Misplaced Pages

User talk:Pixelface: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:49, 29 April 2009 editGavin.collins (talk | contribs)18,503 edits Please be civil← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:04, 6 March 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(72 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Not around|3=August 3, 2009}}
{{Archive box|]<br>]<br>]}}


{{Archive box|]<br>]<br>]}}
== Your question ==



I'm not ignoring you; I'm just working through the questions in order. I hope to reply today but I have a stinking cold, which has been getting steadily worse over the weekend, and it's cramping my style somewhat. Apologies, --]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 09:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

:Oh, no problem at all. I understand. Take your time. I'm actually delighted by your message. Thank you very much for answering my first questions. I was a bit worried I hadn't asked my additional questions in time. I hope you get well soon. Regards, --] (]) 10:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

== Good questions ==

Hi Pixelface, I wanted you to know that I have read your questions and have every intention of answering them; however, I probably won't get through them all tonight and will continue with them tomorrow. I figure you're not too late at all as long as the candidacy is live. :-) ] (]) 05:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

:Thank you very much. I really appreciate you taking the time to read my questions. Feel free to answer as many of the questions whenever you'd like ( as long as voting is still open :) ). Thank you for your message. --] (]) 06:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

== Questions ==

I must've missed your questions the first time around, because I just now answered them . I apologize for the delay! --] (]) 23:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

:No apology necessary. Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. --] (]) 14:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

== Arbcom questions ==

Hey there.

Just a quick note to tell you that I have answered on my candidacy Q&A page. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 03:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

:Thank you very much. I really appreciate it. --] (]) 14:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

== Fiction sister project ==

I think we feel similarly about fiction and wikia. Maybe we can get a fiction sister project rolling somehow? I've made comments at ] a couple of times, which has led to nothing. Any ideas? - ] (]) (]) 06:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

:First off, I apologize if I my reply is too long. I'm not totally against the idea of a fiction sister project, but I think that right now, it would only encourage the removal of ''more'' fiction content from Misplaced Pages. Fiction has a rightful place in an encyclopedia. If people keep deleting fiction content from Misplaced Pages, or if a fiction sister project is started, the result is the same &mdash; Wikia's revenue goes up.

:I really have mixed feelings about Wikia. On the one hand, I think there's a lot of great stuff there. I like reading the site. I don't really mind seeing banner ads, most websites have them. If something is deleted from Misplaced Pages, you can usually find it on Wikia. On the other hand, ''if something is deleted from Misplaced Pages, you can usually find it on Wikia''. If an article appears on Misplaced Pages and Wikia, deleting the article from Misplaced Pages has the direct result of increasing the Wikia article's PageRank on Google, increasing pageviews at Wikia, and increasing Wikia's revenue. Actively removing fiction content from Misplaced Pages is good for Wikia's bottom line. It benefits the people who profit off those banner ads, and does nothing to benefit the readers of Misplaced Pages.

:For example, Yahoo! recently said in a that Naruto Uzumaki (a character TTN is interested in) is the most popular fictional character on the web based on searches performed using their search engine. And they linked to Wikia. Shouldn't it be a link to Misplaced Pages? A Google search for Naruto Uzumaki shows: #1 the WP article for Naruto Uzumaki, #2 the WP article for Naruto, #3 the Wikia article for Naruto Uzumaki. If Misplaced Pages had no article on Naruto Uzumaki, websurfers would be more likely to end up at the Wikia article for Naruto Uzumaki. If Naruto Uzumaki *and* Naruto were deleted from Misplaced Pages (or moved to a free, fiction sister project), Wikia would be the #1 Google hit. Wikia underwent a change in June to have more ads, more prominent ads, and ads based on viewcount. If Naruto Uzumaki was moved to a sister project, it would still be much, much lower in search engine results.

:In June 2008, ], the CEO of ], posted an email on the wikia-l mailing list explaining some changes to Wikia. In July 2008, Seth Finkelstein wrote an article that appeared in ''The Guardian'' and referred to the email, saying the changes would include "more advertising and for the ads to be more prominent." Finkelstein linked to an email on the wikia-l mailing list by Wikia's Community Development Manager Danny Horn, who wrote "We have to change things in order to make Wikia financially stable." Finkelstein wrote "He went on to explain that ads paying based on view count were needed. And that type of advertiser wants their ad to be displayed where viewers are sure to see it, such as within an article, near the top." In October 2008, ] released a statement (according to Alana Semuels, a blogger for the ''LA Times'') saying "as part of a reorganization, Wikia recently let go less than 10% of its salaried employees and is actively hiring in sales and marketing." Semuels also said Wikia "hasn't received funding since December of 2006." In October 2008, Kirkburn, a Staff member at Wikia who said he has worked at Wikia for about a year, announced that Wikia was planning to move WowWiki to a subdomain of wikia.com in order to improve Wikia's US comScore unique visitors statistic which would give Wikia "more pulling power in terms of ads", meaning, "better paying" ads. These actions appear to have been made to increase Wikia's revenue. It's feasible that Wikia employees/shareholders/editors could use Misplaced Pages for stealth marketing by plugging Wikia on Misplaced Pages talk pages. It's also feasible that Wikia employees/shareholders/editors could increase page views at Wikia, increase Wikia's revenue, and increase Wikia's ] on Google by arguing to delete articles from Misplaced Pages that appear on Wikia (or could appear on Wikia).

:I've suggested Wikia myself as an alternative place for stuff in past AFDs. I argued to keep ] in April . But Wikia is quickly turning from an alternative source of information, to a blatant substitute. It shouldn't be a substitute. The situation has transformed from "you can learn more about so-and-so fictional character at Wikia after you've read the article on Misplaced Pages" to "if you want to learn ''anything'' about so-and-so fictional character go to Wikia." It's wrong. A Wikia employee could spend all their time deleting fiction content off Misplaced Pages, and they'd be doing search engine optimization for Wikia. A useful idiot could spend all their time deleting fiction content off Misplaced Pages, and they'd be doing search engine optimization...for Wikia.

:] has mentioned Wikia for over 18 months. ] mentioned Wikia from August 2007 to March 2008. ] has ''always'' plugged Wookieepedia since it was created in March 2006. The ] had tons of Wikia mentions. ] had tons of Wikia mentions. AFDs for fiction content have tons of Wikia mentions. '''The endorsements need to stop'''. Right now I would just really like to remove any mention of Wikia from any Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Even talking about the site creates buzz for it. You could say that Misplaced Pages already has a fiction sister project &mdash; the bad news is that it's a for-profit website founded by Jimbo Wales and Angela Beesley.

:I don't think all fiction content belongs at Misplaced Pages. I can understand not allowing articles on Misplaced Pages for every fictional car/enemy/character/location/item/etc...in every videogame/book/film/TV show etc. That's one reason why I wrote ]. But when I a note about the survey to {{tl|fiction notice}} so people could edit it before presenting it to the community, Collectonian removed it. I added a note again the next week, and Collectonian removed it. I added a note again, and Collectonian removed it. When Phil Sandifer unprotected ] and moved his ] over to ] and a note about it to {{tl|fiction notice}}, no reverts. To say it's a little bit frustrating is an understatement.

:One idea is creating ] and trying to write some policy on how to deal with the site. Although I see that page already exists as a disambiguation page.

:We shouldn't have to have a sister project for fiction. Over 28% of the articles on Misplaced Pages fall under ]. Fiction has a rightful place in an encyclopedia and therefore a rightful place on Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 06:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks for the detailed reply. I will read it tomorrow morning and respond. - ] (]) (]) 06:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
:::I mean an ad free wikimedia sister project like wiktionary or commons, not a fiction section at wikia. It might put wikia out of business, so Jimbo might veto it if enough people agreed we should create one. It would allow us to link within articles instead of at external links. It may depend on the freeness of plot summaries. I think they're free, but Masem sometimes says they aren't. - ] (]) (]) 18:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
::::Yes, that's what I thought you were talking about, a sister project like wiktionary or commons. I suppose something like that ''could'' put Wikia out of business, I hadn't thought of that. But that's not something I'm hoping for. And I kind of like Misplaced Pages being one big tent. I'm a little against creating splinter projects for different subject areas. But maybe a sister project should be seriously considered. Oh, and Masem doesn't know what he's talking about. I know, because last year I was arguing the same thing, about plot summaries being derivative works, etc &mdash; and I turned out to be wrong. People can summarize copyrighted works in their own words. --] (]) 03:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

== WP:PLOT ==

I just checked and it says exactly what I expected it to say. My recent edits have been removing overly detailed plot and original research. You may also be interested to know that I supported the transwiki and deletion of several Xiaolin Showdown articles. I am a bureaucrat at the Xiaolin Showdown Wiki at Wikia. Misplaced Pages was not the place for most of those articles, and possibly the remainder. ] (]) 22:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

:Well that concerns me, that you're a bureacrat at the Xiaolin Showdown Wiki at Wikia and you supported the transwiki and deletion of several Xiaolin Showdown articles from Misplaced Pages. I suppose you're referring to ]? Which came first? Were you a bureacrat at the Xiaolin Showdown Wiki before or after that AFD? --] (]) 04:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
::After, that's why I called for deletion not transwiki. I became a bureaucrat before the character deletions, but that AFD was started by another user, I just added "transwiki" to the list of options there, although I wasn't actually able to get those articles. There is absolutely no issue with sending content to Wikia if the histories are properly imported, or proper attribution is given in some other method. ] (]) 07:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

== ANI over your WP:WAF/WP:NOT edits ==

Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. {{#if:|The discussion is about the topic ].}} <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. --] 07:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

==Wikia==
Just so you know, the account on the xiaolinshowdown.wikia.com seems to be based on edits from transwikied articles that I redirected over here and the other one was just created to follow an AfD result of moving the article over there. I don't really care about the entire thing you have against the site, but you don't need to keep citing me as an example of some conspiracy. ] (]) 20:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
:I haven't cited you as an example of some conspiracy, Nemu. --] (]) 21:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
::You've noted twice (possibly more) that I have edits on Wikia. The only possible reason for that is to connect my editing practices to your whole rants about Wikia profiting off of the material. ] (]) 22:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
:::I ''have'' noted twice that you appear to have accounts on Wikia. And Wikia does profit off the material that ends up there. But I've never claimed a conspiracy, like Ned Scott asked about. --] (]) 22:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
<s>
Erm, you need email.</s> I will make this more obvious-can you please email me?..Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 22:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
:In general I'm opposed to off-wiki communication because I value transparency. I thought I had enabled email a while ago, but I guess I didn't check a box. I also didn't want to enable my email while the ArbCom elections were still ongoing. Now that they are over, I will consider it. --] (]) 06:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

== Your ArbCom questions ==


I've answered the outstanding questions. Sorry that I did it at the eleventh hour but I've had real life problems (illness) and not been able to tackle things as quickly as I would have liked. My apologies, --]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 13:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

:No apologies necessary. I really appreciate it. It looks like you're going to be selected, so you have my early congratulations :) --] (]) 16:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

== Reaching Out ==

I think we've gotten off on the wrong foot, because we're used to discussing with arch-extreme inclusionsists or deletionists. I don't think anybody wants to keep wasting their time with polemics that just lead us down the same old debates. I wanted to show you that my efforts to find a middle ground are sincere, and that I don't expect you to just cave into my position. I see common goals, and I also see different goals that don't necessarily have to conflict. I'm not sure what else to say to convince you. Just that . It can even be . ] (]) 18:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

:Yes I also think we may have gotten off on the wrong foot. I can kind of see where you're coming from. I appreciate your efforts to find some common ground. I'll reply some more at ]. --] (]) 18:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we're losing the thread again. We're back to "my position is closer to consensus" / "no mine". We should try to do better than pushing one extreme over another. I want to apologize for not focusing more on our common ground, because it's just meant that I've wasted your time and energy. So let me say that I appreciate your effort to reach out. I'd like to highlight one of your "", because I think you were trying to get us to a workable compromise and I missed it:
* ''"I suppose most people would agree that articles should stay on topic. There is such a thing as too much detail, but that's really a matter for editors to discuss on article talk pages."''
So that I'm not taking your comment out of context, let me temper your effort to reach out with :
* ''"... do you want editors removing sentences from that article because of a personal opinion that the information is not notable, and then citing NNC to back them up?"''
I respect your concerns. We definitely don't want people removing information just because of a personal opinion. But I'm also asking you to respect my concerns, and work with me. Would you be willing to come up with a short statement about "too much detail" and staying "on topic"? In order to address your concerns about abuse, we would add a statement that would prevent it from being a weapon for people with an "]" bias. I'm willing to make concessions in order to find something you can agree to. But are you willing to propose some kind of statement, to be put in some kind of guideline? ] (]) 21:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

:You haven't wasted my time, and I hope I haven't wasted yours. I can see where you are coming from. And I really appreciate your efforts as well. But I don't think it's a good idea to put "Articles should stay on topic and not contain too much detail" into any guideline. It's good advice, but it can be interpreted in so many different ways on so many different articles, that I think the article talk page is the best place for people to discuss those issues. If that's put in a guideline, people will be arguing on article talk pages, saying such-and-such needs to be removed because XYZ guideline says articles should not contain too much detail. Then other people will say they don't think it's too much detail, and someone will say "Well XYZ guideline has consensus and it's a generally accepted standard. I'm following guidelines and you're not."

:Although, the style guideline ] already has similar information. It has a section, ], about staying on topic. Although I disagree with "Due to the way in which Misplaced Pages has grown, many articles contain such redundant texts. Please be bold in deleting them." That guideline also has a section about ] and ]. That guideline also has a section about ]. That section says "The idea is to distribute information in such a way that Misplaced Pages can serve readers who want varying amounts of detail. It is up to the reader to choose how much detail to which they are exposed. Using progressively longer and longer summaries avoids overwhelming the reader with too much text at once." and also "There are two main reasons for using Summary style in Misplaced Pages articles. One is that different readers desire different levels of detail: some readers need just a quick summary and are satisfied by the lead section; more people need a moderate amount of info, and will find the article suitable to their needs; yet others need a lot of detail, and will be interested in reading the sub articles. The other reason is simply that an article that is too long becomes tedious to read, and might repeat itself or represent writing that could be more concise." That guideline also has a section ]. I don't know who wrote most of ], but I agree with much of it and disagree with some of it. --] (]) 00:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
:: You're not saying anything I disagree with. In fact, this may come as a surprise, but I share your disagreement with the statement "please be bold in deleting redundant texts". I would only go so far as to say "please be bold in deleting extraneous copies of texts". I also think that ] would be a ripe location to say something to the effect of the ArbCom decision, that "an article is a summary of encyclopedic information on a subject, and not a complete exposition of all possible details". But then also adding what you're getting at: "editors should use common sense and consensus-building to find an appropriate level of summary." If you're willing to help me come up with some kind of wording to improve ], I'd be comfortable changing ] -- in fact I'd be happy to add your changes to ] myself. I hope you'll meet me halfway. ] (]) 19:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

== RFC Update ==

Thank you for endorsing one or more summaries in the RFC. Please note that two proposals have been put forward on how we can move on after the RFC: ] and ]. Please take the time to look over these proposals, and consider endorsing one of them, or writing one of your own. Thanks again for your participation! ] (]) 03:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

==General note==
Hello! I really do think we need to distiguish between those who we can compromise with as I indicated at ] versus what seems like a real problem that really does need arbitration as seen at ]. I really do think Sgeureka can be open-minded and I hope that others can too. Best, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 06:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

== Your war on WP:NOT#PLOT ==

Look, I've seen this go by many times and I've not been involved. Others have gotten into this with you many times and yet you persist.

