Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:51, 22 January 2013

Archives

2006-08, 2009-10, 2011-12

2013

Happy New Years! If you're not shitfaced by now, you're doing it wrong. Tarc (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Bit early in the afternoon where I am, but I'll give it a try. Happy New Years to you, too.--Shirt58 (talk) 03:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Better Badges

I would like to say that I also do not think Better Badges should be deleted. It is a very notable institution and the page is very interesting. It should even be enhanced with photos of products. It should not matter if Joly MacFie is the founder of the business and also the only editor, as he is the one who would know the most about the institution. For these reasons I urge that it not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PCrulees (talk • contribs) 23:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but why are you telling me this? I have not seen that deletion discussion until this moment. Tarc (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

ROFL

...at "sparkle vampire". Are you a fan of Cleolinda's? KillerChihuahua 13:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The 15 Minute Movie person? I've read a few, yea. She did a Harry Potter, Prisoner of Azkhaban one that boiled down every Buckbeak scene to one word; OMGWTFHORSEYBIRD. I was in stitches. Tarc (talk) 14:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, she is hilariously witty and brilliant. See My thoughts on Twilight, let me show you them KillerChihuahua 14:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

THe funny part is in the individual book reviews, tho, from the links at the end of the page. KillerChihuahua 14:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Fort Hood terrorist attack

WSS recreated it again, so I sent it to Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 January 20#Fort Hood terrorist attack. NW (Talk) 04:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

]

Tarc, I take it in "good faith" that you are not intentionally misrepresenting WP policies WP:NPOV, WP:DR, & WP:ANI. I replied to your post on Guerillero's Talk page: "Guerillero, on 1/19/2013 on my WP:NPOV Administrator's noticeboard discussion you posted: "I agree that a block is needed here. I suggest that it be an indef one. I see lots of POV pushing here." The WP Administrator's noticeboard indicates: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." WP:CONS indicates: "This page documents an English Misplaced Pages "policy." Therefore, WP is clear & unambiguous re WP:CONS being a "policy." WP:NPOV indicates: "The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other "policies" or guidelines, or "by editors' consensus." Therefore, WP is clear & unambiguous that WP:NPOV is "not" "coequal" with WP:CONS, but "supreme" to it, & that WP:NPOV "cannot" be superseded "by editors' consensus." . Yet volunteer & Admin editors are attempting to do just that. There would be no reason for WP:NPOV to state "by editors' consensus" if this "policy" did "not" supersede WP:CONS. Therefore, please advise if you disagree with WP:NPOV since you arbitrarily blocked my editor grievance. Otherwise, I will post my grievance re you enabling editors refusing to comply with WP:NPOV: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources," on the Administrator's noticeboard. Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 5:07 pm, 20 January 2013, last Sunday (1 day ago) (UTC−6)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/20/2013 You can't wikilawyer your way out of this. For example: The WP Administrator's noticeboard indicates: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." That applies to the person bringing objections not the people replying to threads. Therefore, please advise if you disagree with WP:NPOV since you arbitrarily blocked my editor grievance. Otherwise, I will post my grievance re you enabling editors refusing to comply with WP:NPOV. I suggest you read my favorite summary of NPOV. “ The problem with your analogy is that on a sports team the two ides are equal, in that both take the field with the same opportunities to advance, score, and win. Here, the two sides are not equal. We have a word that is widely used to describe a particular prejudicial belief, and we have a tiny handful of people off to one side who don't like it. WP:NPOV doesn't mean "everyone gets a seat at the table", it means "everyone of significance gets a seat at the table". If you're so fond of analogies...we're at the main Thanksgiving table in the dining room, while you're at the kids' fold-out table next to the kitchen. ” —Tarc (talk) 12:22 pm, 10 December 2012, Monday (1 month, 13 days ago) (UTC−6) You can post to your heart's desire but that doesn't change that you hold a minority opinion and are trying to make it seem equal to the majority opinion. --Guerillero | My Talk 5:33 pm, 20 January 2013, last Sunday (1 day ago) (UTC−6) I thought I was on Guerillero's user page, not Tarc's page. But anyhow, you can't WP:LAW your way out of this by getting on a WP:SOAP soapbox. WP:DR indicates: "This policy describes what to do when you have a dispute with another editor. " Guerillero's user page indicates: "My editing style..." "I change what I am focusing on editing..." Therefore, it looks like Guerillero is an administrator/editor, & I have a dispute with him as an editor. WP:DR indicates: "This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators." "Assistance in resolving disputes → dispute resolution." WP:ANI indicates: "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Misplaced Pages that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Guerillero is a "user". Tarc, I do not see a cite for: "That applies to the person bringing objections not the people replying to threads." Your "favorite summary of NPOV" reminds me of the Thanksgiving turkey: "Turkeys are highly vocal, and 'social tension' within the group can be monitored by the birds’ vocalisations." Tarc, I do not see: "...doesn't mean "everyone gets a seat at the table", it means "everyone of significance gets a seat at the table" on WP:NPOV. Exactly where are those quotes from on WP? Because I did a search on WP & did not find either one. However, I do find: "1 Explanation of the neutral point of view. This page in a nutshell: Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all notable and verifiable points of view." Guerillero, please cite the support for your statement: "ou hold a minority opinion and are trying to make it seem equal to the majority opinion." Because I do not see anywhere where I have not been open to WP:DR "This page in a nutshell: Resolve disputes calmly, through civil discussion and consensus-building on relevant discussion pages." If administrators are unwilling to comply with WP:NPOV, I will be happy to proceed to: WP:DR. "There are several available options to request opinions from editors outside the dispute: other dispute resolution mechanisms include requests for comments, mediation or, after all other methods have been tried, arbitration." Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 3:43 pm, Yesterday (UTC−6)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/21/2013" Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 09:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1//22/2013