Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:37, 26 December 2009

Welcome! For new messages please hit the little + sign or "New" up there in the top right, and you'll get your own section. Thanks!

The original welcome message I was sent:

Hello, Tstormcandy, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! ➜Redvers 07:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

→ General note: First archive created as of... when this is signed. Dull cut-and-paste. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

→ !!! For visitors here flustered about edits:

Read below, then create a new section in the upper-right corner of this page and write all you'd like. Deleting and maintaining general control things can be important and the process is what keeps Misplaced Pages from collapsing in on itself within a matter of days (or hours). It's also sometimes not the most fun or glorious thing around for me to patrol and patch up. It's even less fun if something you created was changed or marked for deletion. It's entirely normal. Here are a few things to remember that can help solve the situation:

• No decision at Misplaced Pages is final. There are all sorts of means and methods and things to work on in Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution center. That should cover about 99% of troubles if you read through it a few times. I especially encourage a look over the "See Also" section and the menu under it, as it's a large collection of detailed reasoning behind many of our most fundamental guidelines and policies.
• My actions taken are never intended to be personal: When I'm going through vandalism patrol, civility concerns, incident discussion or other serious matters that can disrupt the encyclopedia, my aim is Justice. That comes first from the template set out by the community here (do note that, technically, we only have 1 rule however), bit also common sense and logic, evidence provided by other users, comments left by users, communications I may have had with other editors about certain situations, etc. There is never one easy answer, but that doesn't mean it's all terribly complicated.
• If any edit I made is confusing: Please let me know. I make mistakes. Everyone does, and hey I might even do it slightly more than average. "Usually" I can catch my mistakes and will quickly rush to revert the error and write a message of apology. You may also wish to run your username through the general Misplaced Pages search to see if you are currently seen at any incident boards which might also explain my edits or other unexpected actions.
• I cannot solve your situation if it will eventually require administrator assistance. Really, I wish I could help people more than I currently can, but we have guidelines for such things and I may need to suggest you take your concerns to an official discussion.
• Communicate! You'd be shocked at what a large percentage of low-level conflict can be averted or resolved through even 1 or 2 talk page messages between users. Really, it's astonishing, in the 80%+ range I'd say. Be proactive and contact a user if you so much as sense trouble brewing and you will likely never see it go farther. Of all actions taken I've taken at time of this writing, even with some controversial issues, I've only been vandalized and absolutely ignored on having a civil discussion with two different editors. Some messages at the top of sections below might look somewhat heated, but I'm always one to accept responsibility for my mistakes and we end up with no worries.

Generic Greeting to Would-Be Message Deliverers

I will attempt to reply to any messages left at my earliest convenience. Messages about Administrator discussion or proposed article deleted generally take priority over any other work. Post about any of my actions you take exception to or are just annoyed/disgusted/frustrated with me over, as well. Really, anything. Follow our civility policies and always make an attempt to assume good faith on initial contact and things generally work out for the better. Best wishes, and I hope you enjoy your time at Misplaced Pages.

Start of latest discussions

All recent topics-- or at least those here since last archiving-- start below.

WP:ANI

You are the subject of a discussion at WP:ANI. Crafty (talk) 05:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not amused by the ANI poster, but thank you for informing me. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

All of us end up with our names on the ANI marquee at some point. It's your time to shine, babe. ;) Crafty (talk) 05:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Rawr. Since this user filed a 3RR complaint against me a week ago which was deemed no violation since I stopped myself at 3 and even said in an edit summary that it was 3 and I'd revert no more; and at vandalism today where it was removed in a record 3 minutes as essentially a hoax, I'm not terribly concerned. Just a waste of time to have to fill out this all. Eh. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, he's raised the matter on my talkpage. I've let him down gently. Crafty (talk) 06:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest you steer clear of him or her for a bit? I suspect the editor is on the path of self destruction on their own. Toddst1 (talk) 06:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Since I've never once contacted the user directly I have no problem with that! The only reason s/he comes up at all is as gigantic flags on my watchlist or Huggle, and I can't openly ignore what might be horrible violations of... whatever. I'm expressing my right to defend myself and then disappearing on the matter forever. Since it's on ANI proper I suppose I'll have to not comment there for a few days just to not have to look at it. My name is semi-common at ANI... I comment at a lot of them. Ooh, even more irony. Thanks for the heads-up. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Care to explain this? Tim Song _II (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Pretty simple; it's exactly what it says it is. It's the removal of unsourced material. Warning? Not terribly funny. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 02:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, more specifically, the note from above needs to be extended down since novelization is mentioned. If that ref were just moved down I'd have no problem. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 03:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You reverted and warned me, when I reverted an unexplained removal of content; note the pointer to the talk page discussion; it's now at Talk:StarCraft/Archive 5#Expansion Pack. Given the comment in the wikitext, I do not see how my revert was in error; much less why I deserve a warning. Tim Song _II (talk) 03:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The warning is what Huggle defaulted to (as the summary says), so I'm not sure what to say about that besides not having any control over it. Pointers to intra-Wiki links cannot be used as sources, see WP:CIRCULAR. Either there's a source there or there isn't and easy to fix. If it's there, add it and clean your talk page. I'll admit that's not what I was desiring it to be, but it was Huggle's call. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 03:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it was a source - I'm saying that there was a consensus, as established by the discussion, to use that text. If you think that consensus is wrong or no longer applicable, you are of course welcome to start a discussion on the talk page, or to follow WP:BRD, which does not involve issuing warnings - of whatever sort - to other good faith editors. Tim Song (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Eh, fair enough. It's never that I doubted the information, I just found it odd given eeeeverything else was neat and tidy. If you haven't reverted it back yet, please do, since there is logic behind it it would appear. Sorry to nag ... Oh, and I see you're already on top of the db-2 template and you caused an edit conflict for me :) ♪ daTheisen(talk) 03:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

About that block...