; Cut it out. It's disruptive.

] 12:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

:I guess you would know Jack, since you're an expert on disruption. But changing a bad policy isn't disruptive. --] (]) 01:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Also; refer to me by my username. ] 12:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

See; ]. I forgot to mention it. ] 12:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

== RFC/U ==

Please note that I have created an ] case on your recent editing behavior in order to try to work out some compromise. The RFC/U can be found ]. --] 18:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
:Well Masem, I would be very interested to find out which two people have tried to resolve a dispute with me and failed. I checked ANI the other day and the thread you started on me was . Care to tell me what happened? What do you want from me? Shall I start an RFC on you? --] (]) 22:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
::Pixelface, please seriously consider what parts of what you are doing are helpful and what parts are not helpful. presumably you want to actually accomplish something. ''']''' (]) 22:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
:::Thank you for your advice DGG. I really do value it, even though I think your approach is too milquetoast for me. It truly is sad to see a ''Naruto'' fan armed with Twinkle driving a librarian with doctorate and masters degrees away from the topic of fiction and AFD on Misplaced Pages. Instead of watching with dismay, I decided to start discussing PLOT at ] over eleven months ago in January. But I should have heeded your advice about reverting policy pages when I you in November about the ] I wrote in mid-October. I suggested a survey to Masem in June, because a survey is something ] recommends. I finally wrote it up after arbitrator Stephen Bain noted in October the community's failure to produce a notabily guideline for TV episodes or fictional characters. I suppose my time this past year could have been better spent buying a subscription to ] for myself, or gifting one to TTN for Christmas. I ''do'' want to accomplish something, and I will seriously consider whether my actions are helping or hurting that goal. Thank you for your message. --] (]) 23:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
::::Happy New Year! Anyway, I have defended you to some extent at the RFC/U's talk page and hope to bring reason and balance to the discussions. I do urge you not to give your critics any ground with which they might critize. Some are willing to compromise, Magiloaditis, DGG, Randomran, and I, for example and who knows maybe if we all start the year off fresh we can get somewhere. To do so, those on both sides need to be open minded and concede where we can. We can still have our principals and all, but if others want to edit war or be incivil, don't react in kind. Neutral observers will be able to see that. A volunteer project as fascinating and worthwhile of an idea as it is not worth getting too worked up over when we have wars, price gouging by oil companies, adulterers, and other more serious and disgusting issues to contend with. Again, Happy New Year! Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 06:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::Happy New Year to you too! I've haven't looked at the RFC much yet, but thank you very much for giving your input there. I did look at the desired outcome, and I've thought of some ideas and concessions I'd be willing to make. Thanks again. Have a happy 2009, --] (]) 23:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::Happy New Year Pixel; like I said in closing my statement on the RFC, "we sure do need more vocal editors to support coverage of fictional topics on Misplaced Pages," and it would be a shame to lose you in any capacity. :) ] (]) 01:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Happy New Year to you too. I haven't looked at what you said, but thank you for your input at my RFC. I don't plan on leaving or anything, although I haven't commented in many AFDs lately since I have snapped at several people there recently. I have promised to not edit ] during January if that policy is unprotected. I am also considering not editing that policy, and maybe not commenting about PLOT on its talkpage, for a few months or more. I am still typing up and working on my statement for my RFC, although I can recall several people in the past telling me "tl;dr", so I may put a long statement in my userspace and a short statement at the RFC. Thank you for your message :). --] (]) 03:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::You're welcome; happy to help! Hopefully cooler heads will prevail. More so than anything else, the best thing we can do is to rescue articles by adding the out of universe information to them. If they still want to delete them even after they have development and reception sections, then that is unacceptable. Best, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 03:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::::I have been adding out-of-universe information to articles about fictional topics for quite some time, that is what two barnstars I have received are for. But yes, I can and should do more. But there have been times where I've cited development or reception information, like at ] (which I saved from deletion with my improvements, but afterwards TTN removed most of what I added) or at ] (where Masem dismissed it). --] (]) 03:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Do you think they would be amenable to compromises, i.e. reaching out to them as Randomran has done to you? Best, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 03:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::Yeah, probably. Although Masem likely moreso than TTN. Masem did create the ] proposal in May afterall, after I was saying how PLOT is used as a reason for deletion in deletion debates. But I preferred (and still do prefer) removing PLOT from NOT altogether, rather than POSTPONE. I left a talkback template on TTN's talkpage in early December of the ''Pokemon'' articles, but TTN just removed it. I had insulted TTN in an AFD and I later apologized, although I should have apologized sooner than a month later, but Masem had started an on me the day TTN contacted me. And when I ''did'' apologize to TTN for my AFD comment, I said some caustic things as well. I suppose I could "reach out" on Masem's talkpage, but I will probably just keep working on my RFC statement instead. Regards, --] (]) 04:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::I don't think it would hurt trying to reach out to Masem. TTN has not edited since December 26th, so I'm not sure if he's around or what. I think it would be helpful if perhaps everyone involved in the disputes laid out where they would be willing to concede and then go from there. Best, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 04:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::I did not know that about TTN. I've already promised not to edit ] in January, and I'm thinking about how much longer beyond that. I'm also thinking about not editing other policies and guidelines, or their talkpages, but I'm not ready to say anything at my user RFC yet. --] (]) 11:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::It looks like a reasonable chance that we'll have ]. I am not sure if that is a good thing or what. Some of these issues still seem unresolved, but I am confident that enough of us can compromise and be moderate. Maybe the arbitration should therefore focus on the handful who will not concede? Best, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 01:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Yeah, I noticed that too. But I'm ''more'' worried about the people currently in a rush to tag ] a guideline. One idea is having everyone write up their own FICT proposal in their userspace and having three totally uninvolved parties compare and contrast them. By the way, I would really appreciate it if you could edit the ] I mentioned earlier in this thread. You can blank the page and start it over if you want, or make one in your own userspace. If you had to write a survey, what questions would it ask? If you don't want to touch it, please tell me what you think about the survey on its talk page. Thanks. And thank you again for all of your input at my user RFC, and taking the time to talk to me personally on my talkpage. --] (]) 02:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Okay, I'll check it out momentarily as I am trying to write ] at the moment as I just came across and trying to see how it can be used. Also, I have been defending you rather throughly at the RfC/U and even on another user's talk page. To be clear, I don't excuse or condone edit warring or incivility by anyone and the crux of what I am getting at is what has been alleged against you is behavior I am seeing from some of those doing the alleging. Nevertheless, as a show of good faith, could you please make a pledge to refrain from any future edit-warring or incivility, even what might be perceived as such and when others are incivil to you, to either ignore them or report them to an admin so as to avoid escalating things and to maintain a moral high ground? I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks! Best, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 02:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Thank you very very much A Nobody. I'm really thankful for all you've done at my user RFC. It's a little overwhelming, and it's nice to know there are kind and helpful editors like you here on Misplaced Pages. I appreciate your call to close the RFC, but I still want to respond to several things. I'm still working on a statement. There's just so much to respond to on the RFC page and the talk page that I'm not quite sure how to go about it. People have said it's only open for a month, but I'm not familiar with that rule. I have a lot of information to sort through. And I'm still considering several options. --] (]) 18:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

==Flagged Revs ==

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding ] to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template ] ] 06:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

:I opposed that ''specific'' trial, so I will have to gracefully decline. Sorry. --] (]) 06:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

:: Thats ok :-) ] ] 08:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

==Kiellor and Prufrock==
Your wiki-parody using "Prufrock" at ] was great, you should frame it. I agree with your interpretation that Kiellor was saying high-brow art is the reason for low-brow public taste, and with your argument that Misplaced Pages has too many intellectual snobs. Unfortunately the material after "Prufrock" really is ]. I suggest you: summarise that to 2 fairly short paras; put the "Prufrock" parody in a right-floated div (with border, & poss bg colour) at the top of the section, so the height of the whole lot is not too daunting. --] (]) 14:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
:Oh thanks. I'm glad someone liked it :). I was going to use {{tl|hidden begin}} and {{tl|hidden end}} tags, but I decided to just post the whole thing. I went a little overboard. Okay, a lot overboard. I think I'll just remove my entire comment and link to the oldid in case anyone wants to read it all. I bolded the part I felt was most important, and I'll leave that paragraph on the page. --] (]) 16:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

:: I replied there and restored the full post in {{tl|Collapse top}}/bot; I hadn't see this when I did it. Feel free to change the wrapper. Oh, you left out 'the beast' ;) Cheers, ] 06:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

fyi: ]. I really have read through it three times. Cheers, ] 15:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

:Jack, I removed that comment from WT:FICT and you re-added it. You also edit-warred on a policy page and called my edits "vandalism" in December. Are you sure you're following the conditions of your unban where you agreed to avoid all disruptive editing? Thanks for your message. --] (]) 16:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

:: I don't believe I've been disruptive. On WP:NOT, you were obviously making a non-consensus change and I simply reverted it. In your RfC I acknowledged that I should not have used rvv in the edit summary. As to your long post at WT:FICT, I really don't see how restoring it could be viewed as disruptive. In spite of not agreeing with much of what you said, I was impressed with with it. It has changed how I see you. Cheers (and goodnight), ] 16:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

:::I guess that's a matter for your three mentors, Jack. I believe one of them left you a note on your talk page about your edits to NOT.

:::I don't know why you left a note on Jimbo's talk page. Jimbo ignored White Cat's message to do something about your unban, but it will be ''very'' interesting if he responds to ''your'' message.

:::My reply may have changed how you see me, but my opinion of you hasn't changed one bit. Cheers, --] (]) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

==For what it is worth==
*]

I loved your seething ] and found it very useful ]. I find even when i am on the losing side, i get comfort from the fact that these exposes will often come back and bite a person later.

I appreciate your work and I would be happy to help in anyway. ] (]) 08:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

:I'm sorry to say that ] really was ]. Your "Prufrock" parody was not the most concise way of making its points, but it was entertaining, and WP needs that ''occasionally''. However an RfA should be strictly business. If you oppose Sgeureka's RfA (I get the vague impression that you oppose), you should state why you think Sgeureka would misuse the tools and provide evidence for your suspicions. Ideally the explanation should be not more than twice the length of this post, and the rest of the "oppose" should be diffs. --] (]) 10:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

::I am not sure I agree Philcha, it gave me pause, but I had had some excellent interaction with sgeureka after the various debacles at AfD which left me in the 'support' camp. ] (] '''·''' ]) 11:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Wow, your popular Pixelface, with a lot of editors watching your page :)
:::I would have opposed the nomination. I think he should have kept all of the information, but reorganized, I can refactor it if you wish Pixel. ] (]) 13:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
::::A user RFC can have that effect... I don't wish it to be refactored, but thanks for your offer. You may be interested in looking at I started at the village pump. --] (]) 14:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

::I agree, it was way way too long. I should have distilled it down. Contrary to what Masem said at my user RFC, my detailed oppose ''did'' have to do with how I thought Sgeureka would operate as an admin &mdash; removing episodes articles while he was an involved party of an arbitration case about episodes articles, asserting "consensus" where none exists, a ] to what appears on policies and guidelines instead of the views of fellow editors (which is very relevant when closing AFDs), the stuff about "the article creators waste everyone's time", the claim "In the perfect wiki-world, these articles wouldn't have been created in the first place" (a clear sign that the user had never read Wiki is not paper on meta, which is the reason those particular articles were created in the first place), the "high time that these are enforced" stuff, the insisting on merging after no consensus and the subsequent mediation case, the "resistance is futile" stuff, the "there are about a dozen dedicated editors upholding fiction policies and guidelines against a number of hundreds and thousands of editors who have never seen a policy or guideline" stuff, the volunteering to act as a proxy for another editor if they were placed under editing restrictions (and who eventually ''was'' for half a year), and when that restricted editor asked the user to do what they were restricted from doing, the user did not refuse; plugging Wikia, the belief that silence equals consensus, the "I have edited according to policies and guidelines...and can thus claim to have consensus" stuff; the "strong local fan consensus, which I see as the real problem here" stuff; the inability to understand Arbcom rulings, the tendency to "only edit abandoned fiction articles where people have lost their fanatic fan attachment", saying his time is limited, the description of his edits by others as "death by a thousand cuts", the "absolute crap" stuff, the "fan" bashing, etc. I guess some editors like that sort of behavior in an admin; I don't. Sorry for the length of this by the way. --] (]) 14:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

:Well, I'm glad you found my detailed oppose useful; some people thought it was a "ringing endorsement." I don't condone my behavior. In that RFA I posted my initial oppose ], which is the first edit to WP I've ever made while drunk, and I went overboard trying to explain myself on the talk page. I kind of blame myself for that RFA passing, since several people ''supported'' "per Pixelface." If I had condensed what I wanted to say and opposed earlier (and sober), the outcome may have been vastly different. See ] for example. I often have trouble with brevity.

:I think Randomran's analogy is poor, but I haven't posted a response at my user RFC yet because I'm still not sure how to approach everything.

:You can help yourself by not doing some of the things I've done, like removing PLOT from NOT 13 times in 9 1/2 months. --] (]) 14:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
::Not unless I have a proxy editor like Sgeureka. :) ] (]) 19:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

==A RfC you participated in is being discussed==
*] ] (]) 13:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
**Thanks for the message. --] (]) 13:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

== TTN ==

No idea, no edits since late Dec. --] 14:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

:Thanks. --] (]) 14:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

== Survey ==

Oops, sorry about that. I thought I was just the first to reply :P --] (]) 21:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

:Oh no problem :) Please change the questions if you'd like. How could the survey be better? --] (]) 21:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

==Fiction Survey 2009==
Hello White Cat. I created a survey about fictional topics three months ago and I rewrote it recently and mentioned it at the village pump &mdash; it's at ]. I noticed you started at the village pump about ] and I see it asks about fictional topics. Maybe we could combine the questionnaires somehow? If you'd rather not combine them, I'd be happy to edit yours if you want. I would also appreciate any edits to my survey. If you don't want to edit it, could you tell me what you think of the questions on its talk page? Thanks, --] (]) 04:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
:I am thinking of a general questionnaire which includes questions on fiction among other topics. My intended target is the readers of the site. It's a developing idea. Feel free to jump in. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 14:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

Please leave me a note when the survey is ready to be answered. ]|] 10:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
* I don't think the last question about AFD trends is useful. It's a question that takes a lot of time to answer and doesn't really offer much in return. If anything, you'll find the same trends in the answers to the questions or you can have some bot analyse relevant outcomes. - ]|] 21:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
**Thanks for your input. Personally I think noting AFD trends would be useful. I suppose it would take longer to answer, but people don't have to answer the whole survey; they can answer as many questions as they like. I think it would be interesting to compare the survey answers to trends at AFDs, and see if they match. If the trends are the same, all the better. --] (]) 21:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

== AKA's tool ==

''I've noticed that Aka's tool doesn't go beyond "Conversion script" when it comes to the first edit.''

i didn't quite understand that sentence!? ] (]) 01:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

:I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. For example, when you the editing statistics of ], Aka's tool says "first edit 2002-02-19 11:35 ('''Conversion script''')". But when you at the 10 earliest edits to that page, you see that an editor named '''TOertel''' actually made the first edit. I hope my English is understandable.

