Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Hi, I've noticed you to be neutral and fair in your edits. Could I get you to comment on this:
Hi, I've noticed you to be neutral and fair in your edits. Could I get you to comment on this:
I'll warn you, it's not pretty. ] (]) 21:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll warn you, it's not pretty. ] (]) 21:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
:Well, what I was looking at was the content overall. It seemed to be more of a personal attack then an actual RfC. If you read the front page and see the sections claiming Collect has no credibility (and there are other gems in there) you'll see why I think it can't serve a purpose other than further bitterness and continuing antagonism from prolonged edit wars. I can get you some of the specifics, but just reading through it you get a sense of, I don't know how you'd describe it, loathing perhaps? ] (]) 04:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
:Well, what I was looking at was the content overall. It seemed to be more of a personal attack then an actual RfC. If you read the front page and see the sections claiming Collect has no credibility (and there are other gems in there) you'll see why I think it can't serve a purpose other than further bitterness and continuing antagonism from prolonged edit wars. I can get you some of the specifics, but just reading through it (especially the talk page) you get a sense of, I don't know how you'd describe it, loathing perhaps? I also think there's quite a bit of vindictive/punitive driven editing going on which illustrated on talk. I don't know, perhaps I'm still gettting too into this, it just seems like the guy's getting a bum rap to me. ] (]) 04:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Revision as of 04:46, 20 April 2009
I will generally reply on this page unless you request otherwise.
...how about this? I made this myself! (That is, the goods and the picture.) Now how's about that vote? Drmies (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
That looks more like it! A little weird, but probably not bad. As for the vote... I'm just watching for now how things develop. I think it's probably headed towards a keep decision anyway regardless of if I change my merge. LadyofShalott03:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
It is a little weird, and it is not bad (my 3-yr old daughter liked it--but she's a bacon maniac, I am embarrassed to say). As you can tell from the shine, it's ganache, which I thought would be preferable over simply dipping it in melted chocolate. But next time I'm using some really expensive, really good chocolate, not that *&^% from the supermarket. And I hope you're right about the AfD. A lot of hard work went into that article (almost none of it mine) and I do believe in its viability and notability. Oh, we have something in common: I also am a firm, and staunch, and diligent proponent of the serial comma! Drmies (talk) 03:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Could you reinsert the POV tag on the article? No one can reach a consensus on whether this article is neutral or not, at least let the readers know. Thanks Nicholas.tan (talk) 08:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Was there any reason in particular that you declined the speedy on Kings of Chaos (online game)? I personally feel that it applied under A7 as web content, but maybe there was something I hadn't considered? I'm not trying to be a jerk here, just wondering if I'm not understanding the requirements. Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, it probably would qualify technically. I don't really like "speedy" deletions of articles that have been around a while and have several editors who have contributed. So while we can speedy delete, I don't always think we should. I think a prod would be entirely reasonable, however. LadyofShalott03:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh yeah, good catch. I guess we'll see how the prod goes, or go through another AfD. I don't find the keep reasons at all compelling, as none of it meets WP:N or WP:V. 04:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Spring onions
Mrs. Shallot, I came by for the purpose of noting that I've been quite pleased to see your good works around Misplaced Pages recently and to note that my little corner of the project has been brightened by your presence. I've enjoyed your collaborations and insights, and I do hope our interactions will continue. Your userpage looks quite familiar to me. Is that a common image on Misplaced Pages? Have I seen you around before? Anyway, I hope you enjoy the most pleasant of editing wherever your watchlist takes you. Let me know if my handiwork is ever of some use to you and by all means feel free to weigh in any time on the projects where I am involved. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I just prodded it this time. As to your prior post: it's not lady of shallots; it's The Lady of Shalott. :) I recently had a username change; so it is possible you had looked at my page prior to that. I didn't add the picture (which is a famous Waterhouse depiction of the poem) until the name change though. Thanks for your nice post. LadyofShalott00:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello- I am not exactly sure how this works but I am the content submitter for Quiet Monkey Fight (User: Megapixel). Can you please explain the notability flag for that article? What are you exactly looking for? We see many comparable theatrical groups posted with article pages. It's a legitimate group with notability. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megapixel (talk • contribs) 17:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Megapixel. No one is questioning the existence of the group. Existence however, is not sufficient for includion in Misplaced Pages. You should read WP:N for details of the notability criterion, but, basically there need to be independant third party reliable sources about the group. Blogs and Facebook may confirm the existence of the group, but have there been, for example, any reviews of them in major newspapers or magazines? I hope this helps. Let me know if I can clarify or answer any more questions for you! LadyofShalott19:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ladyofshalott, Thanks for your reply. We do not have any reviews from major local newspapers- Our following is a younger crowd and notability comes from being invited to perform around the country at reputable festivals and doing regular shows for three years. Do you have any other examples (other than reviews) that would help with vouching for Misplaced Pages's definition of notability? Thanks. comment added by Megapixel
Well, has there been anything published about it by independent sources? Online sources are helpful, but not entirely necessary. LadyofShalott19:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Im working on an entry for the site but it seems that you deleted it. Could give me a detailed explaination for that. The information I put up was pretty basic. Nothing controversial. Im really at a loss as to why it was deleted especially since I based the information on identical information and approach from the London pride page.
A major problem, but which is easily correctable is the use of terms such as "we" and "our". Encyclopedia articles should not be written in first person. As it is, it sounds like you are advertising the festival. Are you connected with the festival? It sounds that way, and you should read WP:COI. You also need independent third-party sources. If this is as big a deal as the article says, surely there have been accounts of it in the news that you can cite to support the information. If this is indeed notable, and not just advertising for an "up-and-coming" event, we should be able to create a decent article about it. I'll be glad to help you get it in shape. Lastly, are you familiar with WP:LGBT? That project is a rich source of other editors who would probably be glad to help with the article. LadyofShalott14:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks.Ill look in to that. I was going to add extra links and so on but the page was deleted. Im on the events committee. Ill work on the article over the next couple of days to get something decent together.
APK bought you some Easter eggs, but he had some mayonnaise that was about to go bad. He decided to make some deviled eggs instead. APK is really sorry about eating your Easter present, but promises to make it up to you on Cinco de Mayo. (although he's likely to drink your present) Happy Easter.
followup - I see that it says it "won" certain things (I had searched on "award")... still seems questionable, especially considering its autobio. Maybe prod/afd? Or leave it alone? Let me know what you think. JCutter (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I think either prod or afd would be appropriate. You could try prod first and see if it is uncontested, or go directly to afd to seek community opinion. I have not searched to see if he actually satisifies our notability criteria or not - there was just enough asserted in the article to make it ineligible for speedy deletion. LadyofShalott02:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I was attempting to make an apology to an editor with whom I think I was a bit strident on my first encounter, and I was redirected here. Anyway, I think I was a bit overly defensive (ie. aggressive) in my initial encounters with an editor who may or may not have been you. I hoped that future encounters demonstrated that I wasn't such a bad person after all, but it's best to take accountability and not leave things in doubt. So I just wanted to note that I'm sorry if I was a bit bitey at first. If I am not remembering accurately, and I can't frankly remember the details or the context (like what article was involved, or was it a userpage?), then just disregard. Where I come from we sometimes yell a lot. But that's just because we don't know any better and it shouldn't be taken personally. :) Sorry about that. I'm going to be double careful not to let it happen again, even if you sometimes make a mistake in failing to agree with me on every occasion. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I have recently had a change of username; so it is quite likely that I'm the person you were seeking. I'm not sure which incident you mean (and you aren't either!), but I thank you for the apology anyway. :) LadyofShalott01:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it was a usertalk page. And ironically I think that user had a name change also, and I'm having trouble remembering what name they used to go by. As I recall you dropped a notice on their page reminding them to be civil or something like that and I thought the warning was unnecessary since I didn't think they were in the wrong. But I really don't remember the details. If you don't either I guess I'm in the clear! :) I have some questions about the poem. Are you willing to help explain it's meaning? I'm not getting it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, no guarantees that I'll know all the answers, but I'll try. Go ahead and ask. LadyofShalott