I just didn't want you to think I'd forgotten all about the issue with that out-of-policy block on the IP the other day...you know how it is, holidays and all. I think, on the balance of it, I'll let you go ahead and handle the AN/I entry if that's what you want to do. You definitely have a point re: the stuff I missed; however, since I already spoke my piece pretty emphatically re: the stuff I -didn't- miss (the length, the perceived COI, etc), not to mention that I refactored his block downward by a pretty substantial margin, it would seem churlish to drag User:Hamster Sandwich to the woodshed as well. I've done my worst; or maybe I'm just in full tryptophan-coma (tryptophan my azz, you ate THREE pieces of pie, woman!--Gladys's conscience speaks). If you think it needs to be brought to a wider audience, though, I'd say go for it. Meanwhile, Happy Thanksgiving! (assuming you're living here in Amurr'ca--I just Happy Thanksgiving'ed a Canadian today, and was quite abashed to discover that those North-living folk apparently throw their feast a month ahead of ours. With that being the case, though, I do wonder how their stores know when to put up the Christmas decorations!)GJC 03:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

There was further discussion with an agreement that Admin would be watched like a hawk. I'm not going to go against an admin consensus single-handed, and anyone else concerned with it has either disappeared or no longer cares. Thus, I'll follow, and I just really really hope that usertalk block isn't used from block start all that often, since right to appeal is part of the process. A full night of harassment last night seems to have cleared my head of everything else related to Wikipediay, and I'm entirely indifferent on this now (apparently). Thanks for the message! ♪ daTheisen(talk) 03:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

db-2

You are welcome to use the experimental template User:Davidwr/db-2 over the next week or so. It's to CSD what Prod-2 is to PROD - basically identical except for the visuals and the categorization. See WT:CSD#Template to get 2nd opinion on marginal A7s and other marginal speedies and User talk:Davidwr/db-2 for more info.

If there's a consensus to do so, I'll move it to Template: space in a week or so. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

YES! At last, simplicity! Okay, a minor victory for all the recent A7 talk. Thank you soooooo much for letting me know. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 03:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hi, thanks for taking the trouble to respond to my ANI post earlier. As is said there, I find it very peculiar that an IP would randomly appear and pick, of all pages, my talk page then disappear. I did wonder myself about your suggestion that it was meant deliberately for me so I checked the IP out and only got more puzzled. The IP is in Herndon, Virginia. I don't know anybody there and, indeed I live in Lincolnshire which makes it all the more baffling. I wonder if you've seen anythign like this before in your experience as a fellow rollbacker? HJMitchell You rang? 20:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If we've exhausted every other option, there is a tiny percentage of vandalism that's honestly random. Like, say this edit I was left once... locates to the UK while I'm in the midwest US. It's the IP's only post, ever, and I hadn't made any controversial edits that day. Misplaced Pages is an odd chunk of text since it slowly comprises a larger and larger percentage of total internet content as it's mirrored and archived thousands of places. Just every once in a blue moon, someone might have searched for something somewhere, wound up randomly somewhere you'd been and they felt the urge all random vandals do?

Ha. I know that's not an answer, but as much as I hate to say it I can't come up with a real answer. Since it was a URL and a follow-up was something that would look like a spam email subject I would say some text field bot, but the Misplaced Pages edit system with diffs and content in the edit boxes constantly changing would make it nearly impossible to design something like that to get the "message" part of the spam in the right spot like this did. One in a million. Score a victory for the mannequin vandal, I think(?). I'm going to add this to my generic offline list of "inexplicable human behavior exhibited at Misplaced Pages" I randomly add things to. For a comparative level of weird, there's an ANI I found in a random archive titled "Edit war issue with List of all-female bands". Seems kind of like arguing that the number 2 does not = 2. Wish I could be of more help, though. A good laugh every now and again isn't so bad. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

NIKEiD

This is in response to the recent article deletion proposition, you made on the article NikeId. (sorry if I'm typing this in the wrong place!) But it's Just to let you know that we're a group of students who have been assigned the task of creating a wikipedia page, we're totally new to wikipedia and have been trying our best to find a topic not already covered on wikipedia to make. We never intended for the page to come across as a blatant advert, and maybe some of our points need to be changed.

We were given a checklist of things we must include in the article- for example demonstrating that we can use italics, which is possibly the reason they seem misplaced. We'll continue working on the page to improve it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by All.watson (talk • contribs) 13:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Datheisen: Given the unusual circumstances, I would recommend taking this to AFD on Monday with the recommendation of "userfy, then delete on a date given by the students." See also: User talk:Grouphcis#Welcome. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I've no problem with that, but I don't know their timeframe and I get the impression it's a short-term project. Otherwise it would be far better to figure out what school was giving out these assignments so it would be listed at WP:SUP. Going to wait to hear back from this user that contacted me and see if any scope is available. The article did already exist before this, however, so it can't just be deleted because its educational purpose was done with. I think. Well it also depends on if it's improved... Okay, I can put an AfD on it as a contingency to have it okay'd as a delete in a week and could non-admin close if that "reason" for delete had disappeared. Well. *scratches head* ... always has to be some challenge... Well, I'm agreeing that an AfD could be a sneaky way to put a timer on this, but direct information would still be easiest. If the incubation process had ever been finalized that would have been a reasonable use in this case... just out of the mainspace. Mark it as yet another odd case it would have helped resolve in advance. Let's see what anyone comes up with the rest of today. Thanks for finding and putting on the group/anon/misc welcome template since I have no idea which that is in Twinkle and I can never find that stuff manually. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking of the AFD as a way to extend the timer from 7 days to a week from Monday. If the PROD remains, the article dies next Friday. I saw your comments on ANI and replied to it, userfication sounds like a good plan. As for the subject matter, I'm not seeing WP:N. As of August of this year, it was a redirect. Prior to that, it was an unreferenced essay on an apparently non-notable topic substantially unchanged from the first edit in September 2008. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said at the current discussion on AN/I, experimenting must be done within our guidelines. But I do not consider the article an advertisement, as I therefore removed the prod tag. The article might or might not stand up at AfD, since it is a major product from a very major company, but it does need some work at present. What it most needs is references that talk about the program and provide substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases. Otherwise, it can probably be merged into the main article for the company. DGG ( talk ) 20:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yikes. I hadn't checked it for messages lately. No objections on PROD gone. Even the few edits since I fell into this fixed a few of the worst areas, and it could well end up with 50 hands behind it if it had to. I'll be blunt and say that yes, I've basically ignored my handful of articles listed for "iffy" the past few days. My head has been wrapped in a sphere of policy pondering far more than checking back on watched items, and each of the past several nights I've run into multi-hour roadblocks of things I for unknown reasons feel really need to be done asap. About the policy on schoolwork though, well for one is there a direct WP:xxx for it? SUP and SCHOOL aren't quite right for the Misplaced Pages end. Should I have originally suggested merge? In hindsight, yes, but it really did look like a direct printout of a promo brochure at the time and was a chopped up copyvio of text elsewhere. After the student's message, I just didn't know what my actions between article discovery and that info could have done to the article. My obnoxious brain jumps in, thinking "It's a COI if I take off the PROD now! Hopefully someone will without my mentioning it". ...You fixed that part at least. And no, I don't think I've earned the right to twist common sense around something like COI or POV yet, being why it comes up. Userfication was all I could think of (which last I knew was being considered reserved for admins in accordance with possible Twinkle additions, being why I go seeking admin view). The fact that it was a 110% AGF matter from a random message also drove me to another opinion.