:'''I just need to manually edit the FIRST EDIT column in your HTML and change "Conversion script" to the actual first edit'''. You can stop reading now if you want; the rest of this is technical stuff I found out.

:] says that script "converted Misplaced Pages from usemod format to the phase II format" in February 2002. (You can see that .) That page says Brion VIBBER extracted "most history from usemod" and added it to the database. Those are the edits in the History tab beyond (before, prior to) "Conversion script." You can read more at ].

: paragraph in the ] article says "Originally, Misplaced Pages ran on UseModWiki written in Perl by Clifford Adams (Phase I), which initially required CamelCase for article hyperlinks; the present double bracket style was incorporated later. Starting in January 2002 (Phase II), Misplaced Pages began running on a PHP wiki engine with a MySQL database; this software was custom-made for Misplaced Pages by Magnus Manske. The Phase II software was repeatedly modified to accommodate the exponentially increasing demand. In July 2002 (Phase III), Misplaced Pages shifted to the third-generation software, MediaWiki, originally written by Lee Daniel Crocker."

:So Misplaced Pages ran on ], then ], and now ]. --] (]) 15:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

==Barnstar==
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Tireless Contributor Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | ''The Tireless Contributor Barnstar may be awarded to especially tireless Wikipedians who contribute an especially large body of work.''<br><br> This barnstar is awarded to Pixelface, for the incredible work he has done on ] and other policy and guideline pages. Thank you so much for tireless striving to make wikipedia a welcome place for '''everyone's''' views, not just an elite few. ] (]) 10:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
|}
:Careful, don't let the barnstar's rotating points stick you, they're sharp! ] (]) 10:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

::Ha! Thank you very much Ikip! :) I really appreciate it &mdash; although I haven't updated that timeline in about 4 months. I need to update it and I also need to include some things from the notability "graveyard" on your userpage. I feel bad because my edits to articles have really dropped off lately. I've been afraid to edit articles much because people are following me, and some are reverting my edits. --] (]) 15:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Ikip, you beat me to it...] (] '''·''' ]) 00:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
::::Well, there is no rule in only one barnstar per x amount of days, give him another one! He deserves it. ] (]) 12:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

==Straw poll at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (fiction)==
There is currently a straw poll at ]. Since this proposal may influence some of the articles covered by this project, any input there would be helpful to help build a consensus regarding the proposal. Thank you. ] (]) 00:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
:Thanks for the message. --] (]) 00:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


== Talkback ==
{{talkback|MuZemike|Some comments of yours}}
] 07:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

== Bignole ==
Please stop hounding Bignole with non-sequitors on ]. If you disagree with his comments, fine, reply and disagree. This kind of badgering is flamebait and that talk page has seen plenty enough of that. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 13:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
:Why is Bignole hounding people who oppose? Why is Bignole badgering opposers? Those aren't non-sequitors. And it's not "flamebait." That article falls under FICT. It shows that Bignole is full of it. If that's going to turn into another RFC where every opposer gets piled on, you can count me out. --] (]) 13:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
::Please, don't tell me your argument is right therefore what you're doing is right. "You're wrong because you're a hypocrite, and I have proof!" is a disruptive ad hominem attack, ''even if you are absolutely correct that he is a hypocrite.''
::As for his replies to opposes, he's addressing the reason for the oppose directly. That's good (bearing in mind that some of his arguments are less than super IMO). It's the sort of thing that makes that more a discussion and less a shite poll.
::Try to address the issues and not the persons, eh? - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 13:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Bignole created ]. That's an article, not a person. But the person who created that article doesn't even believe what they're shoveling, speaking of "shite." Does Bignole think responding to every opposer is going to make them change their mind? Let people oppose, eh? --] (]) 13:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
::::The discussion isn't about Bignole's conduct, though. Bignole's a hypocrite. So what? Dude can espouse a standard that doesn't include an article he wrote if he wants; I know I've dreaded going back and disposing of my old work just because it isn't up to snuff. He may have forgotten, he may know of sources he hasn't yet gotten around to adding to the article, he may be lazy. I don't know. Whatever it is, you're certainly better served trying to tear his arguments apart at their seams, rather than attacking his edit history.
::::As for responding to every opposer, what he's got should touch off some useful discussion if it gets a response, and it's a shame if it doesn't. Changing votes isn't the only thing that counts. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 13:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hooookay I just filled myself in on some of the context here. I stand by what I said above, but there's no sword of Damocles hanging here. I just don't want to see that turn into a bunch of hairball bullshit about "You're a hypocrite!" "No I'm not!" etc. You're not really interested in getting that article saved or deleted, you just want to make a point about how the inclusion standards for fiction make less sense than an Escher painting and are about as complicated (correct me if I'm wrong).

If that's where you are, I'm with you against them. All of this bullshit has been turned into Inclusionist/Deletionist Bout #227585432: Now It's Personal, and doesn't practically project into a scheme that makes emotional sense. I just don't want to see the outside position get marginalized as the troll/shitdisturber fringe.

(This was written before seeing the 13:35 comment.) - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 13:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

:You weren't at the in June, so you didn't see the scores of threads under every opposer. That didn't touch off any "useful discussion." That didn't change anyone's mind. I know the RFC isn't about Bignole's conduct. But the long threads under opposers have already ''begun'' again.

:I just don't want the ] to turn into another discussion where every opposer is piled on &mdash; again. People can oppose if they want to. People labeling each other "inclusionist" and "deletionist" is part of the problem. If someone want to identify themselves with one of those vague labels, fine by me. I re-added my comments, but if you want to remove them again, fine. If Bignole wants to say one thing and do another, fine. I brought up ] because I'm trying to understand where Bignole is coming from. I don't understand and I won't even try to understand. I don't care anymore. I won't be replying to anyone at that RFC. --] (]) 14:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
::I don't want to chase you away from that RFC. I'm just saying that if your goal is to find out where Bignole is coming from, you're going about it the wrong way. You come off as accusing him of being a hypocrite, which is a big distraction from the issue at hand even if he doesn't get offended. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 14:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
::As for responding to the opposers, I dunno, this just seems like a difference of opinion. I do know that hounding Bignole for hounding opposers is probably going to accomplish the opposite of your stated desire. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 14:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I hate to interfere, but what you say, Black, is not always possible. There are some users on this site who edit articles solely for fights. I mentioned this on the video game project talk page. There are two editors who have staked out certain articles and will randomly revert edits to start fights, even for games they have admittedly never played. Using the fine print and loopholes in Misplaced Pages's rules, they manage to get good info delete, wrong info kept, and then use their admin connections or instigation to get the user banned. With them, pointing out errors in their edits will do no good, since it is the users themselves who are the problems. ] (]) 13:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
:...what does this have to do with the price of tea in China, and why are you calling this out on someone else's talk page? - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 13:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's called an example of the point I was trying to make. You say focus only on the opinions and not the user who makes them, but I'm saying that's not always possible. As in my example, there are some users who edit for less-than-honorable reasons. ] (]) 13:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
:Man, I don't know where to start, and this isn't the place. If you and Pixelface have no objections, we can transplant this over to ]. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 14:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I have an objection to that. Why would we move this discussion onto MY talk page? My statement was in defense of what you said to Pixel, as part of THIS discussion. ] (]) 14:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
:Because it doesn't have anything to do with what's going on at ] or Pixelface. Plus, we need to chat about what are either serious accusations or basic misunderstandings, and it's kind of rude to do that on a third party's talk page. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 14:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No idea what you're talking about, since I'm not accusing anyone, nor does this have anything to do with misunderstandings. You are scolding Pixel for saying something against a user, advising them to instead speak about what the user is saying. I am commenting in relation to that that it's not always possible. If I just said it was impossible, it wouldn't be much of a point, so I offered an example. That's it. ] (]) 14:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
:"There are two editors who have staked out certain articles and will randomly revert edits to start fights, even for games they have admittedly never played" is a pretty serious accusation, not one to be made off the cuff.
:As for what I was asking Pixelface to stop doing, it's apples and oranges. When the issue is someone's conduct, yes, you should discuss someone's conduct. In this case, ] is either a good or bad idea regardless of if any of the supporters or opposers are hypocrites, bad people, Moldovian separatists, or whatever. It's just not relevant, unless you're prepared to argue that their arguments are themselves problematic conduct. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 14:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I was using it as an example. Nothing can be done about those two users. I'm not getting banned. I'm doing what I can to get the articles fixed, but if they get wind of that, I'm going to get banned. It can still come down to conduct, though, even if it doesn't seem like it. Even though they can make it seem like they are following all the rules, because Wiki has so many of them, it is easy to find loopholes that allow users who only want to cause harm to do so. When it comes down to that, arguing their point becomes moot, since they'll just keep whipping out another policy or making accusations of their own. Just a point I was trying to make in general. ] (]) 14:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

:You're awfully new here to have such a defeatist attitude. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 14:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

New to editing, maybe. I've still been here before and seen what goes on. Besides, it became quite a talked-about topic among fans. And I'm a fan. I've followed the argument, hoping right would win out, but I never joined in. That whole thing was actually why I avoided creating an account up until now. ] (]) 15:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

:Hi, SyberiaWinx. ] ] (]) 20:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
::If that's true, I'll be very disappointed. For now I'm going to assume good faith and wait for that SPI. I suggest you do too. --] (]) 22:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Well, the SPI is mostly meant for other people... Being quite familiar with the case (unfortunately), I'm 100% confident about this one. ] (]) 22:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not true. Not even in the slightest. I'll still probably be banned, though. I mentioned it above-many innocent editors were banned by her, because she's got friends who are admins here. ] (]) 23:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
:Speaking as an uninvolved party who's trying his best to assume good faith here, "yeah, I'll do time anyway because the pigs are all corrupt" is not really doing much for your case. - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 23:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, but Erigu coming here just to sarcastically claim I'm someone else and post a link to something completely unrelated to this discussion is fine? I know the facts. This kid has friends who are admins. Many people of many walks have opposed her-new uers, old users, and so on,-and she has gotten every single one of them banned as an alleged duplicate account. On top of that, she has gone so far as to harass this "SyberiaWinx", though their is no username that matches that on this site. She is just looking for people to target. It's no stretch to assume I'll get banned like all her other targets. I said from the beginning I would get targeted if word ever reached one of those two trolls, and I was right, wasn't I? Funny how no one ever calls them out on going around and flaming/accusing people. But to even target people not on Misplaced Pages, too... Why doesn't someone say something to her? ] (]) 01:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

:Akari, you may want to comment at that SPI. --] (]) 01:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

SPI? Remember, despite her claims, I am new here. I've no idea what that stands for... ] (]) 01:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

:Sorry. SPI stands for Sockpuppet investigations. Erigu mentioned you . --] (]) 01:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I've already posted, but I'm not optomistic. It seems the method of attack this time is, "you must be a sockpuppet, because we can tie your name and some of the other sockpuppets names to Japanese pop-culture". It's going to be a long, stressful day... ] (]) 01:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

== taking off-list to avoid boring others ==

You know, your last post on the guidelines talk page didn't make sense. You said ''didn't mean I was the first person to add a Top ten list section to the ] article.'', but earlier you said '' WALL-E was the first article about a 2008 film that I added a Top ten list section to''. Small contradiction between the two statements. Then when you said ''That was just the first article for a 2008 film I &mdash; personally &mdash; added a section too'', I was pointing out that you hadn't *added* a section as I had added it weeks previously only to have it rewritten in prose...leading to the conversation being had on the other page. No worries, but you can see where one could get confused. ] (]) 22:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

:I'm sorry. I didn't mean to confuse anyone. I meant, when I began adding Top ten list sections to year 2008 film articles about two weeks ago (after waiting for Metacritic to fill in most of the year-end lists), WALL-E was the first 2008 film article I added a section to. At the time, I was unaware you had previously top ten list information to that article, because I didn't see any. And when I left a note on your talk page, I was still unaware of your edits to WALL-E. Yes, you did it first. No worries, --] (]) 04:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

== I don't have any answers for you ==

I'm sorry to see you so down in the dumps, and in all honesty I don;t really have any answers for you. I understand your frustration. The idea of a poll is perhaps one you may want to look at pushing; but I think if you do feel that is the way forwards, you need to ask yourself which way the community is likely to poll. Do the majority of wikipedians support an encyclopedia with copious amounts of plot summary? To be honest, I think your energy would be better expended in either cleaning up articles so that they are well written, well sourced, concise and comprehensive. It is far harder to delete a page which looks like an encyclopedia article ought to, and which passes the spirit of ], ] and ]. Your other option is to look into convincing the community and/or the foundation to seriously consider the setting up of topic centred wiki's, or even one wiki, run on a not for profit basis but funded by advertising. Any surplus cash from the advertising once running costs are covered would be kicked back to either the foundation or perhaps a new charity which promotes values similar to that of the foundation. I'd be more than happy to work with you on that goal. ] <small>] </small> 09:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
:I would like to see a non-ad sister project for fiction. - ] (]) (]) 18:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
::Funding it would be the issue. It might be easier to fly were it ad-funded. What's your proposed model? ] <small>] </small> 21:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
==25 percent of articles are fiction==
See: ] where your name is mentioned. We would love your input and explanation of where you got this number. ] (]) 14:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

== Steady on there... ==

''If you don't know what "notable" means, please look it up'' isn't nice. I know how you feel about this issue, but please just tone it down a little? Even if you're right about ''advertising afd'' just say it all sweet and bat your eyes, ok, please?
<font color="black">]</font> 12:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
:Okay. What's a nicer way of saying please consult a dictionary? --] (]) 17:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
:: Try not saying it at all. Try "I disagree with creating a specialized meaning of notability that points to reliable third-party sources, and prefer the layman's meaning found in dictionaries." Everyone is familiar with dictionary definition, and sarcastically suggesting that they don't is not helpful. ] (]) 17:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Do I really need to say "I disagree with you making up your own definiton for words"? It's ''beyond'' disagreement. I really don't know if that editor ''is'' familiar with the dictionary definition of "notable", judging from the definition they gave in their AFD nomination. ] ''itself'' defines notable as "worthy of notice." Fine. That definition appears in several dictionaries. So I don't understand where people come to think that the definition of "notable" is "has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Probably because ] is currently a '''trainwreck'''. My suggestion to look the word up was not sarcastic. I linked to several dictionaries. Those don't contain "the layman's meaning." Those contain ''the meaning''. Misplaced Pages guidelines are not legal documents where lawyers can redefine words all they want. --] (]) 18:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
:::: I'm not here to argue with you about your interpretation of notability. But you need to stop attacking peoples' understanding or command of the English language. Engage them on the basis of rational disagreement. Don't insult them. ] (]) 18:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::It's not my interpretation. And I wasn't "attacking" someone's "command" of the English language. My suggestion to look the word up was not intended as an insult. If took it as an insult, I've seen no indication of that from that editor. --] (]) 18:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::I actually did believe it was meant as an insult, but not one worth anyone's getting worked up over. The distinction between how I defined notability in the AFD and how the dictionaries do is the distinction between "notability is presumed if:" and "notability is:" which as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned (in my opinion) is merely a philosophical distinction (so I have ignored it for years) until it is embodied in guideline (which, of course, you disagree with). (And the link to the AFD was provided because I can't stand when people ask vague questions and provide zero context.) ] (]) 20:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::I apologize. I didn't mean it as an insult. There's a difference between "notable means worthy of notice" and "if significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject exist, then X is probably notable." That is the distinction. Pointing to sources and calling them "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" is one way of showing that something is probably notable. That is one way, not the only way. --] (]) 20:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::::And I've concluded that this is the actual problem that pervades both deletion and policy discussions, which I believe is exemplified by the massive RFC on notability - the "deletionist camp" (myself included) manifests itself through a desire for maximally objective (and unobtainable) criteria, while another part of the 'pedia believes that subjectively based opinions should have as much weight in building consensus (and/or that there is no such thing as objectivity). These forms of thought can't be reconciled because they reject eachother, although certainly, everything inbetween and outside of these regimes also exists. ] (]) 22:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::It's possible to create an inclusion/exclusion guideline that contains objective criteria. But ] is not it, despite what ] says. The phrase "''significant'' coverage in ''reliable'' secondary sources that are ''independent'' of the subject" is full of subjective phrases. --] (]) 22:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
::::I'd suggest asking them, if you're unclear, or addressing both. ("If by notable you mean important, then your opinion is noted but isn't really a reason to delete. If by notable you mean meets ], then and seem to cover this subject.") - ] <small>(] - ])</small> 18:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
==]==
You may be interested in this essay. ] (]) 10:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
:It looks very interesting. Although I would say that silence ''never'' implies consent. You may be interested in the essay ]. --] (]) 01:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
::thanks!!! I will add it to the see also section. ] (]) 17:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

