Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:17, 1 May 2010

RW AFD

AFDs go for one week. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Tmtoulouse. Flattered you are watching my changes. I was going to switch my vote for the sake of consensus. --TK-CP (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. Have fun. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Please, I have tried to be tolerant, but you own a known vandal site...please don't post here again. Ever. --TK-CP (talk) 02:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

RW/CP

I disagree with most of RationalWiki and with most of Conservapedia, but neither are vandal sites. Clerkenwell TALK PAGE! 06:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I see. Any reason you randomly chose to let me know that, or perhaps your post wasn't random, and thought I might be misinformed and needed your enlightenment? And if so, on what do you base your opinion? --TK-CP (talk) 07:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Trying to put a reasonable middle ground here.Clerkenwell TALK PAGE! 17:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, but on what do you base your claim/opinion that neither wiki is a vandal site? I have not really been involved much with the dispute on the Conservapedia talk page. That seems to be an endless dispute that cannot fairly be resolved. --TK-CP (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've been to both sites and it seems Rational wiki is a place for people to rant about conservatives and Conservapedia a place to rant about liberals, nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheClerksWell (talk • contribs) 21:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The biggest difference is that one of those sites nearly exclusively uses invective and vile personal insults against the other wiki and its editors, while the other never engages in personal insults against the other, nor even mentions it by name. That should tell you something without my getting too specific here at Misplaced Pages which isn't involved with either of the sites. --TK-CP (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia

Hi TK,

Thanks for your message. Your suggestion may work well on other wikis, but the philosophy at Misplaced Pages is to keep the editing as open as possible. Everyone (including CP and RW admins) is strongly encouraged to get involved in writing the article, provided you ensure that everything can be directly and explicitly tied to reliable sources (no blogs or wikis allowed!). If it requires any synthesis on the part of the editor, leave it out of the article.

The concept of senior editors doesn't really exist here, either. For example, admins are given the rather undignified logo of a mop to symbolise that we just have a couple of extra tools to clean up mess. I'd only consider restricting editing if there was blatant edit warring or clear vandalism taking place. This isn't (yet) the case. For now, I'll just try to keep the article talk page clear of anything except solid proposals for content changes or discussions about changes made by others. I'll also remove or hide any comments which solely discuss the behaviour of another editor. Hopefully, that will encourage people to discuss solid suggestions to improve the article and stick to the point. Papa November (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind response, Papa November, it is sincerely appreciated. I doubt there can be any fair resolution to the dispute, given Misplaced Pages's rather byzantine procedures. They seem to me to be designed to accommodate clever "wiki-lawyers" at the expense of NPOV and common sense. It calls to mind nothing less than a rather public political dispute in the U.S., years ago, where it degenerated to parsing what the word "is" meant. This all falls under the umbrella of certain on-going discussions at high levels, I have been told....hopefully they will bear useful fruit! --TK-CP (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, opposing viewpoints frequently meet in wikis. "Neutral" POV and "common sense" are highly subjective and the only solutions are to either favour one viewpoint as a matter of site policy or to let people battle it out. If you choose the former approach, admins need to monitor contributions very carefully. If the number of contributors is large, you have to police the site through very "blunt" use of editing restrictions (massive IP range blocks, night editing restrictions etc) which slows the development of the wiki considerably. If you choose the latter, editors are allowed to run free and the project grows quickly. However, you can end up with long, protracted debates between editors about seemingly trivial points.

Misplaced Pages was founded on the principle of allowing very open editing with minimal intervention by admins, and I doubt that will ever change. You can console yourself with the fact that all of the millions of articles here can be copied freely (under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license) to other wiki projects and edited to suit the viewpoint of the site! Papa November (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

