| Revision as of 17:02, 13 March 2009 editN-HH (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers10,142 edits →Note← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 03:43, 20 November 2018 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,305,781 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:N-HH/Archive 7) (bot | ||
| (778 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 75K | |maxarchivesize = 75K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 7 | ||
| |algo = old( |
|algo = old(14d) | ||
| |archive = User talk: |
|archive = User talk:N-HH/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{archives|auto=yes}} | {{archives|auto=yes}} | ||
| ==Notification== | |||
| == ] regarding ] vs. ] == | |||
| ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. | |||
| == Another Daily Mail RfC == | |||
| I have started a ] regarding the use of northern/southern ] vs. ] and ]. Since you have been involved in this debate, I have included you in the request. | |||
| There is an RfC at ]. Your input would be most helpful. --] (]) 12:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| Cheers, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']''' - 25.02.2009 09:32</small> | |||
| == Soapbox Sam and HenryGarden1000 == | |||
| :OK. I've slipped out of semi-retirement to drop a couple of paragraphs in. I suspect it'll be shunted off to another forum by the look of it as things stand now, but at least the flag has been raised as it were. Maybe we can still get something in place on naming conventions which will stick (and which should probably cover other related issues, eg "settlement" vs "city", "occupuied" vs "disputed" etc). Hopefully we - and this "encyclopedia" - will get more out of that process than yet more aggravation and obfuscation, which then ends up with a false compromise where every term, however obscure, POV or flat-out inaccurate is given equivalence and prominence. Here's hoping ... --] (]) 17:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Because you posted on the talk pages of both of these editors, and queried whether they were the same person, I'm sending you to an SPI I just opened about them. ] (]) 05:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
| An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located ]. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, ]. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ]. | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
| The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. | |||
| On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ] (]) 04:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd notice --> ] (]) 08:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for the note, not sure yet if I will add anything to my original comments, I've spent enough time bogged down in this one and getting hacked off occasionally as it is. Hopefully though this will help lead to a way forward that will deal with the edit warring - from all sides - and aggravation that is being caused; and at the same time maintain a (genuinely) neutral pov and the standard terminology, while noting, where appropriate and in the right place, the existence of secondary terms. --] (]) 19:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :This is literally everything that's wrong with Misplaced Pages in one example from one editor: opening a deletion page for one of the oldest and best-known wineries in Spain, with a 150-year history, while to argue *against* deleting a pointless, partisan gossip page about an ephemeral political "controversy" based ultimately on one Daily Mail report misrepresenting a one-off event five years after everyone else had long since forgotten about it. Absolute fuckwittery and pathetic and transparent political point-scoring at the same time. <small>'''] ]/]'''</small> 22:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == ArbCom 2018 election voter message == | |||
| Hi Nickhh, | |||
| {{Ivmbox|Hello, N-HH. Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| sorry for putting off replying to until now. I intended to buy a round of wiki-beer when this dispute was over and done with, which indeed seemed within reach in early January, but the weeks went by. Now, I have a good feeling about this ArbCom case — the source evaluation part is an open-and-shut case, and as to the behavior issue, our opponents are almost all too eager to provide lucid illustrations, in real time. Wonder what Jayjg is up to, and just how willing his mighty friends are to shelter him this time. It's beginning to for him. ] (]) 23:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| PS: More editors than I were shocked when you went redlinked all of a sudden. It was a great relief to see you back. | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. ] (]) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :Cheers. My intention is still to keep a distance from I-P and other contentious articles, since as we all know trying to make even minor corrections so that they read properly and accurately, as an objective and neutral record of the facts and the international consensus, is enough to get you into 20,000 word talk page debates, edit wars and accusations of stalking, being part of a "pro-Palestinian crowd" etc. In real life as well as here I'm kind of placid and patient most of the time, and willing to argue through points ad nauseam, in a perhaps naive bid to show others how wrong they are getting something - but only up to a point, and I think I briefly reached my limit recently. However I'm willing to try and help see this one through to some kind of conclusion, and then go back to occasionally tidying up the worst of any bad writing, bad content or flat out random editorialising that I spot in pages here (across any topic that happens to interest me). I have to say I'm slightly wary of the risk of turning this into a "get Jayjg" exercise, but at the same time I hope it will at least highlight the stonewalling, selective quoting of our lovely guidelines and system-gaming that goes on in a bid to defend the indefensible, however trivial and relatively minor the point in question might seem, while at the same time resolving the underlying issue. --] (]) 14:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| |Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}} | |||
| :::Well, gentlemen, you're optimists. Nothing there so far documents what most of us would acknowledge as the truth, that Jayjg wages wars of attrition on a number of these pages, against the bulk of evidence, by wikilawyering. That is obvious to any reader of the relevant threads. But threads are rarely read. Diffs are examined for violations of ], ], etc. Though he never seems to assume good faith (i.e., assume that when several editors oppose you with substantial work on documentation, there may be a bushel of light under their arses), you cannot document it. Like it or not, he will not be touched by this, and indeed is sufficiently (and justifiably) confident simply to ignore the case, which will perhaps end in a few warnings to MM, G-Dett. Personally, I don't care to 'get' Jayjg. I just wish someone with a creative temperament could come forth with some ruling that would enable us to edit I/P pages without this collective ] stonewalling, led of course by Jayjg. But that is improbable. In the meantime, we have lost very good, book-reading editors, ], ], ], while some of them have been elected to administration. That's the lie of the land.Don't be discouraged by the negative result.] (]) 15:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018/Coordination/MMS/08&oldid=866998273 --> | |||
| == Note == | |||
| Heyo Nickhh,<br> | |||
| I've noticed you've posted some notes at the ] page but, I'm thinking that you need to either present the signature at each section or just leave the section unsigned as it's title clearly states these to be your proposals.<br> | |||
| Happy Purim, <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 09:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :You may for once be right about something .. (these kind of things are never that clear) --] (]) 17:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 03:43, 20 November 2018
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Notification
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Another Daily Mail RfC
There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Soapbox Sam and HenryGarden1000
Because you posted on the talk pages of both of these editors, and queried whether they were the same person, I'm sending you this link to an SPI I just opened about them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Bodegas Marqués de Murrieta for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bodegas Marqués de Murrieta is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bodegas Marqués de Murrieta until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Icewhiz (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- This is literally everything that's wrong with Misplaced Pages in one example from one editor: opening a deletion page for one of the oldest and best-known wineries in Spain, with a 150-year history, while diving in to argue *against* deleting a pointless, partisan gossip page about an ephemeral political "controversy" based ultimately on one Daily Mail report misrepresenting a one-off event five years after everyone else had long since forgotten about it. Absolute fuckwittery and pathetic and transparent political point-scoring at the same time. N-HH talk/edits 22:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, N-HH. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)