== Time to move on ==

I'm going to adopt the mantra of ] and try to avoid engaging with you. It's no longer productive either for me or for you, it seems to cause stress in both of us, which is quite an unhealthy state and which should be avoided. I can't promise that I will never reply to anything you say, or that I will not edit in areas where you also edit, because we both share common interests. I will, however, attempt to avoid arguing with you, as it is counter-productive. Whilst I appreciate your point of view, I do not agree with your methods or your manner. I repeat the advice I gave you before, I think your energy would be better expended in cleaning up articles so that they are well written, well sourced, concise and comprehensive. I apologise for any offense I may have caused you with my off hand comment at ]. All the best, ] <small>] </small> 09:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

:Thank you. I accept your apology. Can you see how it may have ''hurt'' me when I stumbled on that comment you made at WT:FICT &mdash; after I came to you asking for advice? My replies to you were written out of that hurt.

:You for WP:NOT#PLOT to be removed in November and seemed to agree with me then. You seemed to that words you wrote were followed in ways you didn't intend. I you on February 5 about that thread at WT:NOT because you in November I could leave you a note on your talk page. I won't leave you any more.

:I apologize for what I said to you at WT:FICT. It was totally uncalled for. Sometimes talk threads can be good sport, and sometimes someone steps over the line. I stepped ''way'' over the line. I've directed a lot of venom at you, and you've taken the brunt of my frustration. I'm truly sorry. I think it would be best if we ''did'' disengage from each other &mdash; although with regret because I've certainly valued most of our conversations.

:I've cleaned up scores of articles, following WP:NOT#PLOT in the process. Lately I've lost the taste for article editing since people are following my every edit. Currently, I'm thinking my time and energy would better be expended off Misplaced Pages entirely. Thank you for your advice and thank you for your message. I really do appreciate it Hiding. Regards, --] (]) 11:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

== in case you didn't see ==

and , and their editing statistics (as of February 10, 2009)

links have combined page/talk statistics!

anyhow, i've noticed Masem is one of the most active editors on WT:NOT and WT:Notability fiction, and it seems to me that he is doing RfCU as a way to discredit one of his loudest opponents... ] (]) 11:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

:Thank you very much! I really appreciate it. I could work on wikifying it if you want.

:And I noticed the combined page/talk stats &mdash; it's a good way to see who has the most interest in a page. Looks like I've made 24 edits to WP:NOT and 219 edits to the talkpage. I did notice that Masem has the most edits to WT:FICT, with 953. Looks like I have the 2nd most edits to WT:NOT and Masem has the 3rd most edits to WT:NOT. I also noticed that the editor with the most edits to WT:NOT supports WP:NOT#PLOT being in that policy. --] (]) 07:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


::i don't think manual wikifying is a way to do it as statistics will change often. better to wait until i write the wikifying script. shouldn't be difficult, just need to look into the wiki table syntax. cheers. ] (]) 16:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

==Alternative to notability==
Hello! I am working on an objective alternate to notability in my userspace. Please read ] and offer any suggestions on its talk page, which I will consider for revision purposes. If you do not do so, no worries, but if you wish to help, it is appreciated. Best, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 01:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
:I'll take a look at it a bit later and offer some input. Regards, --] (]) 09:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
::Okay, thanks! Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 19:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:::I apologize that it took me a month to comment, but I've written some thoughts at ]. Regards, --] (]) 20:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
::::Okay, thanks! Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 16:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

==Disruption==
Pixelface, you've been brought to ANI repeatedly over your attempts to disrupt certain guidelines that don't reflect your views (WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:N). You've been here long enough to know that when you disagree with a guideline or policy, '''especially''' a guideline or policy that has been widely accepted for years, you must discuss large-scale changes on the talk page. The guidelines are not intended to reflect the views of any individual editor, but of broad consensus, and at this point consensus does not appear to be anywhere close to what you would like the guideline to reflect. Until you can demonstrate that your view has significant support, you can't just start tagging sections as disputed. The WP:N dispute tags have been removed again, as discussion on the talk page does not demonstrate a large-scale dispute. If you add them back you will be blocked for edit-warring. ] (]) 15:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

:You are also coming close to breaking ], with three reverts already. While you may be blocked for edit warring before breaking the 3RR limit, you're almost certain to be blocked once you pass it. Please stop your reverts and continue the discussion on the talk page. ] (]) 15:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::The guideline ] may be the subject of ongoing debate, but it is not disputed per se. Please do not place disputed tags on this guideline. Arguing this section is disputed without any justification is a classic example of dispute escalation, and is effectively ] in all but name. Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them - please try to avoid disruptive edits such as this. --] (]) 15:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:::There's currently a on ] as a whole, but that's not why I added those {{tl|disputedtag}} templates. I dispute three ''sections'' in that guideline. I'm going to ignore the rest of your comment, as I explained what I dispute on the guideline talkpage. Adding {{tl|disputedtag}} templates to guidelines is not disruptive. But this is the third time I've seen you remove a {{tl|disputedtag}} template, Gavin. --] (]) 16:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::To clarify from Fram's comments, if I see the disputed tags added back at a later date (once we've passed the time limits for 3RR - tomorrow, next week, next month), without any significant support on the talk page for their inclusion, I will block for edit warring/disruption. Enough is enough. ] (]) 16:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:::If you can tell me where on ] it says that significant support on the talk page is required before they can be added to a page, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. Again, I don't think you're a neutral admin in this Karanacs. --] (]) 16:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::Yes, well I ''have'' continued discussion on the talkpage Fram. It just took me a while to write my reply to you, and to find when that heading was first added. --] (]) 16:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

:You're incorrect. I haven't been brought to ANI repeatedly regarding my edits to certain guidelines. Please your removal of those {{tl|disputedtag}} templates from ]. I am not being disruptive.

:Why are you saying that disputing the wording of a section in a guideline is "disruption"? I have not made any large scale changes. I large scale changes by Equazcion and Gavin.collins (this is the history ). Then I {{tl|disputedtag}} templates in three sections where I dispute the wording. Fram all three templates, but it appears they only objected to the addition of one of the templates. Fram reverted while I was typing up my comment to put on WT:N. I Fram, referring to the . Gavin.collins the tags again saying "This guideline is not disputed" but I was not disputing the entire guideline at the time, I was disputing three sections. Gavin.collins has previously a {{tl|disputedtag}} templates from ] that I . That's why I said in the edit summary "Please stop removing disputed tags Gavin.collins."

:Why does Gavin.collins keep removing {{tl|disputedtag}} templates? Hobit also a {{tl|disputedtag}} template to ], and then Randomran . It seems to me that Gavin.collins and Randomran are acting like they ] ] and ]. I've been discussing Randomran's alteration of the ] section since November when Randomran changed it.

:Those sections in ] I dispute ''have not'' had wide acceptance for years. I agree, you should discuss large-scale changes on the talk page. But adding a disputedtag is not a large scale change. I agree, guidelines should reflect broad consensus, but I don't think those three sections reflect broad consensus.

:I'm a little confused when you say I "can't just start tagging sections as disputed." ] says () "Place <nowiki>{{Disputedtag}}</nowiki> at the top of the page or section that you intend to discuss." and "If the tag applies strictly to a specific section of a policy or guideline, append the following parameter: section=yes"

:] also doesn't mention "large-scale disputes." I won't be adding those tags back today, but those three sections are certainly disputed.

:I question your neutrality in this, Karanacs. --] (]) 16:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::Pixelface, to ease your mind, if I do have cause to block you, I promise I will immediately bring the block to ANI to review. Given your history and the ongoing user conduct RFC over very similar edit-warring over guidelines, I sincerely doubt the block would be overturned. The disputedtag template documentation very clearly states that ''This template is used only during an active discussion of whether an existing guideline or policy (or a section on a page) should be a guideline or policy at all. ... It is not intended for flagging a project page or section as vaguely controversial, nor for indicating a personal dislike of the document'' You began the discussion '''only after''' the tags had been reverted more than once, and the consensus on the talk page so far is that there is no justification for those tags. Furthermore, the FICT RFC already established that there was consensus for keeping WP:N, and the ongoing RFC about WP:N is (overwhelmingly) confirming that consensus. Judging from those results, there are no grounds to add a disputed tag. To show that the tag is disputed in light of the large consensus currently at the RFC, you'll need to be able to show some significant level of support (not majority, but significant) for the tags being appropriate. Otherwise, it is disruption. ] (]) 17:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

:::If I make an edit to a notability guideline and you're thinking about blocking me, I think it would be in your best interest if you let someone else do it, for several reasons. I think your impartiality is in question. First, because of a you made at my ] where you said you "would support a project-space ban" of me. I also ] your adminship. Clear back in June I said "if Karanacs is made an admin and gets anywhere near a fiction topic or the subject of notability, I predict bad things." We clearly have different views about the concept of ]. I already promised to not edit ] for 3 months, of my own volition.

:::My user RFC seems to be filled mostly with editors who have conflicting views with me over certain policies and guidelines &mdash; mostly related to the concept of notability and fiction. My user RFC came about because I removed WP:NOT#PLOT again on December 30 and after I was a ] who had been indefinitely up until 3 weeks earlier and was calling my edits "vandalism" &mdash; this after agreeing to avoid all disruptive editing as . That sockpuppet then started an ANI thread and my user RFC was created by a user who's reverted my removal of WP:NOT#PLOT the most times, and who had previously started ANI threads about my removals of WP:NOT#PLOT in November and December &mdash; but in those threads no admin felt any action was necessary. On June 6, 2008, I added a {{tl|disputedtag}} above WP:NOT#PLOT and Gavin.collins removed it. On June 9, 2008, I added a {{tl|disputedtag}} above WP:NOT#PLOT and Seraphim removed it. On November 4, 2008, Hobit added a {{tl|disputedtag}} above WP:NOT#PLOT and on November 9, Randomran removed it. This is not the first time I've disagreed with Gavin.collins or Randomran. They've both become increasingly uncivil in the past few days. Hiding wondered if Gavin.collins is a troll. And Gavin.collins's ] recently ended. Gavin.collins and that sockpuppet became friends on Commons when that sockpuppet was banned after admitting to be a user banned in May 2007 for harassing another editor. I too have been harassed by that ].

:::As I said in my user RFC, I repeatedly removed a section of policy that does not have consensus to be policy, ]. If a section of policy does not have consensus to be policy, it cannot be policy. But several people at my user RFC have the strange idea that you need ''consensus to remove'' on the talkpage before a section of policy can be removed. No. A section of policy must have consensus to ''be'' policy. Not merely no consensus on the talkpage to remove it. People have been re-adding a section of policy that does not have consensus to be policy. But if I don't remove the section, but instead add a disputedtag template, the template is removed. Why?

:::I've also removed text from WP:N that does not have consensus to be in that guideline, text that Randomran added. I added one of the disputedtags to that section. The documentation about the section function of ] appears lacking. Most of that template seems to refer to overall pages.

:::I ''did'' add the tag before I started the talkpage thread. If that's considered blockworthy then ] certainly needs to mention that. I did start the talk thread after you reverted me. But when you reverted me I was still typing up the thread offline.

:::There ''is'' justification for those disputedtag templates. Certainly for the {{tl|disputedtag}} under the '''Notability of article content''' heading (which Randomran in November all by himself). Certainly above the WP:FAILN shortcut (which Randomran just the other day and all by himself). And I also dispute the '''Notability requires objective evidence''' section, which apparently Kubigula all by himself. I also dispute the nutshell change that Kanodin based on Gavin.collin's suggestion , which Randomran supported. Kanodin also on the wording in the NNC section that I dispute. I also dispute that Gavin.collins a true statement from WP:N.

:::I don't know which FICT RFC you're referring to, but if you're referring to the one started by Masem in or the one started by Protonk in (both of whom just so happened to "certify" my user RFC), I don't think either one established that there was consensus for keeping WP:N. The RFC on N started by Randomran in didn't confirm that either, the question wasn't even up for debate then. Drilnoth did close about the existence of N as a guideline in the as a snow keep, but I think that was a hasty close, with not enough input from the community.

:::I've already explained what I dispute in WP:N and why it's disputed. I couldn't tell you what the consensus at ] is.

:::In your opinion, would an {{tl|underdiscussion|section}} template be "disruption"? --] (]) 19:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::::Yes, in my opinion you adding any tags to that policy right now would be disruption. Continue the discussions on the talk page to determine if there is a significant minority consensus that there is a problem (you and A Nobody don't constitute a significant minority-just a loud one). This is a well-established guideline, and your personal opinion is not enough justification for adding tags that are repeatedly reverted. The disruption occurs when you continue to change guidelines/policies to support your opinion when consensus is not even close to being in your corner. ] (]) 19:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC) <small>PS I have no hard feelings whatsoever that you opposed my RFA (I had actually forgotten that tidbit). I don't hold grudges, and, frankly, the tools aren't that important to me. ] (]) 19:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC) </small>

:::::I don't plan on adding any more tags to that '''guideline''' today. I asked if you think the {{tl|underdiscussion|section}} template is disruption. You say ] is a "well-established guideline", but I think if you look through the archives of ] starting in ] and also examine the to it, you'll find that it's anything ''but'' well-established. The fact that there was an RFC on WP:N in September 2008 and a current one, is an indication it's anything ''but'' well-established.