I seem to always fall the last the step short of making something look work well. If incubation was fully functional I figured that'd have been a fair pick for temp concerns like what were really atrocious formatting and style problems at first then continue as normal If I'd have known it were school project I'd have had a better direction than a PROD. Usually, when I do PROD something, I hope it gets taken off, since it means someone cares about it, can do more with it than I ever could, a chat line is open in advance in case there are problems.

I know there would have been no need for ANI if I'd have had that last piece... I would have know the construction template was more than just a stalling method. At least I've learned what one style of odd edit histories could mean on skeleton articles and it's something else to watch for in CSD'd articles. ...In other words, thank you for closing up an accidental mess that was actually more like a blob leaking a little. If you ever spot my discussion posts, past the odd punctuation a classic trait is a second opinion if I "decide" anything. I don't trust myself to be the "the" in a discussion if that's all there is to go with, not yet, so I always look for a bit more. My confidence has been improving a lot the past few weeks, but this case was way above my head in terms of what knowledge could be dug up in policy/guidelines or in precedents searched for. ...Well, as I've told several of your partners in crime now, hopefully this means there'll be less work for you in the future, and I've yet to actually break anything. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Visaliaguy & sock stuff

That wise "resolved"

That was well handled. Bravo. Of course, I do have a question: how does a "young" (in wikitime) rollbacker have authority to close at ANI? Excuse the presumption of the question, but while I understand that non-admin closes are possible, I would assume that much more experience would be required.

Of course, your action (and rationale) was flawless. So whether you feel like enlightening me, good job! Cheers. And happy holidays. Proofreader77 (talk) 08:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking something like this had to come up at some point. Honestly, I'm mostly amazed I haven't been called out as ignore-worthy in ANI at all. I'd rather it be like this, where I'm not noteworthy of Wikiexistence but can still get done what needs to. I'm glad I found the WikiElf category for that. Since day 1 of editing I see the saaaaaame people talking about slight variations of topics or moving to new projects and just apparently loving the playing field of Misplaced Pages. They can argue on their own time, and all end up blocked eventually... that's not my problem. I don't know any of the involved, I also don't really care what end results of further disputes are. That makes it a lot easier to actually see how stubborn some can be. Not that they'll ever listen.

I guess I've been overexposing myself to the grunt work. If I wanted to research matters to better the human race I'd go to grad school... a tweaked neurological issue results in, well, it's hard to explain. The upshot being I can process logic and discussions all day long and spit out opinion and conclusions to no end, but can't focus for 5 minutes with a blank edit screen in front of me and a topic. I adore Misplaced Pages's generic policy set of "basically almost rules but most anything can bend a little" logic, since it means common sense can wrap around 80% of most confusing issues and give the start of a reasonable answer. 10% winging it in odd cases like the close (where I need a ton more work). The last 10% being why we have massive lists of exceptions to things and why XfD and AN/I/etc exist. It's almost foolproof as a whole... CSD-A7, RfA/tools and rather rampant admin/older user elitism from some are my only real concerns. Along those lines, the dreaded WP:NEWT of the past month drove me mad over A7 since it had a million ethical concerns and policy violations on top of that, and for extra insult the majority of "data collection" was extremely irresponsible admin work. All things bad in one place.

Oh, and insomnia kind of adds time to the day to read archives and the like, so despite 6 weeks of work, time logged in researching probably equates to 6 months for the normal person starting. The reason my edit count is very low for a 6-month perspective would be that I'll write up insanely long single entries like this as 1 edit and proofread it a few times, instead of forming it in 10 pieces and needing to minor fixes on top. It will come back to haunt me eventually, I fear, and it's a reason I don't spend more time on Huggle... paranoia on skewed namespace percentages. Some things just do make no sense. Cheers, and happy holidays as well. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 09:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sometimes known for my paralogic replies ... and so, do not be surprised that my response to your reply is simply this (for now): "miraculous." -- Proofreader77 (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate non-admin closure at ANI

I agree with this comment by Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs). It was inappropriate of you to close a thread at ANI where there were unaddressed issues posed by an admin to that thread. Please refrain from doing this again in the future. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

As I've written on other talk pages, even though there were "issues", the discussion was a million miles off the ANI topic. I'm sure you've seen more than a few ANIs that are told to go elsewhere if the content shifts, same to talk pages to ANI, closers specifically stating a resolve put was put on so that a better location can be selected for it, etc. These things are not new and not uncommon, so I'm not sure why this is particularly different than all of that. You can squabble about this all 'til the end of time, I don't at all care. Just not in the wrong place. The discussion had dug so far down that two users not mentioned in the ANI statement were trying to dig up information from the other about some email. That's no longer ANI. For what it's worth, I did have nothing but good faith that can be seen in my admitting to weakness and entirely admitting that maaaaaybe it'd be a good time to feel good about some agreement before having at it again. I'll do the same as I've said elsewhere-- I can promise that it won't come again to any of you, but I'm entirely confident of what I did and stand by non-admin close policy of accepted when administrator attention is no longer needed and the discussion topic has been lost. I'm not out to censor anyone, or ask anyone to calm down or scold people for "maybe uncivil" things said. You may want to look through diffs, as well... the non-admin resolves happen more than you'd think and they're not permanent or set in stone. Plenty of them at AfD, and those do get archived and saved in a closed form immediately. So yeah, I will again give promise you won't see it again, and I can make a deliberate effort to stay away from any similar matters. Don't really know what else I can try to offer. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 11:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Cirt (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Intervention

Since you did look the recent history of Macedonians (Greeks) do you have anything to say about my request? Thank you. - Sthenel (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the net result of edits for the day was practically zero, which is good. Without edit summaries I have no idea whatsoever what he was trying to accomplish. I've reverted the page back to the one where you corrected syntax; the only changes were those seemingly-pointless fact flags and a butchered disambiguation line text. I have no idea why Toddst1 came down hard on you like that. I'm going to post more on the ANI. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again for your intervention. Is there anything that you ask me to do and I didn't get it? From my point of view, Alex Makedonian wants on the one hand to dispute the existence of the Greek Macedonians and, on the other hand, to point out that they are a group of people with some (disputed and definitely not Macedonian for him) regional identity compared to his argument that the Slav Macedonians are the true descendants and inheritors of the ancient Macedonians. This is typical for some editors coming from the Republic of Macedonia who have come to be punished several times in the past by other administrators, or even few editors who work as suckpuppets and emerge from time to time as different users and push for such claims (see the history of the article if you want). Alex Makedonian falls into both categories, as you can see in his talk page. I'm not really willing to criticize his edits, but the article has most of its major points sourced and uses a variety of foreign sources. Asking for citation about their diaspora when there is a whole section about it with several sources and putting everywhere the word regional to stress what I've told you above is meaningless. - Sthenel (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I say this first-- I know basically zero of the ethnic/political statement on this topic in particular, besides just knowing that the problem is there. It was just really, really obvious and painful to see someone ask for proof of existence, or put so many qualifiers on admitting they may or may not actually exist so an article might be about something but actually they think it should be another topic in that article space? Yea, no. There are a lot of reasons governments don't "recognize" these groups that perhaps other don't know about it. It's more political and matter of economics than it is any country hating them. Originally I just posted over the not-really-a-3RR violation, but finding the rest of this all was just... sigh.