May I respectfully ask Your Ladyship why she decided to decline the request for speedy deletion of the above article? I believe it was seconded by at least one other editor. However, I do not wish to give the impression that the decision was, necessarily, the wrong one, nor that it is my desire to see a salvageable article deleted, though it did, at least at the time it was nominated, appear to be of little content and that content that was there appeared to be nothing but advertising for the business, with no context provided as to why the subject was notable. I have contacted the author, though he doesn't seem to have taken heed of any of the messages left for him regarding the speedy, with suggestions for overhaul of the article, though, I must, respectfully, say that there seems very little notable in the article, as much as I hate to say so about the work of a fellow editor. If m'Lady would reply on my talk page, it would be greatly appreciated. Warm regards, HJ Mitchell (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, the second was technically incorrect - you can second a prod, but not really a speedy. That's not why I declined, however. While there is not much content, there is some - enough to be a short stub and know what it is talking about. There is also at least a claim of notability (whether valid or not) with references. To me, all of that added up to not eligible for speedy deletion. Now, if you want to do a prod or an afd, I will not object at all. :) I hope this reply helps. Feel free to ask followup questions if you have any! LadyofShalott03:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification on that one. As for the second, what is the correct use of that? I gathered it wasn't for speedy, but I wanted to make my point on that particular article. What is the correct use of it for an article that's not a speedy? Thanks, HJ Mitchell (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. Seconds are only for prods. Note that the template is actually {{subst:prod2}}, basically PROD 2. You can use it if someone prods an article for deletion and you agree with both the idea that it should be deleted and the stated reason for deletion. There is no such thing as a second for speedies (at least that I've ever seen), and in an AfD discussion, there is no need since the whole thing is a discussion of the article's merits or lack thereof. LadyofShalott17:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, thanks for clearing that one up for me. What does one do if they agree with a speedy nomination? Or do they just hope the reviewing admin shares their POV? I shall bear that in mind in future. Do we really need two different ways of nominating an article for deletion, though?
Three actually (speedy, prod, and AfD). :) In the case of speedy, there is no way to do much of anything except hope the reviewing admin agrees with you. (Really, even if there was a way to second it, that would still be the case.) Otherwise, I recommend adding any article you think should be speedily deleted to your watchlist. Then, if the speedy deletion is declined for some reason, you can take it to AfD to seek community opinion on it. That's what I suggest you do with Skateimpact. LadyofShalott18:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'll have a look and see if I can get in touch with the original authour- I did try before, though I didn't get a response, then I might just take it to AfD. Thanks, HJ Mitchell (talk) 02:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I've left him a message and I'll let that be the end of the matter. We shall see what happens. Thanks for all your help. Until our paths cross again, kind regards HJ Mitchell (talk) 09:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
When prodding
Just a friendly reminder to use an edit summary when proposing deletion for an article. Edit summary usage is always good, but it is especially important that edit summaries are used when proposing deletion. The reason for this is that articles proposed for deletion that later have the {{prod}} tag removed should not be proposed for deletion again, but rather sent to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. The only easy way to check if an article was previously proposed for deletion is to look at the edit history and the edit summaries people have left before. Thanks! HidingT11:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I almost always use an edit summary, whether for prods or otherwise. If I did not, it was an oversight, and I apologize. Could you point me to the case you mean? LadyofShalott16:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Given the edit history I think he may be talking about Quiet Monkey Fight. This edit summary says tagging, but I think you ment to say Prod? Tsk tsk tsk. Is the poem describing the "curse" of falling in love with a knight in shining armor (armour)? Is there a connection to lesbianism? I'm not seeing any. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, OK, that makes sense. I'll make sure to be more specific in the future. (Hiding could be a little more specific when dropping these notes on people's talk pages as well. I wasn't the only one who said "huh?"!) LadyofShalott17:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I apologise for adding to the general confusion felt by all. The article in question was Quiet Monkey Fight as ChildofMidnight points out. Hope that clarifies. {{Prod-summary}} doesn't allow for an input at this minute, so I didn't provide one, but then, life is a great teacher. HidingT09:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