:::::But if WP:N isn't going anywhere, it needs a rewrite. Why is my opinion not enough justification to add tags but your opinion ''is'' justification to remove them? I'm convinced you didn't read my entire comment above if you think "consensus is not in my corner." Do you think Randomran changed the NNC heading with consensus in his corner? Do you think Randomran added the FAILN shortcut with consensus in his corner? Do you think Gavin.collins removed a fact from WP:N with consensus in his corner? And if the tools aren't that important to you, you may want to consider giving them up. --] (]) 20:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

::::::It is clear for anyone reading the first ] that it was not disputing ] as such, but was asking clarifications about spin-out articles and about subject-specific subguidelines of WP:N. To use this RFC as evidence that the guideline has been long disputed and needs a rewrite is not based on the basis of the RFC, nor on the outcome where it was clear that most people agreed with the general principle of it. The second RfC has currently on the basic question of "should WP:N stay a guideline" a support of 41 against 11 opposes, which is quite clearly a consensus. This does not mean that the guideline is perfect, but to have on the heels of two RfC's which clearly showed support for the guideline, an editor intent on marking it or large sections of it as "disputed", in one case only because he disagrees with a shortcut to the section, is highly disruptive.
::::::Please check ], a policy which deals with this:
<blockquote>
::::::If you have grounds to claim that a section was recently added or substantially altered in breach of the proper procedures for establishing consensus, then you may use <nowiki>{{disputedtag|section=yes|talk=Discussion Title}}</nowiki> instead.

::::::Like all editing tools, these can be overused, and be disruptive; please be sure that these are marking a real dispute.

::::::Bold editors of policy and guidelines pages are strongly encouraged to follow WP:1RR or WP:0RR standards. If your changes are removed, please make no further changes until the issue has been appropriately discussed on the talk page.
</blockquote>
::::::Discussion is happening, the tags are not needed now. ] (]) 21:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Well, 41 people seems like quite a bit. But ] has over 150 people in it. How many of them commented in before Drilnoth closed it? And 41 people pales in comparison to the 160,000+ people who have made at least one edit in the last 30 days.

:::::::] is currently undergoing an it. It is not disruptive to dispute the wording of a section of a guideline. Randomran the WP:FAILN shortcut all by himself, and it to ] all by himself. I it from WP:N. Randomran it. So the <nowiki>{{tl|disputedtag|section}}</nowiki> template is ''quite'' appropriate.

:::::::I did notice in ]. It looks like ]. It was apparently added in October. I'll start a thread about it later. --] (]) 01:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

<div style="text-align: center;">

<imagemap>
File:Rainbow trout.png
rect 16 4 270 293 ]
desc none
</imagemap>


<span style="font-size: 400%; color: Red;">'''''Whack!'''''</span>
</div>{{-}} {{center|] 12:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)}}

::::::*Pixelface, I think where you are making a mistake is by assuming that ] is disputed because it does not work, when in fact it does work as a set of inclusion criteria, although no one disputes the fact it works ''imperfectly''. The second problem for opponents of ] such as yourself, is that while ] is not perfect by any means, the alternatives such as providing exemptions for spinouts do not work any better, and give rise to more problems than such solutions set out to solve. If you can develop a set of inclusion criteria that work better than ], then Misplaced Pages will be forever grateful. However, putting the disputed tag on this guideline just because it is imperfect is not appropriate, and is a waste of your time. Like government, taxes and death, they all suck, but protesting against them is like spitting in the wind. --] (]) 10:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::*Gavin, there is a difference between <nowiki>{{disputedtag}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{disputedtag|section}}</nowiki>. The first is used to dispute a ''whole'' guideline. The second is to dispute ''part'' of a guideline. I used the second. --] (]) 01:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::::If you dispute a shortcut, tag the shortcut, don't tag the section it points to. ] (]) 07:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

== Smile! ==

<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">]

]<sup>'']''</sup> has smiled at you! Smiles promote ] and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing! <br /> <small>''Smile at others by adding {{tls|Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.''</small>
</div><!-- Template:smile -->
: :) --] (]) 19:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


==Happy ]!== ==Happy ]!==
Line 507: Line 43:
== WP:AN/Arbitration Enforcement notification == == WP:AN/Arbitration Enforcement notification ==


An regard you has been opened. --] (]) 20:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC) An regard you has been opened. --] (]) 20:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
:Thanks for the message. I see the thread was archived. --] (]) 03:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC) :Thanks for the message. I see the thread was archived. --] (]) 03:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


Line 529: Line 65:
Pixelface, or more like "egg on face" considering your gaff ... have you considered an apology to either of the two editors involved? Cheers, &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 18:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Pixelface, or more like "egg on face" considering your gaff ... have you considered an apology to either of the two editors involved? Cheers, &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 18:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
:Yes, I turned out to be wrong. I've apologized to the people who deserve one. --] (]) 20:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC) :Yes, I turned out to be wrong. I've apologized to the people who deserve one. --] (]) 20:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
::A ] has been started about you regarding the allegations you've made about sockpuppeteering. ] <sub>]</sub> 03:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC) ::A ] has been started about you regarding the allegations you've made about sockpuppeteering. ] ] 03:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
:::That seems unnecessary, given that he acknowledged being wrong and apologized above. It is time to return to building and improving articles not create needless drama. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 14:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC) :::That seems unnecessary, given that he acknowledged being wrong and apologized above. It is time to return to building and improving articles not create needless drama. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 14:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
::::Seconded. ] (]) 17:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC) ::::Seconded. ] (]) 17:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 638: Line 174:
:I stepped away from the computer for a bit, and I thought more about what I was going to say to you at ANI. One thing I ''was'' going to say was that I ''can'' recognize when I'm being uncivil. I said multiple uncivil things to you at ] and ]. I am sorry. And I was not exactly civil above. I apologize. You ''have'' done a lot of good work on season articles (and scores of other articles as well). I just happen to support episode articles. We probably ''will'' never agree about episodes of ''South Park'', but I ''can'' agree to be gentler in my responses to you from now on. Thank you for your message. Regards, --] (]) 05:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC) :I stepped away from the computer for a bit, and I thought more about what I was going to say to you at ANI. One thing I ''was'' going to say was that I ''can'' recognize when I'm being uncivil. I said multiple uncivil things to you at ] and ]. I am sorry. And I was not exactly civil above. I apologize. You ''have'' done a lot of good work on season articles (and scores of other articles as well). I just happen to support episode articles. We probably ''will'' never agree about episodes of ''South Park'', but I ''can'' agree to be gentler in my responses to you from now on. Thank you for your message. Regards, --] (]) 05:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
::Thank you. And I apologize for any uncivil remarks that I may have made towards you in the past as well. Some things on Misplaced Pages just seem to bring out the worst in people at times, in this particular case it is ]..lol. ] ] 05:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC) ::Thank you. And I apologize for any uncivil remarks that I may have made towards you in the past as well. Some things on Misplaced Pages just seem to bring out the worst in people at times, in this particular case it is ]..lol. ] ] 05:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
:::So what can we do? Between inclusionists and deletionists, is this dispute going to expand until it ends in ]? The ball's in your court. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 00:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC) :::So what can we do? Between inclusionists and deletionists, is this dispute going to expand until it ends in ]? The ball's in your court. ]<sup>'']''</sup> 00:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
::::Durova, you must mean E&C 3. And why should you think that it will settle the issue? anyway it is not between inclusionists and deletionists. One can be a inclusionist pr deletionist with respect to fiction and not other things. Its time to get the argument make into twin streams: content, and separate articles. I dont think people will ever agree on the amount of detail to be devoted to fiction, but perhaps there is room for a compromise about what will consitutes a separate article, here or in other topics. Or perhaps we will only sovled this when we get away form the concept of "an article" . ''']''' (]) 08:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC) ::::Durova, you must mean E&C 3. And why should you think that it will settle the issue? anyway it is not between inclusionists and deletionists. One can be a inclusionist pr deletionist with respect to fiction and not other things. Its time to get the argument make into twin streams: content, and separate articles. I dont think people will ever agree on the amount of detail to be devoted to fiction, but perhaps there is room for a compromise about what will consitutes a separate article, here or in other topics. Or perhaps we will only sovled this when we get away form the concept of "an article" . ''']''' (]) 08:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::Of course, failed. I guess it would still be 3? ] (]) 20:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC) :::::Of course, failed. I guess it would still be 3? ] (]) 20:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 665: Line 201:
==Please be civil== ==Please be civil==
If you disagree with my point of view, by all means says so and say why. However, I would be grateful if you could refrain from being uncivil. I like a joke from time to time, even at my own expense, but I don't see about me being ] as being civil at all. If you have any personal concerns about me as an editor, take them to ]. --] (]|] 12:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC) If you disagree with my point of view, by all means says so and say why. However, I would be grateful if you could refrain from being uncivil. I like a joke from time to time, even at my own expense, but I don't see about me being ] as being civil at all. If you have any personal concerns about me as an editor, take them to ]. --] (]|] 12:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
:By directing Misplaced Pages volunteers to ], you ''are'' being a ]. And if you continue to suggest they contribute ''there'' instead of here, I will continue to say so. --] (]) 14:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
:::(Butting in) Along these lines you ] "Misplaced Pages, a non-profit project, has no business having a policy that encourages editors to ship fiction content off Misplaced Pages to Wikia, a for-profit website founded by the same person who founded Misplaced Pages. A policy that forbids, on Misplaced Pages, content used to build Wikia and generate a profit for Jimbo Wales, can and may harm the non-profit status of Misplaced Pages itself. --Pixelface (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2008" a view which at this donor banner time of year is interesting. I wonder if a Wikia (I.e. a wiki with less stringent restrictions on what is "notable") could in theory fund Misplaced Pages if it were merged, and free knowledge, free from donations, free from editors saying "that is not notable" might have its time at last. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> (Thank you sinebot)
::Pixel, you only hurt yourself by saying things like this, apologize, remove, and move on. ] (]) 14:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
:::Well, I think it's interesting that I also told Gavin to stop trolling in that comment, yet it's the "useful idiot" part he objected to. My comment stands. --] (]) 14:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

== Re: Notable ==

The discussion is somewhat moot now, but ] states that "Article topics need to be notable, or "worthy of notice"."; this isn't established by "subjective opinion", but ], primarily secondary sources. The sources that establish Half-Life's notability do not automatically establish notability for the ''creatures'' of Half-Life. If there are sufficient sources to do this, then, for ], they should be directly cited in this article. If there are insufficient reliable sources for an article to establish notability, then by all means what little sourced content there is should be merged into the parent article. ] (] • ]) 14:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
:Whether something is "worthy of notice" *is* a subjective opinion. Secondary sources are just ''one'' indicator of notability, not the ''only'' indicator of notability. Notability cannot be "established." And there are plenty of secondary sources about the creatures in ''Half-Life''. --] (]) 14:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
==Baiting==
RE: "Please stop behaving like a petulant child." on another page in response to you.

It would be nice if you took the high road, instead of being baited into a uncivil argument. ] (]) 16:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
:I haven't seen that remark, and it's not worth responding to. --] (]) 16:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
:I decided to reply afterall. I guess we'll see what happens. --] (]) 16:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
::Good. :) you are too valuable of editor. ] (]) 16:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

== Please refactor the personal attacks in the NOT#PLOT discussion. ==

Pixelface, I generally agree with where you are going, but you need to remove those comments (like your RfA and probably the "to win an editwar" thing). Otherwise you are going to be blocked very shortly indeed. Not a threat, and please don't take it that way. I'd just rather not see you blocked and I dislike seeing the personal attacks. ] (]) 02:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
:Both of those comments are true, and I'm not going to remove them. The truth can hurt, but those are not personal attacks. They are statements of fact. --] (]) 02:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
::I'd argue that things can still be personal attacks when they aren't exactly on target to the discussion. But not my call. Best of luck! ] (]) 02:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

==Please trim your statement on ]==
Thank you for making a statement in an Arbitration application on ]. We ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Please trim your statement accordingly. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence. Neat, concisely presented statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

:Sorry about that. After I posted my statement, I noticed it was about twice that length &mdash; but I do think my statement was the most informational. It looks like that request was so I suppose it's moot now. --] (]) 04:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

==Invitation==
I am just starting this page: ], to create a straw poll for all ARS members to comment in.

I welcome your comments and contributions. ] (]) 21:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
:The page looks like a redirect now, but the section looks okay to me. I'm not an ARS member by the way (although I appreciate what they do). --] (]) 04:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

== Barnstar ==

{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For creating ], my new favourite page on the web! I just wanted to let you know that the effort of compiling all those articles into one list has not gone unnoticed! ] ]
|}
Just a token of my own, and, no doubt, everyone else's appreciation! ] ] 23:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

:Thank you. It may have been a poor idea for editors to create so many of those articles, but a handful of editors steamrolling with AFDs when there is no deadline sure does put a strain on other volunteers willing to do research. --] (]) 04:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

==Re "A deletionist proposal"==
I thought I'd handled the proposal at ] quite, er ... robustly, but you made me look like a Sunday school teacher. Your rhetoric and choice of examples were right on target, and had me laughing by the end. If certain people had any sense, they'd give up or at least adopt a more moderate line - but that's a huge "if". --] (]) 09:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
:Oh, thank you. And I really thought your comments were quite good. I agreed with everything you said. But I didn't see them until after I posted. I just felt I had to comment myself after seeing the proposal. People should be working on finding common ground. Unfortunately, I think it's more likely that ] will hit Archive 100 sooner than much sense entering the discussions there. --] (]) 18:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
::On the bright side, if you're right ] will give us plenty of much-needed opportunities to let off steam. <small>Then we check which deletionist is getting most ........ and .......</small> --] (]) 19:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

==Rehoboth Carpenter Family==

Regarding ] - We have surveyed, we have compromised, we have repeatedly asked to user Iwanafish to communicate. He refuses with his snide comments and reversions to non-wiki versions. We have warned him "offically" a lot more than 3 times. Repeatedly, we have asked for mediation, we have asked for help and I do not know who else to ask. Can you pass this up the chain of editors?

User Iwanafish continues to disrupt and vandalize this page and it has spread his behavior to other pages. ] ] What else can we do but shut down the articles involved and provide warnings that when they are restored by user Iwanafish that they are garbage? Has wikipedia lost the ability to police itself? I am beginning to think this is a hopeless cause where such bullies can inflict such damage to wikipedia. What else can be done?
John R. Carpenter ] (]) 05:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
:I don't know if I would characterize their edits as vandalism, as I don't know enough about the situation. The editor may have legitimate concerns, but not voicing those concerns makes things very difficult. I've asked that editor if they could explain their thinking on the article talk page. You might also try asking an ] to look at the situation. Based on your username, an admin may point you to ] which I think you should read. Thanks. --] (]) 01:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

This page came up on MfD and after some spirited discussion, I was moved to #rd it to ]. The MfD may now be moot but on the offchance that the #rd gets deleted, you may want to change your links. &mdash; ]]]] 18:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
:Thanks for the message. At first I thought "My links? What?" but then I checked whatlinkshere and now I understand. I see why you left the page blank. I guess if you think the page should be a redirect, that's your call. Your post at ] is interesting, and I found myself agreeing with several things you said. --] (]) 23:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the redirect is ''not'' my call; see the outcome of the MfD. This is exactly the sort of thing that provokes me. I cannot see for the life of me why the #rd should not stand; I much doubt that there will ever be harm done by it. On the other hand, I can't see sufficient payoff from contesting the deletion. Once again, the bean-counters, the dossers, with nothing better to do, overcome rational argument from editors who are just too busy earning a living and taking care of business.