If for whatever reason this drags on, I don't know what else I can say. No offense to the content or details, but it's not my area of interest. However, that makes it a lot easier for me to review. The only way content matters to me is if used outside good faith or not resourced correctly. The only morality I most always follow is Justice. Involved content of today was long-standing since the article was written 3+ years ago with no consensus to change in any way should not be toyed with There's my robot official opinion. An unofficial duck test and palm hitting my face are a lot simpler. Only pitfall on this being I have to tell you I'm not an admin, so it's on whomever stumbles on it next to make an official call. This will likely be a strong warning; I'd give a 1-time final warning on any ethic groups in Europe. I'll speak to any admin who doesn't at least 'have a word', and please try to back away from this for a few days if possible. Just don't violate 3RR and you've done nothing against policy that I can figure. Do let me know if I can somehow help in any way further. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 22:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your help, although you are not interested in this topic. The dispute has its roots to Macedonia naming dispute and the question whether the Slav Macedonians are more Macedonians than the Greek Macedonians. This article is occasionally attacked by users like him, who start edit wars for one or two days and stop after the intervention from an administrator only to return a month later with a different account (or with someone of their "mates") to do again the same. This is not the only article that faces this problem but all Macedonia-related articles, and vice versa from the other side but not to this extent. I admit that my fault is that I always answer with two or three reversions (this is what I do generally with all articles but always starting a discussion) hoping that the other side doesn't want to show an aggresive and pov-pushing behaviour but just make a good-faith or test edit, but I always stop there asking for help considering that possibly I'm wrong too. Btw, if you are interested in football, I have another content dispute, I've asked repeatedly for help, almost nobody has paid attention and the other side is not willing to discuss. - Sthenel (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Camaleones (band)

I've blocked user:Chelo61 for 1 week for disruptive editing and was going to delete Camaleones (band) - recently added refs are blogs - but noticed your hangon and leave it to you. The user created a number of article of rather dubious notability. Materialscientist (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Mhmhm, the irony of someone self-destructing after being extremely generous. User's contribution history is... not encouraging, and this looked like a best effort yet, oddly. I'll look it over but it still all looks like fanfic publications. Thanks for the heads-up. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 02:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD

This is me venting :) ~a (user • talk • contribs) 07:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh please, you can do better, can't you? Ha. Really, when you came and posted, I literally screamed because I'd forgotten that that entire end of the process was cut out like, immediately. I sent out 3 "invitations"-- you, rather dubious editor, and the editor who posted the sizable note about COI/SPA socks/students/whatever on the AfD... and yea, you were accidentally who scurried over. Could easily have been me had I appeared a day earlier. I've been following some WP:PROF discussion and RfAs using that discussion for the past week, so... interesting. Not good if you have to throw around bills to try to justify your existence in an autobiographical article, is it?

Entire process of events-- User blocked for legal threats to Jimbo (not because it was him, but just anything legal in general), 2 vandal new users appear in the past several nights that did nothing but post the same types of things on his talk page, user begs for unblock based on cash handed over, finally gets unblocked (but for the correct reason), and immediately goes back to waving cash around. Jeez. ...And this is why I'm going to have to leave something for the unblocking admin... or Jimbo. Admin = teeth grinding, Jimbo = a laugh. I hope. ...Thanks for tolerating me, really, lol... Cheers~ ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally

...thanks. Peridon (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Astor

As a fairly new editor, I hope to understand categorization better. My original categorization for Astor Court included references to Chinese art, and this was narrowed by another editor. Now you have eliminated the sole remaining reference to Chinese art, or art history at all, which leaves me at a loss as to how to classify the article. The Astor Court is in the Ming style, with a strong design kinship to an existing Ming garden courtyard. It holds and displays Ming Dynasty furniture. Is it really a mistake to include Ming Dynasty Art in its classification? Agreed, it is not itself a Ming Dynasty work but a modern creation; I assume that is the reason for your deletion. Can you suggest alternatives which would capture its art historical role? Also, perhaps you can help me understand if these categorizations are intended to help users find articles (suggesting an inclusive approach) or are supposed to fulfill a purpose that is more scholarly, and definitional, in nature (suggesting that narrowness is a prime virtue). Thank you for your scrutiny of this entry and for taking time to help me learn.Alawa (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Technical matters like mine were for general cleanup, and stemmed from other articles in similar areas being shuffled around by a few dubious persons in the past week. Basically I'd been going backwards to double-check things. Technical matters are, when the right people step in, merely technicalities and a reason to overturn is great! I'll take the word of someone with specialty in an area any day. Actually, it's comforting to know someone was looking after an article in such a way. If it is your opinion that it does suit fittingly as Ming Dynasty art, I wholeheartedly encourage you to reinsert it to that category. Over-categorization is slowly becoming a concern in a lot of of places so I suppose I have an odd view of trying to adjust things if I wander by. Not to say this is a case of that, but it's usually taken very loosely. That category is nicely defined, so no troubles.

When categorizing, my only real requirement is to hope for a mention/listing/suggestion/connection to the category in some way in the article itself. It doesn't even need to have a resource (though welcomed!), I doubt anyone would demand that. A reader needs to at least make a direct connection, especially in a case of drastically different Eastern works in en.Misplaced Pages. By all means place it back in the category if you can work in even a small mention in the text. I hope you can understand that this was just general cleanup work and wasn't any wider damage intended on my part. If there are other matters you're concerned with, go ahead and change them first, as I at least certainly don't expect contact first. 'Tis an open project, after all. I do greatly appreciate your writing me on the issue. Cheers~ ♪ daTheisen(talk) 02:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It took me two tries but the cat is now back. I added a couple more mentions of the period to clarify the point. Thanks again for your helpful insight.Alawa (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Great! I do feel bad for taking up some of your time with this and the last thing I'd want to do is discourage a new editor. Keep up the good work! ♪ daTheisen(talk) 02:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

115........