<comment copied from above section LadyofShalott 18:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)> Is the poem describing the "curse" of falling in love with a knight in shining armor (armour)? Is there a connection to lesbianism? I'm not seeing any. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
She was not supposed to look directly upon the world but only gaze upon it from the mirror. (Why I don't know.) Ummm.... there's absolutely no connection to lesbianism at all that I know of. That's a strange association to make. People do have varied interests you know. :) LadyofShalott17:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, when was a senior in high school, I took an elective course on Arthurian literature. I very much enjoyed it, and since have read some more in the genre as well as other fantastic and folkloric literature. I loved reading Tennyson's poem. I think Waterhouse's work is beautiful in general, and love his depictions of the poem. I also am a fan of Loreena McKennitt who has set the poem to music in a beautiful song. LadyofShalott18:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Interesting. Do you think the poem serves as a parable? If so what is the moral of the story? I relate more to Conan the Barbarian. I also want to say something about Medieval festivals and Renaissance fairs (which seem to include medieval stuff), as well as Medieval Times and the Cable Guy movie. But I don't know how to do so without seeming snide and undignified. Good day madame. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I hope you don't mind if I avoid further discussions with you. You have some highly aggressive defenders, and if I'm going to be attacked for having a civil discourse with you, I'd rather steer clear all together. Thanks again for your good editing and I hope you enjoy yourself on Misplaced Pages. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I noticed you're a member of the LGBT-team. Could you possibly yourself or with others help solve the current disputes in homosexual transsexual. It leads to quite a lot of wikistress for the editors involved, while they try but hardly make progress. Some inside opinion might help.
Oh, yeah. Sorry for dumping that lot on the Atheism project, but I found them listed under an Anti-Christian category so we took them on there as well. With any luck, no one will have to do actually do much with those articles for a while. I hope so anyway. John Carter (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I apologize and I shouldn't accuse him of that. The biggest problem is not coming for this sooner. We just kept saying the same things, and it should have been apparent that nothing was going to be accomplished. Instead we repeated our arguments so much that it just became "stonewalling." I also messaged all the editors from the previous discussions in an attempt to settle this once and for all, but then just opted for this. (I didn't even know about this and wanted another discussion before resorting for arbitration). Soxwon (talk) 03:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
"...Not coming for this sooner." Just a clarification in case you have a mistaken impression about mediation here. I saw that you opened a mediation case, which I think was a wise decision. However, while I am attempting to mediate a little between you, it is entirely unofficial. I am not part of the mediation cabal. LadyofShalott04:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, that would explain why it's not officially opened. Allstarecho and I were wondering about that. So who are these ppl and should I expect some kind of Spanish Inquisition? Soxwon (talk) 07:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
In the one experience I've had with mediation, there definitely was no "Spanish Inquisition". To the contrary, it ws a very civil affair which cause all parties to focus on the content issues and reach a workable solution. LadyofShalott13:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
"No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!" OK, now I feel dumb. I love Monty Python, but totally missed that reference. Duh. Oh well, I hope your parrot rests well. LadyofShalott02:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
RfC for collect
Hi, I've noticed you to be neutral and fair in your edits. Could I get you to comment on this:
I'll warn you, it's not pretty. Soxwon (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, what I was looking at was the content overall. It seemed to be more of a personal attack then an actual RfC. If you read the front page and see the sections claiming Collect has no credibility (and there are other gems in there) you'll see why I think it can't serve a purpose other than further bitterness and continuing antagonism from prolonged edit wars. I can get you some of the specifics, but just reading through it (especially the talk page) you get a sense of, I don't know how you'd describe it, loathing perhaps? I also think there's quite a bit of vindictive/punitive driven editing going on which illustrated on talk. I don't know, perhaps I'm still gettting too into this, it just seems like the guy's getting a bum rap to me. Soxwon (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