WP, lacking any inviolate core values, is fat prey for those with more free time to push their viewpoints than sense. If I didn't think something important was at stake, I'd leave it alone. I've tried -- manfully -- and failed, because again and again I'm driven to stand for something in a community that seems to stand for nothing. &mdash; ]]]] 22:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

== NOTPLOT ==

Hello,
I'm contacting folks who have been participating on NOTPLOT to get their feedback on Masem's proposal which seems to have some traction. ] (]) 14:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
*Thanks for the comments. I was pretty sure that's what you were going to say. I agree with you about removing NOTPLOT, but I view this as an improvement over what is there now and is perhaps the best bad thing we are going to get... ] (]) 23:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
**If people want to pretend the straw poll didn't happen, they can write and rewrite WP:NOT#PLOT to their heart's content. While the proposed section is better than the current section, just about ''anything'' would be better than of WP:NOT#PLOT, which appears to be end run attempt to make ] policy, when there is no consensus for it to be policy. --] (]) 23:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

== My talk ==

I've replied at my ] rather than ] as it saves swamping debate there. I left a note at ], but the page seems to be geting a lot of reverts lately. ] <small>] </small> 12:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
:I'll reply there within the next few days. --] (]) 20:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

==Mediation at ]==

I'm suggesting we ask for mediation to help build teh guidance at ]. What I propose is that a mediator be the only person to edit the project page itself and be the one to guide discussion and discern consensus. I've proposed it at ]. As a past participant in the lengthy debates, I'd appreciate your input and hopefully your agreement. ] <small>] </small> 10:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
:Until the policy status of WP:NOT#PLOT is resolved (meaning, until WP:NOT#PLOT is properly removed from that policy page), I don't think mediation regarding WP:FICT or WP:FICTION can be productive. I will however comment at ], which I noticed in {{tl|cent}} today, and noticed you created. --] (]) 20:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
::Yeah, I'm hoping to at least get some clarity on the issue of whether any agreement is possible, because if it isn't, then I would prefer that Misplaced Pages took the approach that it is better to agree to disagree than try to enforce anything as having consensus. That might actually allow parties to work towards areas of agreement rather than areas of disagreement. ] <small>] </small> 12:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

== "Hiding hastily added" and WP:WAF ==

That's perfect. I think that's a fair reflection. I'm perfectly willing to agree/concede I was hasty. However, regarding ], there never was any guidance that admins should not close discussions they've participated in back then when I did it. Please strike or refactor at ]. Also, you seem to have missed a reply regarding how widely advertised ] was, . Might be wroth re-factoring to mention that too. ] <small>] </small> 12:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
:While I'm glad you're willing to agree/concede you were hasty, and I'm interested to learn there was no such guidance about admins back then, I'm not going to refactor any of it. There was no policy on plot summaries at the time that scores of articles under ] were created either, during the first 5 1/2 years after Misplaced Pages was founded. But WP:NOT#PLOT "enforcers" don't let articles created prior to WP:NOT#PLOT off the hook. It's funny how guidance sometimes works retroactively.<br><br>And I did see that reply from Amcaja. When he said it's "pretty widely known, methinks", I take it with a grain of salt because it was his proposal. And we're talking about something that under 20 people voted on during one week in June 2006. I saw that you , saying "I thought a week was an acceptable period given it was a straw poll rather than an official poll, and there was such a strong consensus." Charcaroth also "I don't think everyone who was interested in this proposal was aware of it."<br><br>I do notice that it had strong support, but I guess all the editors who've edited the 1,000,000+ articles under ], but weren't one of the dozen and a half editors at ] during 8 days in June 2006 are out of luck? The irony is that Amcaja during the straw poll "The last thing I want to see is all-out war on in-universe articles."<br><br>If the looked like the about WP:NOT#PLOT, would you have marked WAF a guideline? What does that say about WP:NOT#PLOT? --] (]) 00:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

===Replies to this, that and the other===

I didn't actually amend policy and guidance to win any argument, I asked questions to find out what the consensual position was from people I thought would know, and acted accordingly, in line with what I understood to be Misplaced Pages practises. It was never about one article it was about something more, it was about what was expected. I didn't want to devote my time to an activity that would prove meaningless. Which, ultimately, is ironic. It was never an argument and it was never one article, it was trying to work out what we were building before I helped build it. Kind of how a builder will have plans from which to work. I'm sorry that Misplaced Pages practises have changed such that what I have done cannot appear to be undone, because that goes against the spirit of Misplaced Pages I believe in. How we would change that I have no idea, because it is quite clear we can't actually work together given you feel the need to hold me accountable for your frustrations. I've already countered your argument that any change of mine to policy affects ''x'' amount of articles; it's a redundant argument. Any change to any policy affects everything. And no, I'm not going to hold off editing policies and guidance, and I reject the accusation that I am despicable. Where I edit policies I do so in one of two manners: after gaining a consensus on the talk page, or to test consensus. I find it more troubling that people allege that you cannot edit policy. That's despicable, and that's dangerous. All of our policies should be editable, at all times, otherwise we have failed ourselves and the future. Why do I believe this? Because sometimes we do get it wrong, and we need to be able to admit that, but more importantly, correct it. I've already said somewhere in the endless ] debacle that I believe most in the idea that our policies must represent consensus. I think that answers any lingering questions you have of me. I find your final question: "why should people who've never edited an actual encyclopedia before be writing a rulebook on how to do it anyway?" amusing, since it begs the retort "why should people who've never edited an actual encyclopedia before be writing one anyway?" Isn't that how we got in this mess in the first place. I think at the end of the day we have very different wiki-philosophies. I walk an antifactionalist-eventualism path, and you seem to be wandering an factionalist-immediatism one. I think all we can agree on is a conflict-driven view of wiki. Personally, I think you'd have a better time of it if you stopped attacking people and started attacking the issue itself. But you need to escalate it, get more people involved, and stop allowing people to tar you as a fringe view by building a broad consensus for your opinion. You won't do that by scatter-shot accusations against me or Masem or whoever falls into your firing line. You need to do it by holding to a line that PLOT does not belong in NOT because of the impact it has on Misplaced Pages, and that the general idea that is behind PLOT needs to be better explained in one page which deals with how we edit articles on fiction. And that page needs to explore the competing philosophies and highlight what we expect from all of them. We expect people to provide sources, but we expect people to afford them time to do so. We have a style on fiction, and always have, and articles should be edited towards that style, rather than away from it, and the purpose of Misplaced Pages is to inform from a neutral point of view. Personally, if we could get all articles on Misplaced Pages something like what the Dr Who project turn out, I don't think either of us would have a problem with that. I'd like every television series, every comic book series, every novel treated like that, provided we can source it. I believe Misplaced Pages is not paper, but I also believe it is an encyclopedia. Anyway, all the best, and see you around sometime. And seriously, if I'd known how it all would turn out, I doubt I would have done it. I have the sneaking suspicion someone else would have, though. I always troubled to leave a back door. I doubt other people would. Read very carefully the sentence in WP:V, ''If '''no''' reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it.'' I was very careful to write '''no''', because I firmly believe that one is enough. The reason we ended up with multiple at ], which for me goes too far, is because some people think that what I wrote means that one news article would justify an article. And that's when I learnt the lesson you seem to be attempting to teach me. We don't need any more rules, and we need to deprecate a vast number of them. I recall trying to merge a large number of policies, but we never got anywhere, because, weirdly, people like policies. That's the inertia you've got to fight and change. Not me.I'll march to hell and back for ] because that's what I believe in. But I have no idea how we get rid of ], because any path looks like it will lead to arb-com. I don't think I'm the first to work that out. No-one wants mediation though, so it's best if I just trundle away. I'm sorry you have such a poor opinion of me, but all I can say is that I am one person. Ask yourself, can one person really matter that much? ] <small>] </small> 11:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

===Also===

Can you think of anywhere else to publicise ]? ] <small>] </small> 12:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hello Pixelface,<br />great idea; see my ]. --- Kind regards, ] (]) 03:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

== Overstepping the mark ==

Pixelface, even by your own standards you have exceeded the requirements of ] with . I know that we disagree about the validity of this policy, but you don't have not make ] attacks on editors with whom you disagree in order to get your views across. What point is there too it? If editors can't discuss plot only articles in a civilized way, what hope have editors got in discussing controversial topics such as politics or religion? Both of us are long established editors at Misplaced Pages, so we have to lead by example when it comes to civility. ] is not a policy which is about me personally, so I would be most grateful if you would edit out the disparaging remarks you have made about me. --] (]|] 10:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

:I stand by every word I said. And I'm not going to change any of it. And I hope you will give a reply at WT:NOT to what I said.<br><br>Ignoring for one moment who ], and how it became policy, and the ''legitimacy'' of that policy, and how it is actually &mdash; ] says "Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others." That's ''exactly'' what you've done with your repeated (and nearly lone) insistence that WP:NOT#PLOT is not disputed (with comments at WT:NOT as well as removals/modifications of disputed tags on the policy page itself ) &mdash; when it clearly *is* disputed. And that's ''exactly'' what you did with comment to me, which I was responding to. You accused me of "hiding", suggested I said things I never said, and suggested I had made no rational arguments for removing WP:NOT#PLOT &mdash; after I had already pointed you to ] three months ago.<br><br>If that's your idea of "civility", give me ] any day. Are you familiar with the term "]"? Personally, I would rather talk to a person who speaks with uncivil, blunt honesty rather than a perfectly civil crank &mdash; or troll. --] (]) 23:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
::My view is that this type of ] attack is little more than ], and needs to stop. I have asked for swift administrator intervention in this matter at . As I have said before, these attacks are unnessary and unwarranted, and I recomend that you modify your behaviour with immediate effect. --] (]|] 09:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

== {{tl|Recent death}} ==

Please see ] which is related to a proposed change to {{tl|Recent death}}. An example of how this change would appear is on ]. --''] /<sup>]</sup>'' 00:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

==Happy ]!==
Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 05:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

== Status ==

Hey, I have not seen you in like a month. Is everything okay? Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 02:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

==Happy Halloween!==
]
{{clear}}
As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to ], supportive enough to ], etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 18:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

==Happy Thanksgiving!==
]
{{clear}}
I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to ], supportive enough to ], etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 06:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

==Merry Christmas==
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">]

]<sup>'']''</sup> is wishing you a ] ]! This greeting (and season) promotes ] and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a ], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow! <br />

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{]:]}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
</div> To those who make ], who are ], or ]. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 20:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

==] of ]==
]

The article ] has been ]&#32; because of the following concern:
:<b>Unreferenced - fails ]</b>

While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be ].

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the <code>{{tl|dated prod}}</code> notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing <code>{{tl|dated prod}}</code> will stop the ], but other ]es exist. The ] can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:PRODWarning --> ] (]) 00:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

== ] nomination of ] ==

<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>I have nominated ], an article that you created, for ]. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.{{-}}Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. <!-- Template:AFDWarning --> <sub><small>] (])</small></sub> 03:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

== You may be interested in this AFD ==

] is up for its second deletion nomination ]. You took part in the first one so I thought you might be interested. ] (]) 03:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

== Just to let you know ==

You have been mentioned at ]. X] (]) 15:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
==] nomination of ]==
]
{{Quote box|quote=<p>If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read ].</p><p>You may want to consider using the ] to help you create articles.</p>|width=20%|align=right}}
A tag has been placed on ], requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under ], because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the ] for any other experiments you would like to do.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with ]. <!-- Template:Db-nonsense-notice --><!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> ] ] 18:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692013717 -->
== Twoallbeefpattiesspecialsaucelettucecheesepicklesonionsonasesameseedbun listed at ] ==
]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''Twoallbeefpattiesspecialsaucelettucecheesepicklesonionsonasesameseedbun'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] if you have not already done so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 08:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
<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 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.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> <sub><small>] (])</small></sub> 19:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
== "Misplaced Pages talk:SOAP" listed at ] ==
]
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ] and has thus listed it ]. This discussion will occur at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 11:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:04, 6 March 2023

This user may have left Misplaced Pages. Pixelface has not edited Misplaced Pages since August 3, 2009. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
Archiving icon
Archives

August 2006 to December 31, 2007
January to March 2008
April 2008 to February 2009



Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!

On behalf of the Misplaced Pages:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Misplaced Pages:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A Nobody 15:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Happy Saint Patrick's Day to you to. --Pixelface (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome and thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody 16:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Alert

