not "edit warring" no matter how much you wish it were. I didn't even violate WP:1RR (as I didn't revert, I modified which template was used but kept the talk page update).
• As for my "bad faith", Kotniski has participated in the dispute discussions at WT:MOSNUM regularly, he had no reason to feign ignorance to their existence except to bait me. Perhaps you'll see that as more "bad faith", but I see it as an unacceptable pattern of behavior on a wiki where consensus and respect should be important.

Anyways, I'm done. I see those opposed to my views are already using my week long block to their advantage by editing pages where I can no longer disagree. My block isn't protecting anything or anyone, it's simply enabling people to silence me. Good work with that mop. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked you. There is a growing consensus at ANI to unblock Tony1, and I don't find it fair to leave you blocked. I ask that you please consider dispute resolution rather than reverting each other. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Date linking

I don't see how the policy at WP:UNLINKDATES is ambiguous. The fact that you disagree with it doesn't mean that I am doing anything wrong by unlinking dates. You are the one who is editing against stated policy. If the policy changes, then I will follow the new policy. Although I don't see any use in having bare date links in articles, I don't really care if the consensus goes for changing the policy. If it does, than I will vigorously link dates when I see them unlinked. I'm just trying to make the encyclopedia follow the MoS. Your problem is that as the policy now stands, it doesn't read the way you want, that's why you got blocked. There is an RfC over this if not now, soon, and I have asked for a resolution sooner rather than later, so why don't you just wait and not worry about those who are trying to follow the policy for right now? If it changes, than start linking dates.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat 08:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to drop in, but I agree with Locke that the guideline does not have a clear consensus, and that you are doing wrong by making massive changes while it's being discussed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

When there's a dispute over the format of articles it's best to hold off on massive changes until that dispute is resolved. What's strange about this is I'm not sure if you and other editors using Lightmouse's script even desire these changes or are just doing it because the script does it (and because you believe you have the blessing of a MoS guideline). —Locke Cole • t • c 17:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)

I don't care which of you two is right, however another revert or close will cause me to block you for disruption. Please stop now. —— nixeagle 20:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

As I indicated on AN/I, I'm done reverting the improper MFD closures. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

This isn't what is sure be used for: . I've removed it for now; however, I'm willing to discuss in a week or so if you're interested in getting the tool back.--Maxim_(talk) 20:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, and thanks. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Dabomb87_reported_by_Locke_Cole—An update

Hello, in the spirit of compromise and dispute resolution, I have agreed to temporarily stop delinking dates. See this. Hopefully, this incident has been resolved. Thanks for your cooperation, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hijacking this header: I've replied to the 3RR case with Ohnoconfucius. Thanks for notifying me! Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 03:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Notification regarding MOS modifications

As a courtesy notice, and because this issue has cropped up at AN, ANI, 3RR/EW repeatedly, any editor that is involved in the process of date-delinking and -linking will be subject to a block by an administrator. There is a draft RFC regarding this issue, and you are encouraged to participate in the discussion. This message applies to all that have been involved with the recent discussions and reports at the noticeboards above, and this message will be repeated on the respective user talk pages. Thanks, seicer | talk | contribs 00:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:SSF2THDR logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:SSF2THDR logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Date delinker

You're more than welcome to talk to Seicer regarding that then, but I have no idea under what authority or consensus he made that post. Is there a discussion indicating consensus backing that position? Seraphimblade 11:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I do find it very pointy, although his primary edits have dealt with the conversion of dates from the American format to the British format, which is currently acceptable per MOSDATES -- as long as the primary article relates to a British subject. If he is edit warring over that, then that is another story. I'll check this when I'm at work. Thanks seicer | talk | contribs 13:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

RfC

I think that it should be left on the main talk page so that it runs next to the discussion that has already started there, and there can't be any argument as to two consensuses (consensi?)--User:2008Olympian_chitchat 08:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Would the voting on the talk page go onto the RfC? Why not just copy the closed discussion onto the subpage once the consensus is reached?--User:2008Olympian_chitchat 08:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I've also already posted the link onto VP and at the original VP RfC note.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat 08:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)