Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:48, 21 May 2009

Welcome to my talk page!

Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:

• Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.

• Do you have a question about arbitration enforcement? Please read my FAQ at User:Sandstein/AE.

• If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: ].

• If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.

Kitten

62.194.6.92 (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

User talk:Sniperking134

This user has tried again on your {{2nd chance}}. The new edit involves expanding a table at List of songs in Guitar Hero: Metallica to include the album of the original song and whether the song is rated "impossible", plus some more text again with poor grammar. I don't review 2nd chance reevaluations, so I'm letting you know it's there for you to look at. Mangojuice 16:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

For your convenience, here's his edit: Mangojuice 16:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll let somebody else evaluate this.  Sandstein  21:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I've replied on my page. okedem (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Request,

Could you please remove User:Starlink2009's ability to edit their talk page? They're basically using it to personally attack others, saying what they did they knew was vandalism, etc. They don't plan on editing constructively, nor do they care about what we do here.— Dædαlus 08:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd just ignore him. The talk page will eventually be protected after a few unconstructive unblock requests.  Sandstein  09:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Certainly not a big deal, but us little people can't actually view links to Special:UserRights like the one you posted here. So linking to Special:ListUsers like this works a bit better. Cheers, — Jake Wartenberg 15:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!  Sandstein  16:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

ANI on AfD closures

I was mistaken in assuming Docu was not an admin and have apologised to him/her for that. Docu, never answered my question when I asked if he/she was an admin, and they didn't answer that question. nor is there any mention of being an admin on their user page. also I cannot view Special:UserRights/Docu as you mention, on my account. However, my ANI report was not seeking a deletion review, I agree with the decision that the articles survived deletion, however it was no consensus outcome not a keep in my opinion. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Kilcar GAA

Hi, I was just curious as to why you deleted it? This is a record of the team winning a national championship and there was more than one user who chose keep at the discussion. I can't see the consensus as the speedy deletes were early in the discussion when this was not available. --candle•wicke 14:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

A national championship? Gnevin's opinion referred to a "county championship", but that was apparently a typo. I'll undo my closure.  Sandstein  15:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

My opinion (more than an opinion, a source in fact) referred to the team being a top national side in some competition or other and having won at least one other trophy fifteen years previously. But I see you've undone it now, thanks. --candle•wicke 01:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks For Your Response, And Apologies...

I should have thought about the "spam-blocker" on my personal email account.

As a result, I'll change my page preferences so that I can now be reached directly at another address.

Sorry about that!

Wondering About Wiki (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with edit by edit war situations

I understand that arbcom has come down hard on edit warring in the I/P articles, and since I have a hard time counting my reverts anyhow, I am interested in finding a more effective way to edit articles in the I/P area.

The problems are a little complex. For instance, today I made this edit to the Self-hating Jew article (which by its content is very much an I/P article). The sentence I moved is problematic, and needs at minimum to be attributed. User:Rd232 reverted this edit before he got around to replying to me comments on the talk page . The talk page discussion is here . So what do ,I do? Discussion has produced mostly accusations against me, and nothing about correcting a problem in the article. The move to the talk page was reverted. Another edit, attributing the source, was reverted. Is this something that can be taken to WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement? I would be happy to discuss the issue on the talk page, but other editors do not seem open to discussion.

This sentence referring to the term "self-hating Jew"

The term is currently most common in debates over the role of Israel in Jewish identity,where it is used by right-wing Zionists against Jewish critics of Israeli government policy.

In my view, without attributing it to its author, this sentence gives the appearance that WP stands behind the statement, as though it was scientifically established laws of thermodynamics or evolution. I do not think that is responsible editing.

Suggestions of how to deal with an editing impasse, and this is a pretty typical example, would be much appreciated. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll not express an opinion about the merits of the content at issue, but contrary to what you say above, the sentence is attributed to the source "Finlay" with a footnote. Whether it would be desirable to label it more clearly as this man Finlay's opinion, e.g. "According to Finlay ..." (as per your second edit) or to move it around, or to remove it altogether (as per your first edit), is a matter for which editorial consensus must be sought.

I agree that much of the talk page discussion is less than helpful because it addresses your perceived motivations and so forth. In your position, I'd attempt to obtain some outside opinions through WP:3O and continue discussion. A noticeboard report would not be helpful here. The reverts by Rd232 of both of your edits is not edit warring (yet), despite the somewhat contentious tone employed, but normal editorial practice per WP:BRD. Should the change-revert cycle continue, we would enter edit-warring territory, but most edit wars involve two editors, not just one. I advise you to let another editor make whatever change, if any, that you may find consensus for.  Sandstein  04:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)