Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:58, 28 February 2011

24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Hey

Please stop sending me stuff about my pages i created, I'm not done with them yet. for example, dont put anymore stuff about fixing the Hanashiro Chomo page because I'm still working on it.

Obama lede

Re:

Help me, help you, help me

Goa mix

You mean the Goa Mix?  :) Click the email me link and I'll be glad to help. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Queen WikiProject

Hello, I've seen you around editing some of Queen's articles. Would you consider becoming a member of Queen WikiProject, a collaborative effort which works to improve the coverage of Queen related articles on Misplaced Pages? If you're interested, join us!

talkback

Glenn Beck article

You seem to be trying to start a fight with me. I have not spoken to you and I have not held anything against you, so please cut the condescending remarks you are making to me.AerobicFox (talk) 06:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Aerobic, you are the one who is fighting for the sake of fighting. Each time we give you a valid source, a valid argument, etc you strike back with an oblique interpretation or a semantic argument. BlennGeck (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Look at the time stamps, you are responding 10 days late to something completely unrelated...AerobicFox (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

PROD of Ernie the Giant Chicken

Hi,

I removed the PROD tag you placed on Ernie the Giant Chicken, as a previous version of that article had an AFD discussion, which makes the article ineligible for deletion by PROD. If you think that the article does not address the concerns of the previous AFD and is substantially the same as the one deleted after the AFD, you can nominate it for speedy deletion under criterion G4. If you think the article may be substantially different than the one deleted in that discussion, but still think it should be deleted, then you would need to start a new AFD discussion about it. Calathan (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You are missing steps in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ernie the Giant Chicken, Please see Misplaced Pages:Afd#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion for instructions. CTJF83 16:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to give him time to edit. It takes a few minutes to go through all the steps to create an AFD (if you are doing it manually). Calathan (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, ya, I haven't done that in a while...Soxwon, if you install WP:TW, it makes AfD and a lot of other stuff a lot easier. :) CTJF83 16:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, cool, 'tis no problem. CTJF83 21:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Soxwon, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Soxwon. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Beckapalooza

Hi Soxwon. Thank you for your invitation, however I think I'm going to abstain for the moment. While I agree with you and the new fellow, in that criticism and coverage is widespread and germane, I simply don't believe that all the participants are there in good faith (and therefore, arguing with them will not result in meaningful progress). I've been dealing with those sorts for years, and I've kindof given up the ghost on this article. There are simply too many True Believes -- some in plain sight, some not -- to have substantive policy discussions about the issues at hand. I'm sorry to let you down, as I feel this is an opportunity for us to work together for a change, but I've pretty much given up on that article (and several others). If things settle down into a little more structured forum I'll surely jump in, but it's devolved so much that it's hard to find an entry point and the opposition seems hell bent to ignore or invent policies to suit them. I guess I've lost the will to argue with people who ignore policy or apply it in bad faith. Just wanted to explain, so it doesn't look like I'm ignoring you. Thanks again! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This may be petty to bring up here, but said "new fellow" has been around the Glenn Beck article for about a year as an IP, looking up people's edit histories and calling them partisan and editing people's posts.AerobicFox (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Holy fuck. LynnCityofsin was your previous account, not just someone whose post you were editing.AerobicFox (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Blaxthos, is there anything that can be done about this. It really seems like true believers have the discussion page stacked. I have to believe that is some kind of violation of wiki guidelines. I find myself going gray because as soon as I satisfy an editor's criticism or concern he/she mystifies me with a complete misreading of the source material or semantic attempts to invert the source material's meaning. I would like to contribute to the article. And I don't have anything against Beck personally (I actually have a great deal of admiration for what he has done on Fox). But it makes no sense to exclude major controversies from a person's bio page, when the subject traffics in controversy. BlennGeck (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow. BlennGeck (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

McGlockin

Not to pour gas on the fire, but I just deleted an "article" that amounted to some kind of vandal report entitled Soxwon. User warned, I'll keep an eye on them. Acroterion _(talk) 21:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

On a closer review of their contributions, it looked like a better idea to call a time-out. They can read policy while blocked. Acroterion _(talk) 22:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Words

I'm leaving editing political articles for now since I seem to get stir up arguments in them. I actually do think well of you, and I am sorry for making myself difficult to work with. I hope you can accept my apology for starting unnecessary arguments.AerobicFox (talk) 04:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yankees pics

Sure, go ahead and scan some of them, and I'll give it a shot. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to do anything with this yet? :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. No rush. P.S. Spring cannot come soon enough. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

edit warring at TalkSeptember 11 attacks

Template:September 11 arbcom Beeblebrox (talk) 03:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)