Its not vandalism coz its a TALK page, nd what i have took aff is hardcore POV for a terrorist.115.252.44.42 (talk) 09:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. It is never acceptable to remove text from any page other than your own userspace, and especially never on talk pages. We do not censor opinions and remove opinions simply because an editor does not agree with them. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 09:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Stcsge.jpg

Err, why should this be deleted under CSD F3? Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

...I left a notice box under it for more info. It's rather indeterminable for source, to say it was from a redirect's redirect back to start but it on en.Misplaced Pages and not commons/media despite saying it went there and... well, it made my head spin. Any source I figure is acceptable so long as it wasn't within Misplaced Pages proper and not verifiable on top. There's also a concern on the talk page of a copyvio/fogery and possible replacement, which is another reason I figure an actual source would be good. Just, a source, even self-made instead of a place it was never from or being moved to, etc. Really, anything at all. ...I apologize, since I knew it'd be confusing as hell which is why I tried to explain with the notice box. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, forgot. I accept any degree of claim of editor stupidity, because, well, yeah. I usually willing to admit my mistakes before I even finish submitting anything. My luck with image tags has been good thusfar but I'm a complete novice from any angle, so I really am sorry for likely head scratching or teeth grinding. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean. I think the right thing to do here is to tag it with "no source". Do you have little tab things at the top of image pages after the watch one that say "csd" "di" and "xfd"? I am not sure if these are standard or something I have in my monobook.js file. (Another "err" there I'm afraid. If it is the monobook it will be the Azathoth thingies at the bottom.) Anyway, if you do, the "di" one has options for "no source" and things like that which will tag the image for not-so-speedy deletion and leave messages in all the right places. If you're less sure you can use the "xfd" one and tick the "possibly unfree" box which submits an entry at WP:PUI. Of course you can do these things manually, but that's a pain in the arse.

Does this make any sense? Probably not... Past time I went to bed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Ha, I'm still with you. I used DI. Well *checks*, and did select no source. I'm like 99% on that. My contributions history says set for CSD. ... No, I'm 100% on it. The diff and page view of it claims it's on unspeedy deletion for no source, which I see is basically PROD for files. Seriously! It's right there! My Twinkle needs to be thwapped on the head, apparently. One would think it can't be a general bug because that has to be used at least some, yes? Since setting it up in my monobook I haven't touched a byte of it though... *dies* ...Well, so long as I didn't break Misplaced Pages I suppose it could have been a lot worse. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot

I didn't quite understand the comment you left at User talk:CBM. Who is the "you" - me or CBM? And what is the "dubious evidence" you are talking about? --Hegvald (talk) 05:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

See below post first, I fail at reading this late.

It was regarding the Bot, not you! Sorry! I just... didn't want to create a new section on top since it seemed silly and would be cluttering a tidy talk page, and it's habit to indent in. If anything would ever, ever be about another user, ever, I'd message them. Actually, I wouldn't accuse anyone of anything directly. Doh. I'm not sure how any particular user would be able to create an automated bot operating log :) ...Actually I haven't checked up on that ANI, but I'm certainly curious. Think I'll do that now. Soooo sorry for any confusion. Mea culpa. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

DOH I even misread that, lol. It'd be to anyone interested in the situation, I suppose. Mostly directly at CBM because of the ANI posting but certainly not a personal message. Anything to make that damn bot behave and stop discouraging me from touching the mainspace, ug. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Kils

Hi, could you please fill me in on this "Norse user alliance group" incident? There's obviously something I'm missing here about the recent actions of that account. Thanks. ˉˉ╦╩ 22:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It's... strange. In apparent relation to the Kils article as a whole and its plethora of SPA-apparent AfD participants, many openly discuss their affiliation as a group of students under the person in question, how they comet to Misplaced Pages to make sure things are voted on and things get included, to make sure all user pages are fine to family photo storage (apparently), etc. The join dates are all quite varied so I'm not really sure how or why the new articles only came around now. The userpage thing is incredibly depressing in and of itself. It doesn't matter to me if a bunch of people with a same unique bit of background have accounts-- that's not the issue-- it's when they publicly state their aim to work together or list a "mission statement" openly of pushing forward the agenda of a particular person/topic where it's not appropriate... even worse, if they meatpuppet or share their accounts. Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kils is where this is ending, it seems. After the incredible inconvenience the situation as a whole has put me through the past week I'm deliberately staying away from any public mentioning of it further and mostly only want to "be sure" that the obvious issues like an image in a signature are corrected. I'm sure other people can handle out the rest of the content as a whole since I figure it's all been discovered by now, and it can be scrutinized properly and hopefully without sock interference.

Sorry I can't be of more help. I'm generally just trying to forget about it. ...I'm not 100% sure why Jehochman has pushed on you. I don't know any of the other editors who have been obviously looking it over, so just as observation I'm not sure how that all started. Perhaps it's good I haven't been reading every last word of everything from everyone. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 22:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Jehochman hasn't pushed on me, just the opposite, and I'm beginning to see that this rabbit hole goes deeper than the last few weeks. ˉˉ╦╩ 22:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Stop marking it as resolved when it clearly is not.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I could just have let the issue move to WQA, however I thought that both the editors would be frustrated by the lack of any real action. Kind regards, Spitfire 07:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not that I particularly like a 'fix' that's basically only a reminder to never have it happen again, but imho without any very specific final-type warnings on either end of things in the past (or especially recently), but I'll try to take good faith as far as at all possible. Short-sided of me? Some, and I openly admitted this it Spitfire. It's also true that ANI is a frightful disaster of a collection of pretty much every other report/discussion board, particular the past few weeks so. I'd forgotten how forked the wording of where-goes-where is, so both quotation of WQA purpose could have been picked from. An admin proper (from MedCom no less) I will completely assume can handle things further. My apologies on this for the both of you (again) and hope it's fixed up soon. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 Speedway Grand Prix Qualification

This article is not aboute 2010 Speedway Grand Prix season (see 2010 Speedway Grand Prix). Article 2010 Speedway Grand Prix Qualification is aboute Qualification to the 2010 season. All Qualification event was held in the 2009 season. Radziński (t) 16:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello I have noticed you attempts to overhaul the 2010 Speedway Grand Prix Qualification article as well and I'm afraid you seem to be making a mess of it. Are confusing this article with 2010 Speedway Grand Prix? Like Radziński says, the qualification article is merely a list of the qualifying rounds which were held in 2009 used to determine 3 of the 16 riders who will take part in the 2010 Speedway Grand Prix. Perhaps I could help with making the original article a bit clearer? (BTW speedway has nothing to do with motocross). Cheers. Barret (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm structuring it for Qualifying. See how I go over the format and have left a section open for tables added for grids to be added per event. The older version of the article included information such as this season's champion, which is 100% inappropriate for an article on Qualifying. This is 100% regarding qualifying procedure and format with specific space left for inclusions. I'm nearly done and you're free to edit further, though it would be rather unproductive to continue reverting to an article for "2010" containing zero 2010 info and nothing but 2009 results. I'm afraid I cannot waiver on this given the very low quality of the article as it was, and again, you should edit further (I'll remove the tag about undergoing revisions when I'm done), but it must relate to 2010 qualifying. no content in the reverted version does, and all of this does. 2010 is not 2009, so that info had to be removed. I've leaving specific space to expand when the season starts. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 16:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Tiger_Woods#Car_accident_and_alleged_affairs

I think there is some confusion about the sourcing regarding his alleged affairs. The claims in the famed National Enquirer story, for example, were reported by the Associated Press, among other major news organizations (The New York Times carried the Reuters' story, for example). Only those reliable sources are used as citations in the article, rather than citing to the tabloids directly, and only to indicate what the tabloids claim. This is the way we did it during the John Edwards affair, as well. The rumors and stories got reported as rumors and stories (which is why that section remains "alleged affairs") because the gossip has been reported in imminently reliable sources. I think this is a good method of dealing with this, but if you disagree, I'm happy to chat with you about it (though I'd suggest the article talk page). Cheers.--Chaser (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, could you please copy your comments at Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Tiger_Woods.2C_again to Talk:Tiger_Woods#Dispute so we can keep everything in the same place. My comment above was not meant to address the reliance on the Boston Herald. As to that issue, I obviously agree with you. Thanks.--Chaser (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Understood. I just wanted to make sure the topic didn't look entirely neglected on BLP/I. I was in the middle of writing up something there anyway :) ....... and Ironic, first popup for a new message came up as I posted a reply to your weight concerns. ...And then EC just now as I posted this. Our A+++ sources stating that another source said something might actually evidence that they consider it entirely false. If it were reliable or verifiable those agencies would have worked on it and given their own version, or stated what the first source said and heavily backed it up. At the very least, it means they can't verity it and thus they can't agree and state it as fact. Mentions like that are rubbish. For claims that absurdly exceptional, this would be funny if it weren't so foul. ...Do forgive my frustration, but BLP things have gotten me fired up since WP:PROF events this past week. We've had way too much tolerance for violations of any and all sorts. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

Hello, Tstormcandy! This is just a note thanking you for participating in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with a total of 93 support !votes, 1 oppose and 3 editors remaining neutral. While frankly overwhelmed by the level of support, I humbly thank the community for the trust it has placed in me, and vow to use the tools judiciously and without malice. KV5 (Talk • Phils)

Conservipedia + "The Report"

Content-related comments ONLY in this section

!!! Seriously.

(lol) I appreciate your message, I think you're completely correct. Although, why did you undo your edit? Did you try preview? :P A8UDI 05:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Text was getting jammed into the blue background box of the piano... over and over. It previewed correctly hitting '+' for new section and did it anyway, and did it in preview when having the entire page edit open. Was trying to figure out what on earth was wrong. On the interview... Normal complaints of Misplaced Pages, but... After mentioning how we "politely" and slowly remove diverging information, he seemed to agree that the truth for an article should eventually be determined in a style similar to a trial jury. That's... more of note? Sounds an awful lot like "consensus" to me. I'm not sure how that's more of note, but it was an odd spot to spot a junction with Misplaced Pages, being totally the inferior in every other way. Possibly useful things:

• Add any new statistics or portions of mission statement to Conservipedia article. Video clip on the Report website would be source.
• Ironic junction mention on the Colbert article.
• The ironic junction of subjects having a notable history with Misplaced Pages placed on Misplaced Pages's history listed to the misc places where "Misplaced Pages in the media" and etc are mentioned.
• 503's at the site might warrant a short bit in the article's "Reception" section
  

Was certainly interesting. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ya. I thought it was odd how he tried to literally interpret the bible into modern life. I was like "huh"!? and Stephen ya know.. and his satire. :).. Idk I just posted that for food for thought tho.

A8UDI 05:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well. He was breaking character, which is really rare. Maybe we'll get lucky and we'll catch him going over his weirdest interviews. The history is just waaaaay too ironic, and you have to wonder if the CP side even understood. I'll be flying through the morning media for any mentions. I mean some producer or writer somewhere has to have gotten a kick out of it. Otherwise... will need to wait for video clips posted as sources. I think 113,000,000 hits to date was mentioned. Oct 2009 for en.Misplaced Pages was... 6.02B (as in billion) . Ooh, a factoid. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

good idea!! A8UDI 06:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

re Kils restrictions

I suggest that perhaps a report to ANI might be in order here, for violation of User:Kils/Restriction. Thoughts? Cirt (talk) 14:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

*Collapses*, It would seem so. For a minute I thought those violations had to go to ArbCom but remembered I was pertty sure that was for community sanctions and that I'm too tired to look after hours of this. Alright, I'll create a new ANI with the larger chunk I typed up earlier. This is depressingly empty and emotionless to "fix" at this point. At to why or how this started as legal threats at Jimbo's article talk 10 days ago, I have no idea. Thanks for the message. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 14:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Cirt (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

hallo from Uwe Kils

I only asked them to vote, no influencing, and I was allowed to make comments on the talk page. No other used my account or tcpip Uwe Kils 14:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Asking anyone in particular to vote is considered Canvassing. Keeping articles is not related to any popularity contest, and Misplaced Pages is not for class reunions. It's the fact that you blatantly ignored terms 3 and 4 of your restrictions where the real problem rests. The fact that it's a chosen list of people you knew means their opinion is assumed. You were forbidden to talk with anyone related to your profession when it came to any Misplaced Pages work or deletion discussion involving you. That's influencing. Even 1 person is 1 too many.

Discussions are also not !votes, and we weren't to be fooled by it. It's simply never acceptable to collect people to speak on your behalf, especially when the article isn't about you as a person. Misplaced Pages doesn't care about your personal life and what you've done. We care about what's been done and only then does someone become notable if they were part of it. I worry you had rather a reverse look at our process from the start. The irony is that the likelihood of your article being deleted was very low, and your zealous need for ownership of it led to repeated disruption cycles to the community.

I'm really curious why this all started with legal threats posted on Jimbo's article talk. Had that not happened you wouldn't have been on watch from likely dozens of editors wondering what was going to happen next. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 17:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 51 supports, 4 opposes, and 3 neutrals.

MrKIA11 (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

thanks

for your support of me on the wp:an thread. I appreciate it and will be taking a break. I really wasn't expecting so much negativity. -tom A8UDI 04:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Hope you get a chance to relax. Actually, now I'm wondering if I can remove the red option out of my own Twinkle. Would have a lot of trouble overall to be gone if there were a forced checkbox to affirm vandalism. Hum. Huggle customization with some AGF templates, too. I'm about 99% sure that one instance of this means it won't happen again. Tan is wise enough to know this as well, but I can understand a firm tone he had to take as the at-large Admin at the case. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll focus more on adding minor details to articles rather than vandal fighting. A8UDI 20:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

About criticisms

As I said at the top of the thread, I do appreciate what happened and why in the case of Kils, and would've endorsed that sanction. This might clarify where my criticism headed - that is, Kils, or the difference between indef or something else, has little to do with it. If my comment still makes no sense or it's too confusing, please ignore this message as I cannot be anymore explicit on details than that - but if it gives some idea, or helps, great. Cheers anyway, Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Lengthy text--

Nono, I apologize... I just don't react well to that whole issue and any rambling goes by in a blur and I was overly harsh with my passive mention of you. I was reading the article per diffs at the time and am confused to death by edits appearing to be nothing but -yellow and +green of the same without a single damn red character changed. I agree entirely that general dicipline follow-through is weak, and I think it stems from the larger issue of none of the content or incident boards having any real identity anymore. Even things like 3RR, AIV and RPP get tossed up on ANI, which is ridiculous given their definitions. Seemingly without exception, the order of all disputes today are: -- Article bickering > Insults > ANI. Split... half going 1 tier above ANI to SPI, RFC/U or anywhere people think "community" sits and nothing more since ArbCom has turned into the Parthenon no one should touch. Other half demand to sit on ANI or AN or swapped around to no end until someone gets blocked. Hell, I have a sock of Kils with 2 of 7 violations already and I don't even know where to report it! I really vaguely remember reading it should go to the closing SPI admin or ArbCom if no semi-quick reply there.

Admins at SPI get entirely shafted by this system because they're the sole line of admin involved in the entire process. Clerk and CU don't automatically have admin rights (I think?) so they may have nothing else to go on. They can solicit more opinions (and I can tell they often do), but some things are at least somewhat time-sensitive, too. That's awful pressure Even a month ago (yikes) those things would only come to ANI after much talk page arguing so that diffs were available, ANI would be a glorified duck test and some twisted test of presenting one's evidence to see if someone actually deemed one step higher to be necessary. ...Oh, and WP:DR? What's that?

... You're a rollbacker as well so you probably feel the same in that some things are just kind of ... off-tilt. Many ANIs go ignored for 12+ hours, leaving me ethically torn to just leave if I see anythings like that, even if it's an obvious POV trap of a topic or something incredibly obvious. If admins are mops, I figure bold rollbackers in WP:namespace are "brooms", trying to sweep off the floor for a polish. If it means more time spend elsewhere for active admins so blocks aren't as common, I don't mind being a stop-gap time measure. Cheers~ ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC) (sorry for being extremely verbose. it's just how I do things)

FYI

This admin has a new baby (their first). That may adjust reaction time. Proofreader77 (talk) 10:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha, no worries. Not like it was high priority mail anyway. Dedication to a jinxed ANI is all the more impressive in that case. I suppose no pain could possibly be worse in comparison... but might want to check about that again in a year or so. Thanks for the heads-up. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarification. (Wife, not him. But read his user page. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Penguin extremists

Thanks for the much-needed injection of humor. --TS 11:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hah, you're welcome. I think my general logic was... climate research? Antarctica is inhabited and one of but a few places that does research all year! What could happen there that wouldn't be depressing? Penguins! Though I admit it's been done before, if you want to get extra picky. You just know that the "tyrant" in command of Westarctica has WMD sitting around somewhere and has been waiting for the correct moment to send in the Penguins to rout the scientists away. My prediction is that the US would find a way to get involved in an occupation for a decade despite the continent not being populated and no US land claim there. My money is on the penguins.

Compared to the odd torment I seem to enjoy posting at ANI in my spare time, it was actually nice to remember that some people have a sense of humor yet, ha. Cheers~ ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Please remove your hangon tag

The page is not an archive, it was not moved there, and was used exclusively by socks to attack others, socks that are now blocked indefinitely.— Dædαlus 02:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Consider it done. If the puppet investigation is over, I can go with the CSD since any stretch of technical phrasing is gone. Sorry about this, but wanted to keep all evidence open if cases weren't yet closed. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 02:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record, it's not that I'm disagreeing that action needs to be taken on the user's userspace articles. Just objective consistency about investigations evidence until they are resolved. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 02:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

For clarification, I'm not an admin, if it at all matters.— Dædαlus 02:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

And thanks for removing it. I deemed it wasn't an archive as, if you check the page history, you can see that it was not moved there from any other page. Also, if you check the page it is attached to, you will see that the user asked others to add proof that wikipedia is biased. This is not the purpose of the user space.— Dædαlus 02:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The material has clearly been moved there from other pages - so it is an archive. No proper process for puppet investigations has ever been followed. The so called "socks" are a husband and wife, each using their own single accounts. This accusation of socks has come up before. Here are the discussions which led to a rapid indef blocking of both their accounts - even though they didn't edit the same pages and neither one has had a 3RR or block in the past year. The discussions to block these users involve William Connolley who is referenced in the articles and postings concerned from WP:RS CBSNEWS. So he is clearly WP:COI to be encouraging this indef blocking. Proper procedure has not been followed at all. Please investigate and ensure proper process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.3.167 (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Erm, it was gone 2+ full days ago, and I have no idea what's happened to the situation since. I think it was there for all of a half hour? You'll see I'd gotten this message above and had fixed it in <5 minutes, and even if I disliked the request I dislike the WP:WW even below admin levels. It was as a matter of technical process, looking over or to see if it was mentioned at other noticeboards. I saw the mentions on this and had no problem taking it off. I never said I found it to be saintly or anything, and I'd been miffed for an hour about the "quotations" page especially after none seemed to have ever existed. Oh jeez, you just reminded me that I ran a wikistalk run to compare contributions of 4-5 usernames suspicious of edits in certain places with styles or convenient dating. Part of my check was no SPI cases, so then I figured I'd start one given that some of the user subpages were copy-pasted from elsewhere. Suppose I should go back to that. That's at least something of a reminder. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 22:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: ANI-comment

Sorry for the delay in responding. Part of it was because of Real Life(tm) chores -- like assembling some Ikea furniture for my wife -- & part of it was because I needed to think through my response.

• If you think AN/I is a catch-all for all kinds of incidents now, it was much worse even a year ago. And it doesn't help that every kook who gets the door closed on them comes either there to complain that they've been wronged, or to User talk:Jimbo Wales.
• You may want to branch out from the Misplaced Pages namespace -- even if to simply do wikignoming. As another long-time Wikipedian once put it, WP:AN/I it where one goes to see a series of autowrecks. And most of the cases that reach WP:AN/I have gotten to the point where there are no simple solution; it's the last stop for disputes before they come before the ArbCom.
• If you can't stay away from the Misplaced Pages namespace, you may want to study the contributions of a guy by the name of GTBacchus (talk · contribs). I've met him face-to-face: he's a nice, patient guy who specializes in trying to mediate disputes, & has a certain measure of success with it.
• Don't think you haven't been noticed. I noticed you: I honestly thought you were an admin until I took a look at your edit history & user permissions.
• And lastly, yes a lot of effort put into WP:AN/I doesn't get rewarded, let alone appreciated. But it's not only at AN/I; a lot of contributions to Misplaced Pages -- good & important ones -- don't get the attention they deserve, & it costs the project in attrition of good people. If you let it get to you, you'll eventually grow bitter, burnout, & do stupid things like what happened in that WP:AN/I thread. That's not a fun way to end one's career here. -- llywrch (talk) 06:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to chime in here as I saw your comment to llywrch. I actually started WP:AN (not ANI, but I was strongly supportive). I totally agree with him - it might be worthwhile doing some Wikignoming - it's enjoyable and far more productive than arguing on ANI. Certainly it's less stressful! Plus it contributes to Misplaced Pages as an encyclopedia :-) Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 10:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Golden idols

Hello Datheisen. I saw your comment at ANI, which wikilinked this phrase. Our article on that topic seems to have no appropriate sense. What did you have in mind? EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Forgot about disambiguation! I would never in a million years thought it'd be pulled apart so much with the heavy historical meaning among them. I meant it in a biblical sense or "Indiana Jones Style"; stemming from the ten commandmends that one should not worship false idols (even if they look pretty) I believe they had cows made of solid gold. Meant to agree in general consensus with many opinions being expressed that it's quite inappropriate to push an agenda with two "idols" like that on Misplaced Pages (or anywhere). I AGF on the editor insisting upon that point, but it's not a good position to put innocent children in, regardless. I'm apt to some hyperbole to express a wider concept on a "big picture" scale as a conversation stales or gets repetitious and like the thought of readers saying "Oooooh" to themselves at the comparison instead of groaning constantly at an ANI. One argument mentioned at some point in the conversation was "it's just that she has 2 kids", and that it looked harmless to someone be it readers or editors means nothing and any sort of BLP, defamation or controversial matters and has to be taken as seriously as, say, the mess that has been BLP as of late, which is the only reason how it tied in there. ...I just really didn't want to think of how many cases like that there are sitting around. Any person or thing being sold off as defining a controversial topic? Idol, or "posterchild" or internet fab would be what we have today. From an outside view, it's a harmless inclusion that could easily have "fallen through" patrols had it not been so astutely noticed. ...As for the debate after that point, I'm not going to touch it.

You'll see I made a total fool out of myself trying a defined "walk away" and pretty basic civility reminders, but it was shooting myself in the foot. It became clear no consensus was going to form within that thread and it could be taken to more appropriate forums... or from the ANI perspective I'd rather the direct confrontation stop.Usually a mention of "next time would either of you feel silly if you ended up with any kind of block over ((whatever))?" works fairly well... or at the very least, I find those I've found a few at RfC instead of more ANIs or blocks in logs since I usually check on persons I was worried about in the few days following any ANI. I'm too ashamed to see what happened in this case after the apparently-ridiculous "just leave on equal terms" idea. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 22:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the ANI discussion I removed

I had removed the section I created because no one responded to it, but I guess I could keep it a bit longer and see if anybody wants to make a response. Momo san 06:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

If left for however long, it will automatically fall through on its own, though I'm not sure if it'll clear it out if there are no responses-- it clears itself from the page. If you get no replies it might be a case that persons don't consider it right to be at ANI. I haven't looked in detail and I can't help all that much, and I figured something like this was the case and why I'd never in a million years call it anything but a good faith action. You might want it left there anyway, since in the future you could point to it as saying you reported an ANI but had no reply. You can also add a reply within your own thread at the 24hr-or-so window before a bot comes through for possible cleanup. Sorry about this, but I'm not particularly sure it'd look good in the log if anything from the ANI log was removed, even with this perfectly reasonable rationale. Sorry =\ ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

A musical note before Christmas :-)

Just stopping by to wave ... my brain is way too fried to skim your beautiful long stretches of sense for an inspiration to comment ... so I'll just note you "music note" signature grace note.

I hadn't thought about it before, but perhaps I should be imagine your messages as being sung. (Smiling but not kidding.) Many happy arias to come. Cheers, miraculous one. (PS, I've upgraded my user and talk pages ... if you skim the top, you'll see a "musical" link - Take a listen, and let me know if you like that song... if you feel like wasting a moment or two.) Proofreader77 (talk) 10:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hi Datheisen, appreciate your comments on ANI, it's actually very complicated to figure out, there is alot of discussion on the talk page, and the article should remain stable until things are decided on there. Reading through it should enable you to figure out what the various editors' positions are, which should help with understanding any edits that were made before. Regards. Izzedine 09:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It's all... a giant mess, that much I can tell. The sources listed in the ANI? I'm not going to deny that's about the most high-quality sources you could ever come up with. Since those are of such quality, "in theory" they should get a good deal of weight in an article discussion, which is kind of what I was assuming. ANI is for sorting out procedural matters and policy violations, and hopefully none of this has to go into that in the future. No one wants to be blocked over things like this and that's usually something I can get most people to agree to... thus I had to call the oddities in behaviour as reported and general stubbornness by everyone involved-- period. Content disputes aren't for ANI so that's all I can suggest there. I know virtually every topic out of the middle east/southwest asia/ancient iraq/iraq/whatever you want to call it can be heated, but remember that Misplaced Pages has no time limit and if you have the position with sources and weight to back yourself up, things will start to turn. In 90% of these cases someone slips up heavily on civility and does something blatantly out of line, or up and violate 3RR, or expose by mistake they have a sock, etc., which kind of makes all of the discussion before then moot. If you aren't that person, then you don't have anything to worry about, and that good faith will be noticed in case there's later dispute resolution.

I certainly hope I don't find a list of the lot of you on any large disputes in the future! imo there is some middle ground with some rewording or additions that point of different definitions, perhaps. If anyone involved on the page is going to simply demand one view or one narrowed opinion only, it'll never get anywhere. Good luck. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)