I'm just letting you know that I filed a WP:WQA alert, see this page, regarding your behavior on several talk pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. --Pixelface (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm only going to mention this once, as a courtesy. Please watch the tone you take with me and your fellow editors. If you disagree over something, that's fine. Your rudeit i attitude ("you're wrong, yet again") is uncouth, unprofessional, and will not be tolerated any longer. My patience with it has dried up. Just to clarify, because you feel that NOTE is not a requirement does not mean that those who do are "wrong". It is your opinion, nothing more. Your opinion is no more "right" than anyone else's opinion. Please try and respect other people's opinions on Misplaced Pages, it will only serve you better in the future. Thanks, and cheers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Listen, you cannot keep making false claims. How can I say that any more civilly? If you say something incorrect, and someone point out that you're incorrect, and you think that's rude, then simply stop spreading misinformation and people will stop telling you that you're wrong. If you say something that's incorrect, I will point it out. It's not a matter of disagreement. It's a matter of you being clearly wrong and misrepresenting Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. You are wrong. That's the point. Would you like it if I kept making false statements as if what I was saying was correct? You are blatantly wrong when you say that Misplaced Pages requires every article to provide significant coverage. That is a fact, I'm sorry to say. I can respect your opinions just fine — but I cannot respect your false statements. If it's your opinion that Misplaced Pages requires significant coverage in every article, you may want to point out that that's your opinion when you say as much, and stop making people think that what you're saying is a fact. Go ahead and say "In my opinion, every article must provide significant coverage" all you want. But please do not misrepresent Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelies and say that Misplaced Pages requires it. Thank you for your message, and you're courtesy. --Pixelface (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTE: "Within Misplaced Pages, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article. Article topics need to be notable, or "worthy of notice." - "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below." - "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." - The page clearly says this. Now, it is your interpretation that this does not apply to all articles, but this page does not say "this does not apply to every article". If it said that, then I wouldn't assume that "every" article requires significant coverage. You can do what you want with it, but the page's wording is on my side. The "opinion" part comes from your personal assessment on whether "notability" is something every article must satisfy. If you believe that every episode is notable, then per WP:NOTE it must meet the GNG requirements, as the "episode" is a "topic". Per the GNG, "significant coverage" is required. That is what is says, plain and simple. I'm not making it up, I'm not misinterpreting it, I'm merely citing it verbatim.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, and WP:NOTE said topics should be notable up until Equazcion unilaterally changed it last month without consensus to do so, which is discussed on the talkpage. "Should" does not mean must. And a guideline cannot enforce musts anyway. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, the topic is probably notable. If a topic has not received significant coverage, that does not therefore mean that the topic is not notable. WP:NOTE has never said "Only if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable" — and if it ever does, that phrase is false anyway.
Every article does not require significant coverage. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? Do the Himalayas require significant coverage in order to be notable? No. People were noticing the Himalayas before the written word was even invented, and they'll be noticing the Himalays long after you and I are dead. And no, the page's wording is not "on your side." WP:NOTE itself says "Notability requires objective evidence" — not "Notability requires significant coverage." You are wrong. And that section that Kubigula wrote is also disputed. You clearly do not understand the WP:GNG. It currently says, and I quote, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Notice it does not say "Only if a topic.." Learn the difference please. The GNG also says "A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia." And the GNG is merely Uncle G's opinion anyway.
Notability is a subjective opinion. Like you said above, opinions cannot be wrong. So if it's someone's opinion that every episode of a notable show is notable, they cannot be wrong. And the GNG is not a requirement. "Per the GNG", coverage is not required. That is not what it says, so please stop saying it does. You are making it up, you are misinterpreting it, you're not citing it verbatim, so please stop it. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, if Misplaced Pages really did require every article to provide significant coverage, you never could have created the article Traitor (comics). But you did, and it doesn't. --Pixelface (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Go back to the page before he changed it, and you'll see that all of my quoted text appears before he changed the wording, so your argument about him unilaterally changing the page is irrelevant because it doesn't affect anything I quoted. The page already stated that topics should meet the GNG, and the GNG says "significant coverage". Even if you stick with the "probably notable", lack of "significant coverage" only means that there is not notability asserted. Without information reliably sourced then you cannot argue something is notable. It's all he said/she said, with no actual facts to back it up. Exactly where, please point it out, does it say "significant coverage is not a requirement". If you can point that out on any policy or guideline, I'll be happy to retract my statement. If you cannot do that, then you cannot say I'm legitimately "wrong". I get the distinct impression that you don't like losing arguments, because you try and twist everything your way. Have what you will. I know I'm right in my assessment. You seem to be the only person actually claiming them I'm wrong (to clarify, you are the only person claiming that the GNG doesn't require significant coverage for all topics, everyone else who disagrees is doing so because they don't agree with the requirements themselves and not because they are in denial about what the page actually says). Anyway, this is like arguing with a brick wall...it's going no where. Believe what you want, but I'm letting you know that if you continue to respond in the tone that you have been with me, or anyone else, on any of the non-user talk pages (e.g., guideline pages, article pages, etc.) the I will go to the Administrative noticeboard. If you disagree with me, that's cool, but try and be more professional and respectful with your tone and choice of words. Good day.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
No, all of your quoted text does not appear in the version of WP:N before Equazcion changed the wording on February 13. You're free to look for yourself. And Equazcion also tried to sneak "significant coverage" into WP:V, which this thread at WT:V is about. Thankfully, I see that someone reverted Equazcion's attempt to change that policy. I notice now that Equazcion apparently retired on March 7. Please read that message and then compare that with what I'm saying if you have any problem with my "tone."
If you'll notice, WP:N says "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines: Academics, Books, Films, Music, Numbers, Organizations & companies, People, and Web content." WP:N does not say "only if it meets the GNG."
Notability cannot be "asserted." It cannot be "established." Whether something is "worthy of notice" is a subjective opinion. Significant coverage is evidence of notability. But that is not the only evidence of notability. Gordon Brown is notable. Why? He's notable because he's the Prime Minister of the UK. Now, there is significant coverage of Gordon Brown. But Gordon Brown is not notable for coverage. He's notable because he's the Prime Minister.
I don't have to point out where it says "significant coverage is not a requirement." You're the one saying it is a requirement and you have nothing to back it up except your word. You are wrong. I'm not twisting everything my way. You are wrong in your assessment. If you like, go ahead and start a thread at WP:AN or WP:ANI and ask if significant coverage is required in order for a topic to be notable. I asked a similar question of every Arbcom candidate in the 2008 elections. There is no requirement present in the GNG. If there were, it would say "Every article requires significant coverage", and it doesn't.
It's not that I disagree with you, it's that you're saying is blatantly false. Your inability to comprehend the GNG is unfortunate, but not as unfortunate as your unwillingness to cease spreading your false claims. --Pixelface (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN/Arbitration Enforcement notification

An Arbitration Enforcement case regard you has been opened. --MASEM (t) 20:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I see the thread was archived. --Pixelface (talk) 03:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Someguy1221

Do you actually have any evidence for this serious accusation? If so, you should open a sockpuppet investigation without delay. If not, you should strike that comment without delay. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I've never opened an SPI before, so I'm unfamiliar with the process. I'll open one, but there will be some delay as I figure it out. Thanks. --Pixelface (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I can help you if you have the evidence Pixel. Ikip (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm busy putting it together, but thank you for the offer. --Pixelface (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I've pinged a notable CU. Jeers, Jack Merridew 09:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
To join the secret cabal follow me!

Whack!

Jack Merridew 10:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Pixelface, or more like "egg on face" considering your gaff ... have you considered an apology to either of the two editors involved? Cheers, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I turned out to be wrong. I've apologized to the people who deserve one. --Pixelface (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
A thread at AN/I has been started about you regarding the allegations you've made about sockpuppeteering. Reyk YO! 03:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
That seems unnecessary, given that he acknowledged being wrong and apologized above. It is time to return to building and improving articles not create needless drama. Sincerely, --A Nobody 14:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Seconded. Ikip (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Something different to work on

Pixelface, why don't we all set the right example by moving away from all these ANI and what have yous and focus on bringing some articles to good and featured status? Check out the April 3, 2009 issue of Entertainment Weekly. Much of this issue focus on profiling "Your Ultimate Guide! Heroes & Villains WHy we Love Them Both" with top twenty lists of "Scariest Villains" and "Coolest Heroes", a top ten list by Stephen King of "literature's greatest evildoers," and a "Rogues Gallery" of four major actors and the characters they played. Anyway, there are lots of out of universe commentary on production, reception, and oddly enough "notability" as presented in a verifiable reliable source. We have everything from commentary from the actors, commentary by one of the greatest modern writers, information on what characters these characters inspired, etc. This issue is by far one of the finest secondary sources I have seen in a mainstream publication for our purposes of improving fictional character articles and it gives us a sense of which ones are priorities to boot. The magazine doesn't just list them, but has a whole paragraphs (and in some cases in multiple separate articles) on each of those I am listing below. All of the following are covered in this extensive manner and from this issue alone has enough information for at least good status (the following is sort of like a list based on the various articles combined of literature and cinema's most notable heroes and villains; if we bafflingly don't have an article on any of these, they are prime candidates for new articles for which we can get DYK credits, i.e. Did you know such as such was listed as one of the top villains of all time due to x, y, and z.?):

The following are also mentioned in sort of "honorable mention" kind of capacities:

Anyway, all of the above on both lists, but especially the first list are fertile fields for DYKs, Good, and even Featured articles (I reckon some might already indeed be up to those standards and if any aren't, let's ignore all the back and forth hubbub and focus on bringing all of the above to such status!). Best, --A Nobody 18:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


a really good idea. There is nothing that more soundely defeats a fiction deletionist thatn developing n article that he didn't think developable, and finding sources he didn't think were there. At that point, the rational among them admit that in this case at least, they were wrong; the less rational, whom nothing will convice,make it clear to everyone that the dont actually care about sourcing or content, just about deletion of as much fiction as possible. What library facilties do you have available?Let me know and I will make suggestions. .
And if you want to work on some different sorts of fictional people, consider the protagonists of Little Women---all of whom need articles. There's enough material here--its a prime example of something that just hasnt been worked on seriously yet.DGG (talk) 09:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
The library at my university is currently being totally renovated, so I am relying primarily on Google Books and Google News. Best, --A Nobody 22:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I may check out the issue A Nobody, but I'm actually going to avoid editing many fictional character articles lately because that only puts a target on them. You mentioning them on my talkpage also puts a target on them. A better question would be if those editors insisting that the WP:GNG is a "requirement" consider that issue of Entertainment Weekly evidence of notability. I certainly do, but I don't need convincing. And I instantly recognize many of those characters. Jumping through other people's hoops in order to show that those articles meet the GNG would only seem to strengthen people's claims that the GNG is a requirement that all topics must pass, when that is simply untrue. --Pixelface (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
The above are notable to the point that if someone tried to delete he/she would look pointy and as such they would be overwhelmingly kept as the above are all award winning, reliable sourceable ones, some of which are even covered in mainstream encyclopedias. Please do help as I really would like to get some of these to DYK and Good status and I am too busy to do them all by myself. Your friend, --A Nobody 22:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I've edited four of the articles so far. Hopefully there are some Misplaced Pages readers that appreciate it. It looks like the top twenty villain list will come online on Monday. Thanks for bringing the source to my attention and thank you very much for providing reference information. Regards, --Pixelface (talk) 07:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Cool, thanks for the help. By the way, see also here. Apparently the list is drawing some intention in its own right. Best, --A Nobody 17:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Extending a hand

I just saw your (very long :D) response to Durova where you brought up the recent Wikietiquette report. I just wanted to thank you for acknowledging that at least some of things you were saying were not civil. I know that we will probably never agree on what constitutes being "worthy of notice" for a separate article, but maybe we can both be a bit more gentler in the tongue (or the fingers, since we're typing) with our response to each other in the future. Cheers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You actually caught me right in the middle of typing up a reply to you at ANI. I'll reply there first. --Pixelface (talk) 04:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I stepped away from the computer for a bit, and I thought more about what I was going to say to you at ANI. One thing I was going to say was that I can recognize when I'm being uncivil. I said multiple uncivil things to you at WT:EPISODE and Talk:List of South Park episodes. I am sorry. And I was not exactly civil on this talkpage above. I apologize. You have done a lot of good work on season articles (and scores of other articles as well). I just happen to support episode articles. We probably will never agree about episodes of South Park, but I can agree to be gentler in my responses to you from now on. Thank you for your message. Regards, --Pixelface (talk) 05:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. And I apologize for any uncivil remarks that I may have made towards you in the past as well. Some things on Misplaced Pages just seem to bring out the worst in people at times, in this particular case it is WP:NOTE..lol.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
So what can we do? Between inclusionists and deletionists, is this dispute going to expand until it ends in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2? The ball's in your court. Durova 00:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Durova, you must mean E&C 3. And why should you think that it will settle the issue? anyway it is not between inclusionists and deletionists. One can be a inclusionist pr deletionist with respect to fiction and not other things. Its time to get the argument make into twin streams: content, and separate articles. I dont think people will ever agree on the amount of detail to be devoted to fiction, but perhaps there is room for a compromise about what will consitutes a separate article, here or in other topics. Or perhaps we will only sovled this when we get away form the concept of "an article" . DGG (talk) 08:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Of course, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration:Characters and Episodes 3 failed. I guess it would still be 3? Ikip (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
E&C1 and E&C2 were both about TTN. But TTN stopped editing in late December. E&C1 didn't accomplish anything. And during E&C1 I said if Arbcom's ruling mentioned List of South Park episodes that those episode articles would be targeted next. Eventually they were, as seen now. E&C2 made things worse for the most part with the time it took for Arbcom to render a decision. And Collectonian's request in December to extend TTN's editing restrictions shouldn't have been rebranded and re-filed as E&C3 by Coren anyway. Once again, that was about TTN. And WP:EPISODE is still not a notability guideline. And WP:N still does not not establish any "thresholds", below which a topic is not notable. --Pixelface (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:N still does not not establish any "thresholds", below which a topic is not notable.

That is intriging what do you mean, maybe you should write an user page essay like DGG does. (or is it that other editor?) Ikip (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Significant coverage is an indicator of notability, but the absence of that means nothing, since other indicators of notability exist. I'll think about writing a userpage essay. --Pixelface (talk) 09:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A Nobody 07:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you A Nobody. Happy Easter to you too :) --Pixelface (talk) 09:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome! Sincerely, --A Nobody 17:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Creatures in the Half-Life series

I have nominated Creatures in the Half-Life series, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Creatures in the Half-Life series. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability in Misplaced Pages

Didn't you do a ton of research that would help to make the new Notability in Misplaced Pages article look really good? :) BOZ (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, hopefully you've gone and added all of that to the article. :) BOZ (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I created a timeline of notability guidelines that I haven't updated in a long time, but I'm really not sure how much of that could be cited in the article. However, the coverage that Ikip thankfully found can be. --Pixelface (talk) 06:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Please be civil

If you disagree with my point of view, by all means says so and say why. However, I would be grateful if you could refrain from being uncivil. I like a joke from time to time, even at my own expense, but I don't see this reference about me being Useful idiot as being civil at all. If you have any personal concerns about me as an editor, take them to WP:ANI. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

By directing Misplaced Pages volunteers to Wookieepedia, you are being a useful idiot. And if you continue to suggest they contribute there instead of here, I will continue to say so. --Pixelface (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
(Butting in) Along these lines you "Misplaced Pages, a non-profit project, has no business having a policy that encourages editors to ship fiction content off Misplaced Pages to Wikia, a for-profit website founded by the same person who founded Misplaced Pages. A policy that forbids, on Misplaced Pages, content used to build Wikia and generate a profit for Jimbo Wales, can and may harm the non-profit status of Misplaced Pages itself. --Pixelface (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2008" a view which at this donor banner time of year is interesting. I wonder if a Wikia (I.e. a wiki with less stringent restrictions on what is "notable") could in theory fund Misplaced Pages if it were merged, and free knowledge, free from donations, free from editors saying "that is not notable" might have its time at last. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtak (talk • contribs) (Thank you sinebot)
Pixel, you only hurt yourself by saying things like this, apologize, remove, and move on. Ikip (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think it's interesting that I also told Gavin to stop trolling in that comment, yet it's the "useful idiot" part he objected to. My comment stands. --Pixelface (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Notable

The discussion is somewhat moot now, but WP:N states that "Article topics need to be notable, or "worthy of notice"."; this isn't established by "subjective opinion", but reliable sources, primarily secondary sources. The sources that establish Half-Life's notability do not automatically establish notability for the creatures of Half-Life. If there are sufficient sources to do this, then, for verifiability, they should be directly cited in this article. If there are insufficient reliable sources for an article to establish notability, then by all means what little sourced content there is should be merged into the parent article. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether something is "worthy of notice" *is* a subjective opinion. Secondary sources are just one indicator of notability, not the only indicator of notability. Notability cannot be "established." And there are plenty of secondary sources about the creatures in Half-Life. --Pixelface (talk) 14:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Baiting

RE: "Please stop behaving like a petulant child." on another page in response to you.

It would be nice if you took the high road, instead of being baited into a uncivil argument. Ikip (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen that remark, and it's not worth responding to. --Pixelface (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I decided to reply afterall. I guess we'll see what happens. --Pixelface (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Good. :) you are too valuable of editor. Ikip (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Please refactor the personal attacks in the NOT#PLOT discussion.

Pixelface, I generally agree with where you are going, but you need to remove those comments (like your RfA and probably the "to win an editwar" thing). Otherwise you are going to be blocked very shortly indeed. Not a threat, and please don't take it that way. I'd just rather not see you blocked and I dislike seeing the personal attacks. Hobit (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Both of those comments are true, and I'm not going to remove them. The truth can hurt, but those are not personal attacks. They are statements of fact. --Pixelface (talk) 02:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd argue that things can still be personal attacks when they aren't exactly on target to the discussion. But not my call. Best of luck! Hobit (talk) 02:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Please trim your statement on requests for arbitration

Thank you for making a statement in an Arbitration application on requests for arbitration. We ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Please trim your statement accordingly. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence. Neat, concisely presented statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee. Tiptoety 05:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. After I posted my statement, I noticed it was about twice that length — but I do think my statement was the most informational. It looks like that request was declined so I suppose it's moot now. --Pixelface (talk) 04:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

I am just starting this page: User:Ikip/p, to create a straw poll for all ARS members to comment in.