What's up with this? ]. This edit removed most of the content of the WQA. Gerardw (talk) 10:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a section edit that ended up being a full page edit. -- Nx / talk 10:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea, like I said above. From the posting time of Huw, who's post wasn't objectionable to me at all, merely speaking truth about my "newness" here, we both could have clicked edit at the same time. I am not a wiki expert by any means, but I do know such things occasionally happen, and people are fuddled as to why. Since I am an administrator at another wiki, as you could plainly see on my page, the idea that I would be vandalizing another wiki is pretty remote. Not even the Rationalwikian's accuse me of that! :P --TK-CP (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer if you would stop calling us rats, ratwikians and other such derogatory names, at least on wikipedia. Thanks. -- Nx / talk 10:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Nx, I was careless in my language, and didn't intend it as derogatory, especially after you bothered to step-in because you sensed what happened. I have corrected my edit and changed the word to what I really meant it to be. --TK-CP (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Now that you're admitting fault, why don't you retract the false statements you made on Wikiquette about the circumstances of your blocking on RW? 98.226.15.58 (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

98.226.15.58, the circumstances were exactly as I stated they were. Someone posted a purported IM conversation on Rationalwiki. Based upon that I was blocked by the very same administrator almost imediately. I was never asked to verify the conversation or its context, and have been prohibited from even editing my own talk page there to respond. In fact absolutely no one from RW contacted me to ask if the facts were true or as reported. I don't have a real issue if RW wants to ban me, based on my own actions taken on CP in blocking so many of its vandals and disruptors, other than they should just publicly say they don't want me there instead of constantly contriving reasons to block me. Their blocking of me wasn't evidently enough, so they have brought that dispute here and publicly tried to tie my user name with a real-life name through trick and device. --TK-CP (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

When two people are editing at the same time, the second one to commit gets an edit conflict warning and an opportunity to resolve the issue. In any event, while mistakes do happen, replying to the editor who corrected your mistake with the edit summary don't remove other's comments and leave those bullying intact does not strike me as appropriate. Gerardw (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, Gerardw, however that was not the sequence of events that I saw, as already explained. --TK-CP (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Terry, I (Nutty Roux on RationalWiki) am 98.226.15.58, which you know because you've rangeblocked me several times, including after I blocked you on RW for 2 years for stating your intention to sue Trent Toulouse in a chat with me. As you also stated to me in the same conversation that your attorney advised you not to have any contact with any RW editor, it's surprising that you're now carping about not being able to edit your RW talk page. Be that as it may, you well know how to get in touch with any number of other RW bureaucrats other than me, the blocking admin. Nobody contacted you to confirm the authenticity of the chat log because I don't have a history of lying about these kinds of things, while you've publicly defamed other RW editors claiming they forged screenshots, chat logs, emails, etc., in your long-standing beef with RW. That's not even the worst of it. If you want to call me a liar by continuing to say the IM chat log is "purported," just out with it and call me by name. We can have a dialog and any express claim of fraud, forgery, or whatever you wish to make can get addressed. I'd prefer that you just knock this off. Given the nature of my work, you know there's only so much of being called a liar I will tolerate. Nuttish (talk) 00:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

98.226.15.58, maybe it is just me, but I didn't see the part where whoever it was who purported to be "NuttyRoux" on RW agreed to keep our conversation "off the record". Given the fact that if you are indeed who you claim to be, showing that kind of devious disregard for your pledge would indeed be taken seriously by clients and perspective clients as well. Absent someone being served there isn't ever a litigation. Besides that, unless you or another RW official wishes to stipulate that party is in 100% control of RW, any legal action against him wouldn't have violated any rule whatsoever that existed at that time on RW as it isn't an entity that could be sued unless it becomes an LLC, so therefore any block was unwarranted, unsubstantiated and lacking in any legally valid verification. You puff lots of hot air, whoever you are, hiding behind an IP and a fake name. As with all trolls and noted vandal site members, I ask you to refrain from posting to my talk page. --TK-CP (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi TK-CP, can you ask me not to post on your talk page too? Of course, here is some interesting logic: "Since I am an administrator at another wiki, as you could plainly see on my page, the idea that I would be vandalizing another wiki is pretty remote." Quid pro quo and Quad erat demonstrandum. Huw Powell (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

What was that, Huw? Italian? Mine is a bit rusty I am afraid. And after all your pointers, I wouldn't think of demanding you not post here! --TK-CP (talk) 04:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No, that was Latin. TK est fatuus. Clerkenwell TALK PAGE!" Contributions 20:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

LOL...your sarcasm detector must be in need of adjustment, Theclerkswell. ;-) --TK-CP (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)