I welcome your comments and contributions. Ikip (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The page looks like a redirect now, but the section looks okay to me. I'm not an ARS member by the way (although I appreciate what they do). --Pixelface (talk) 04:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
For creating User:Pixelface/AFDs bilateral relations, my new favourite page on the web! I just wanted to let you know that the effort of compiling all those articles into one list has not gone unnoticed! HJMitchell You rang?

Just a token of my own, and, no doubt, everyone else's appreciation! HJMitchell You rang? 23:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. It may have been a poor idea for editors to create so many of those articles, but a handful of editors steamrolling with AFDs when there is no deadline sure does put a strain on other volunteers willing to do research. --Pixelface (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Re "A deletionist proposal"

I thought I'd handled the proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#A_deletionist_proposal quite, er ... robustly, but you made me look like a Sunday school teacher. Your rhetoric and choice of examples were right on target, and had me laughing by the end. If certain people had any sense, they'd give up or at least adopt a more moderate line - but that's a huge "if". --Philcha (talk) 09:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thank you. And I really thought your comments were quite good. I agreed with everything you said. But I didn't see them until after I posted. I just felt I had to comment myself after seeing the proposal. People should be working on finding common ground. Unfortunately, I think it's more likely that WT:FICT will hit Archive 100 sooner than much sense entering the discussions there. --Pixelface (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
On the bright side, if you're right WT:FICT will give us plenty of much-needed opportunities to let off steam. Then we check which deletionist is getting most ........ and ....... --Philcha (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Rehoboth Carpenter Family

Regarding Rehoboth Carpenter family - We have surveyed, we have compromised, we have repeatedly asked to user Iwanafish to communicate. He refuses with his snide comments and reversions to non-wiki versions. We have warned him "offically" a lot more than 3 times. Repeatedly, we have asked for mediation, we have asked for help and I do not know who else to ask. Can you pass this up the chain of editors?

User Iwanafish continues to disrupt and vandalize this page and it has spread his behavior to other pages. John Carpenter (bishop) John Carpenter, town clerk of London What else can we do but shut down the articles involved and provide warnings that when they are restored by user Iwanafish that they are garbage? Has wikipedia lost the ability to police itself? I am beginning to think this is a hopeless cause where such bullies can inflict such damage to wikipedia. What else can be done? John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I would characterize their edits as vandalism, as I don't know enough about the situation. The editor may have legitimate concerns, but not voicing those concerns makes things very difficult. I've asked that editor if they could explain their thinking on the article talk page. You might also try asking an active admin to look at the situation. Based on your username, an admin may point you to Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest which I think you should read. Thanks. --Pixelface (talk) 01:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:The supreme, inviolate, pure virtue of Misplaced Pages

This page came up on MfD and after some spirited discussion, I was moved to #rd it to Misplaced Pages talk:Five pillars. The MfD may now be moot but on the offchance that the #rd gets deleted, you may want to change your links. — Xiong熊talk* 18:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. At first I thought "My links? What?" but then I checked whatlinkshere and now I understand. I see why you left the page blank. I guess if you think the page should be a redirect, that's your call. Your post at WT:5P is interesting, and I found myself agreeing with several things you said. --Pixelface (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the redirect is not my call; see the outcome of the MfD. This is exactly the sort of thing that provokes me. I cannot see for the life of me why the #rd should not stand; I much doubt that there will ever be harm done by it. On the other hand, I can't see sufficient payoff from contesting the deletion. Once again, the bean-counters, the dossers, with nothing better to do, overcome rational argument from editors who are just too busy earning a living and taking care of business.

WP, lacking any inviolate core values, is fat prey for those with more free time to push their viewpoints than sense. If I didn't think something important was at stake, I'd leave it alone. I've tried -- manfully -- and failed, because again and again I'm driven to stand for something in a community that seems to stand for nothing. — Xiong熊talk* 22:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

NOTPLOT

Hello, I'm contacting folks who have been participating on NOTPLOT to get their feedback on Masem's proposal which seems to have some traction. Hobit (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the comments. I was pretty sure that's what you were going to say. I agree with you about removing NOTPLOT, but I view this as an improvement over what is there now and is perhaps the best bad thing we are going to get... Hobit (talk) 23:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
    • If people want to pretend the straw poll didn't happen, they can write and rewrite WP:NOT#PLOT to their heart's content. While the proposed section is better than the current section, just about anything would be better than current version of WP:NOT#PLOT, which appears to be end run attempt to make WP:N policy, when there is no consensus for it to be policy. --Pixelface (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

My talk

I've replied at my talk page rather than WT:NOT as it saves swamping debate there. I left a note at WT:NOT, but the page seems to be geting a lot of reverts lately. Hiding T 12:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll reply there within the next few days. --Pixelface (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Mediation at WP:FICT

I'm suggesting we ask for mediation to help build teh guidance at Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction). What I propose is that a mediator be the only person to edit the project page itself and be the one to guide discussion and discern consensus. I've proposed it at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Mediation. As a past participant in the lengthy debates, I'd appreciate your input and hopefully your agreement. Hiding T 10:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Until the policy status of WP:NOT#PLOT is resolved (meaning, until WP:NOT#PLOT is properly removed from that policy page), I don't think mediation regarding WP:FICT or WP:FICTION can be productive. I will however comment at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Notability and fiction, which I noticed in {{cent}} today, and noticed you created. --Pixelface (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm hoping to at least get some clarity on the issue of whether any agreement is possible, because if it isn't, then I would prefer that Misplaced Pages took the approach that it is better to agree to disagree than try to enforce anything as having consensus. That might actually allow parties to work towards areas of agreement rather than areas of disagreement. Hiding T 12:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"Hiding hastily added" and WP:WAF

That's perfect. I think that's a fair reflection. I'm perfectly willing to agree/concede I was hasty. However, regarding WP:WAF, there never was any guidance that admins should not close discussions they've participated in back then when I did it. Please strike or refactor that assertion at WT:NOT. Also, you seem to have missed a reply regarding how widely advertised WP:WAF was, . Might be wroth re-factoring to mention that too. Hiding T 12:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

While I'm glad you're willing to agree/concede you were hasty, and I'm interested to learn there was no such guidance about admins back then, I'm not going to refactor any of it. There was no policy on plot summaries at the time that scores of articles under Category:Fiction were created either, during the first 5 1/2 years after Misplaced Pages was founded. But WP:NOT#PLOT "enforcers" don't let articles created prior to WP:NOT#PLOT off the hook. It's funny how guidance sometimes works retroactively.

And I did see that reply from Amcaja. When he said it's "pretty widely known, methinks", I take it with a grain of salt because it was his proposal. And we're talking about something that under 20 people voted on during one week in June 2006. I saw that you apologized, saying "I thought a week was an acceptable period given it was a straw poll rather than an official poll, and there was such a strong consensus." Charcaroth also said "I don't think everyone who was interested in this proposal was aware of it."

I do notice that it had strong support, but I guess all the editors who've edited the 1,000,000+ articles under Category:Fiction, but weren't one of the dozen and a half editors at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) during 8 days in June 2006 are out of luck? The irony is that Amcaja said during the straw poll "The last thing I want to see is all-out war on in-universe articles."

If the straw poll to make WAF a guideline looked like the recent straw poll about WP:NOT#PLOT, would you have marked WAF a guideline? What does that say about WP:NOT#PLOT? --Pixelface (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Replies to this, that and the other

I didn't actually amend policy and guidance to win any argument, I asked questions to find out what the consensual position was from people I thought would know, and acted accordingly, in line with what I understood to be Misplaced Pages practises. It was never about one article it was about something more, it was about what was expected. I didn't want to devote my time to an activity that would prove meaningless. Which, ultimately, is ironic. It was never an argument and it was never one article, it was trying to work out what we were building before I helped build it. Kind of how a builder will have plans from which to work. I'm sorry that Misplaced Pages practises have changed such that what I have done cannot appear to be undone, because that goes against the spirit of Misplaced Pages I believe in. How we would change that I have no idea, because it is quite clear we can't actually work together given you feel the need to hold me accountable for your frustrations. I've already countered your argument that any change of mine to policy affects x amount of articles; it's a redundant argument. Any change to any policy affects everything. And no, I'm not going to hold off editing policies and guidance, and I reject the accusation that I am despicable. Where I edit policies I do so in one of two manners: after gaining a consensus on the talk page, or to test consensus. I find it more troubling that people allege that you cannot edit policy. That's despicable, and that's dangerous. All of our policies should be editable, at all times, otherwise we have failed ourselves and the future. Why do I believe this? Because sometimes we do get it wrong, and we need to be able to admit that, but more importantly, correct it. I've already said somewhere in the endless WP:PLOT debacle that I believe most in the idea that our policies must represent consensus. I think that answers any lingering questions you have of me. I find your final question: "why should people who've never edited an actual encyclopedia before be writing a rulebook on how to do it anyway?" amusing, since it begs the retort "why should people who've never edited an actual encyclopedia before be writing one anyway?" Isn't that how we got in this mess in the first place. I think at the end of the day we have very different wiki-philosophies. I walk an antifactionalist-eventualism path, and you seem to be wandering an factionalist-immediatism one. I think all we can agree on is a conflict-driven view of wiki. Personally, I think you'd have a better time of it if you stopped attacking people and started attacking the issue itself. But you need to escalate it, get more people involved, and stop allowing people to tar you as a fringe view by building a broad consensus for your opinion. You won't do that by scatter-shot accusations against me or Masem or whoever falls into your firing line. You need to do it by holding to a line that PLOT does not belong in NOT because of the impact it has on Misplaced Pages, and that the general idea that is behind PLOT needs to be better explained in one page which deals with how we edit articles on fiction. And that page needs to explore the competing philosophies and highlight what we expect from all of them. We expect people to provide sources, but we expect people to afford them time to do so. We have a style on fiction, and always have, and articles should be edited towards that style, rather than away from it, and the purpose of Misplaced Pages is to inform from a neutral point of view. Personally, if we could get all articles on Misplaced Pages something like what the Dr Who project turn out, I don't think either of us would have a problem with that. I'd like every television series, every comic book series, every novel treated like that, provided we can source it. I believe Misplaced Pages is not paper, but I also believe it is an encyclopedia. Anyway, all the best, and see you around sometime. And seriously, if I'd known how it all would turn out, I doubt I would have done it. I have the sneaking suspicion someone else would have, though. I always troubled to leave a back door. I doubt other people would. Read very carefully the sentence in WP:V, If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it. I was very careful to write no, because I firmly believe that one is enough. The reason we ended up with multiple at WP:N, which for me goes too far, is because some people think that what I wrote means that one news article would justify an article. And that's when I learnt the lesson you seem to be attempting to teach me. We don't need any more rules, and we need to deprecate a vast number of them. I recall trying to merge a large number of policies, but we never got anywhere, because, weirdly, people like policies. That's the inertia you've got to fight and change. Not me.I'll march to hell and back for WP:CONSENSUS because that's what I believe in. But I have no idea how we get rid of WP:PLOT, because any path looks like it will lead to arb-com. I don't think I'm the first to work that out. No-one wants mediation though, so it's best if I just trundle away. I'm sorry you have such a poor opinion of me, but all I can say is that I am one person. Ask yourself, can one person really matter that much? Hiding T 11:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Also

Can you think of anywhere else to publicise Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Notability and fiction? Hiding T 12:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Linked on Google News

Hello Pixelface,
great idea; see my answer there. --- Kind regards, Numbo3 (talk) 03:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Overstepping the mark

Pixelface, even by your own standards you have exceeded the requirements of WP:CIVIL with this post. I know that we disagree about the validity of this policy, but you don't have not make ad hominem attacks on editors with whom you disagree in order to get your views across. What point is there too it? If editors can't discuss plot only articles in a civilized way, what hope have editors got in discussing controversial topics such as politics or religion? Both of us are long established editors at Misplaced Pages, so we have to lead by example when it comes to civility. WP:PLOT is not a policy which is about me personally, so I would be most grateful if you would edit out the disparaging remarks you have made about me. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I stand by every word I said. And I'm not going to change any of it. And I hope you will give a reply at WT:NOT to what I said.

Ignoring for one moment who wrote WP:CIVIL, and how it became policy, and the legitimacy of that policy, and how it is actually applied — Misplaced Pages:Civility says "Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others." That's exactly what you've done with your repeated (and nearly lone) insistence that WP:NOT#PLOT is not disputed (with comments at WT:NOT as well as removals/modifications of disputed tags on the policy page itself ) — when it clearly *is* disputed. And that's exactly what you did with this comment to me, which I was responding to. You accused me of "hiding", suggested I said things I never said, and suggested I had made no rational arguments for removing WP:NOT#PLOT — after I had already pointed you to User:Pixelface/On NOTPLOT three months ago.

If that's your idea of "civility", give me primitivism any day. Are you familiar with the term "crank"? Personally, I would rather talk to a person who speaks with uncivil, blunt honesty rather than a perfectly civil crank — or troll. --Pixelface (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
My view is that this type of ad hominem attack is little more than flaming, and needs to stop. I have asked for swift administrator intervention in this matter at WP:ANI. As I have said before, these attacks are unnessary and unwarranted, and I recomend that you modify your behaviour with immediate effect. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

{{Recent death}}

Please see this discussion which is related to a proposed change to {{Recent death}}. An example of how this change would appear is on this userpage. --Brian McNeil / 00:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy Labor Day!

Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A Nobody 05:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Status

Hey, I have not seen you in like a month. Is everything okay? Sincerely, --A Nobody 02:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

File:Halloween Hush Puppies.jpg
Photograph of my Halloween-themed Hush Puppies plush basset hounds in my bedroom.

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A Nobody 18:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A Nobody 06:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

A Nobody is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A Nobody 20:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of 1996 box office number-one films in the United States

The article List of 1996 box office number-one films in the United States has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced - fails WP:VER

While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. andy (talk) 00:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Creatures in the Half-Life series

I have nominated Creatures in the Half-Life series, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Creatures in the Half-Life series (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested in this AFD

List of Bratz products is up for its second deletion nomination here. You took part in the first one so I thought you might be interested. Ryan Vesey (talk) 03:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know

You have been mentioned at Misplaced Pages:Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Most Evil

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Most Evil, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines.  ΤheQ Editor  18:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Twoallbeefpattiesspecialsaucelettucecheesepicklesonionsonasesameseedbun listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Twoallbeefpattiesspecialsaucelettucecheesepicklesonionsonasesameseedbun. Since you had some involvement with the Twoallbeefpattiesspecialsaucelettucecheesepicklesonionsonasesameseedbun redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.  Sandstein  08:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Creatures of Half-Life for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Creatures of Half-Life 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/Creatures of Half-Life until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages talk:SOAP" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Misplaced Pages talk:SOAP and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 1#Misplaced Pages talk:SOAP until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. DB1729 (talk) 11:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Categories: