| Revision as of 01:45, 15 March 2006 editШизомби (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers7,533 edits →Gatekeeper← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:16, 23 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (910 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == Erb? == | |||
| NOTICE: Unsigned postings may be removed at any time for any reason. | |||
| Hi, | |||
| Archives: | |||
| Could you explain what just happened with the article we were discussing and your talk page? ] (]) 21:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| == Comment == | |||
| == The Status of Protest on Misplaced Pages == | |||
| Yes, that is predictable. You have my support. ] (]) 00:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Misplaced Pages it seems does not delineate between freedom of expression and the right to protest and vandalism. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a viable source of information. In my mind it must also be an "appropriate" source of information. But if we can't conduct peaceful, nonviolent protests on the texts of actual articles which people find disturbing (i.e. ]) what kind of message are we sending across to people who wish to protest but find themselves being blocked as a result of what editors consider "vandalism". I agree with the sentiments expressed by some that a template that has been termed as "nonsense" (Wiki-Protest) should be allowed in order for editors, WPs, and contributors to protest what they consider as harsh, racist, or inappropriate wikipedia articles in a manner outside of the normal spectrum for wikipedia. What do you all think about this? A friend of mine was blocked recently for participating in this kind of protest. -- Dominick_Turner | |||
| == |
== Your talkpage == | ||
| Travis, enjoy your break, and hopefully you are less stressed when you return. When you do come back, could you please undelete the history of your talk page? With respect - ] <sup>]</sup> 02:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == FWIW.... == | |||
| You commented on Kelly Martin's second RfC. it is up for archival. you may vote at ]. ]|] 03:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Deletion review for ]== | |||
| == Snowspinner RFC == | |||
| An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Since you were involved in the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 15:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Alaska Airlines and SeaTac== | |||
| I saw your outside comment at the RFC AzaToth filed. I think the implied threat of a block was inapropriate... especially given that AzaToth has not in fact done '''anything''' wrong. In your statement you take him to task for using 'meta-templates'... but in truth he was actively working to '''remove''' a meta-template. The dispute has ''nothing'' to do with whether meta-templates should be removed or not. That was the goal of '''both''' AzaToth and Snowspinner. Where they disagreed was on ''how'' to go about it. On Misplaced Pages, when people disagree as to the best course of action they are supposed to talk about it and get other opinions. If they are admins they are explicitly '''not''' supposed to protect the page at their preference. '''Nor''' threaten users with blocks for no greater 'offense' than disagreeing with an admin. AzaToth wanted to create non-meta templates and redirect to them before shutting down the original to make the transition seemless to the users. Snowspinner wanted to just replace the original (apparently needless disruption is somehow a ''good'' thing)... and used page protection to enforce his opinion on that. As a result he has caused several hundred user pages to display the wrong information... including yours. --] <big><sub>]</sub></big> <sup>]</sup> 21:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| "(cur) (last) 20:19, 12 July 2008 FCYTravis (Talk | contribs | block) (22,630 bytes) (this is WP:OR, the Web site says Seattle.) (undo)" | |||
| *It's not an implied threat, simply a statement of which someone would prefer. If a meta-template exists with no good reason for its existence, nuke it. ASAP. Especially if it's nothing more than a userbox. I really don't care if it "causes several hundred user pages to display the wrong information," even mine. It's a userbox - WHO CARES? Userboxes are not essential to the function of an encyclopedia, and they're certainly not any more important to me because I have a few on my userpage. If someone keeps reverting to a meta-template, Snowspinner has two choices: Protect the page, or block the person reverting. If I was doing something that was contrary to policy, I'd much prefer someone lock a page so I can't violate policy anymore than have someone block me for violating policy. It's a choice of two things, and Snowspinner took the path of least disruption to AzaToth. Honestly, tempest in a teapot. ] 21:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *:Sorry, but I couldn't disagree more. Blocking someone for trying comply with ] ''without'' causing disruption? 'Nuking' meta-templates on sight with no thought to the results? Both seem completely contrary to 'building an encyclopedia' to me. BTW, choice number three for Snowspinner... do nothing and let AzaToth remove the meta-template the way which '''doesn't''' break anything. I'm still not understanding why that '''wasn't''' an option. I just don't get the whole 'disruption is good' viewpoint. --] <big><sub>]</sub></big> <sup>]</sup> 22:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *::Disruption to userpages is not necessarily good. Disruption of the servers with a huge, widely-used meta-template is worse. The servers are more important than someone's userbox on their userpage. Kill the meta-template and sort it out later. Breaking things that break the server is *good* because reducing load improves the part of the encyclopedia that actually matters - the articlespace. We are not here to circle-jerk around templates, we're here to write an encyclopedia, and if nuking meta-templates in userspace improves the ability of people to view and edit the encyclopedia, then nuke away. ] 22:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Alright, let me tell you something. Just because a city has a United States Postal Service designation of "Seattle, Washington" doesn't mean that the place is in Seattle. The USPS is strange that way. | |||
| == Constant Musicianforums reverts == | |||
| The ''address'' is the citation. Plug it into Yahoo Maps, and it will be within the boundary of SeaTac. Plus I found a SeaTac page stating that AS is headquartered there. | |||
| I guess you have to give the anons credit for being tenacious? ] | ] 05:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *The DVD player's skipping ;) ] 05:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Next time, for USA addresses, when someone says "I plugged this and this address into Yahoo Maps and it is in the City of Y," double-check (Either with Yahoo Maps or with maps from city websites) and check to see whether she is right or wrong. Just because an address has "Houston, Texas" or "Baltimore, Maryland" doesn't mean the place is within these particular cities. ] (]) 21:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ==WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area roll call== | |||
| in regards to ] deletion. Once you have adressed my question on the delete page. Perhaps you may be able to explain, will making reference to ], more specifically:... (of course should probably prove that it's non-notable first!) For that you will need to demonstrate your subjective nature concerning notability. Is it merely an issue of defining a guideline? --] 21:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| Hello from ''']!''' | |||
| As part of a recent update to our project main page we are conducting a roll call to check which members are still active and interested in working on bay area related content. If you are still interested in participating, simply move your username from the inactive section of the ] to the active section. I hope you will find the redesigned project pages helpful, and I wanted to welcome you back to the project. If you want you can take a look at the newly redesigned: | |||
| == ] censorship == | |||
| I'm a little concerned about the attempts to censor the pictures on the ] entry (as well entries of other anatomy). I've reverted the removal twice, but I don't want to run afoul of ]. The two users representing the "against" bloc have been known to rally support along idealogical lines (Roman Catholic, in this case). As an editor, I try to remain as neutral as possible and don't want to align myself with any particular religion or politic, but I do feel strongly about censorship. What do you think? <b><font face="Arial" color="#D47C14">]</font><font face="Arial Black" color="#A26310">]</font><font face="Arial" color="#7D4C0C">]</font></b>] 18:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *]]<br/> | |||
| *]]<br/> | |||
| *]]<br/> | |||
| *]]<br/> | |||
| As well as the existing pages: | |||
| ==Eric Van article== | |||
| *]]<br/> | |||
| Sorry if I am stepping on any toes here. I got your message. As someone responsible for much of the original content, I do not appreciate terming it 'patent nonsense'. everything I wrote is fact gleaned from either specific documented sources or years of message board trolling, message boards that van himself posted on. That said, I agree I put too much POV in it and probably could have sourced better. I will do some additional research and rewrite it at a later date. As it stands now, there is absolutely nothing to the article. ] 15:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *]]<br/> | |||
| :Having absolutely nothing, on Misplaced Pages, is considered preferable to having an article full of POV and original research. There was no sourcing, and it was filled with all sorts of irrelevant and flat-out stupid bits, like "had stomach pains on a message board" and "is going to be considered for Commissioner of Baseball" - c'mon now. "Nary a man has possessed the depths of statistical knowledge as has the man himself Eric Van." - Yeah, right. C'mon now, you can do better. We don't care what this guy did on a bunch of message boards. ] 17:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * ]]<br/> | |||
| :::I will attemot to rewrite the article as I indcated above. I understand your points. The headers were POV, and there was some poor sourcing. Not sure when I will, but will work on it at some point. That said, if 1/2 the article is sourced via references provided, and 1/2 is badly sourced via the original research you cite, maybe 1/2 the article worth keeping is all I am saying ] 19:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] ]<br/> | |||
| ::''Having absolutely nothing, on Misplaced Pages, is considered preferable to having an article full of POV and original research.'' - Is this official policy, or your personal opinion? ] 18:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Official policy. Please see ], ], ] and ]. All articles must conform with these policies and guidelines. ] 18:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the ], and , if it isn't already. | |||
| ==Hi== | |||
| Again, hi! -] (]) 07:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for restoring that article :) | |||
| ==Deletion review for ]== | |||
| == AfD Thanks == | |||
| An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. <strong><span style="font-family:Monotype;">]]</span></strong> 17:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==WikiProject California roll call== | |||
| <div style="align: center; padding: 1em; border: solid 2px darkgreen; background-color: lightgreen;">Please accept my embarrassingly belated '''thank you''' for supporting ], which much to my surprise passed 102/1/1, earning me ]. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have already started doing the things people wanted me to be able to do. And hopefully nothing else... ] <sup>]]</sup>/<sub>]]</sub> ] '']'' 12:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC) </div> | |||
| ] | |||
| Hello from ''']!''' | |||
| As part of a recent update to our project main page we are conducting a roll call to check which members are still active and interested in working on California related content. If you are still interested in participating, simply move your username from the inactive section of the ] to the active section. I hope you will find the redesigned project pages helpful, and I wanted to welcome you back to the project. If you want you can take a look at the newly redesigned: | |||
| ==InsideMacGames== | |||
| Thanks for your help on ]. I was half expecting an afd from rc patrollers, so it was nice to see someone come in and clean up the entry, thank you. I'll keep an eye out for you for other OS X projects as they might arise. ] 08:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *]]<br/> | |||
| == Clay Sun Union == | |||
| *]]<br/> | |||
| Hi, where is the AFD page for Clay Sun Union please? ] 08:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *]]<br/> | |||
| *]]<br/> | |||
| As well as the existing pages: | |||
| == Article on Boze Hadleigh == | |||
| *]]<br/> | |||
| ] seems to have started a new edit war concerning the content of the ] article. You may have a look at this page and the related talk page. Thank you. ] 23:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *]]<br/> | |||
| *] ]<br/> | |||
| If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the ], and , if it isn't already. | |||
| == International Travels == | |||
| Hi Travis, I'm going to continue what appears to be a fine tradition and pinch the code for the intl travels box :) Cheers! --] 06:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Again, hi! ] (]) 00:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: Direct Flights == | |||
| I hear you. ] 12:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Article nominated for deletion== | |||
| == Crack addicts and police officers == | |||
| I've just nominated ] for deletion. I don't see the point of two articles giving the same information. ] (]) 19:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Seasons Greetings == | |||
| hey there... I see you corrected the vandalism of ] (merging the ] article back as it should be). Is it possible to do similarly with the talk page (which ] has copy and paste restored)? Not the end of the world if the edit history for that is lost, but would be neater to restore it properly, if possible... thanks! <sub>└</sub><sup>''']'''</sup>/<sub>'']''</sub><sup>┐</sup> 22:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 06:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)]] | |||
| ==Ted Wilkes== | |||
| ] is still denigrating my contributions. He made accusing me of having inserted fabricated information into the ] article and claiming that Adams and his wife were never divorced. This request was immediately, and significantly, deleted by a Misplaced Pages administrator. | |||
| Nick Adams's divorce from his wife is mentioned on the following webpages: | |||
| * "... he had waged a long and tedious divorce and custody battle with his ex-wife, Carol Nugent... Nick won an expensive custody battle after proving that Carol was an unfit mother because she was having an affair with a fellow named Paul Rapp." See | |||
| * "He had a troubled life, which included separating from his wife (but retaining custody of his 2 children)..." See and | |||
| * "His personal life was in turmoil as well, as he and wife Carol Nugent became increasingly estranged." See | |||
| * "... unfortunately by the time he got back to the states it had already severed his marriage with actress Carol Nugent." See | |||
| * "Married to actress Carol Nugent, and his divorce from her was expensive. However, he won the case, since it was proved Nugent had an affair, and he was given custody of their two children." See | |||
| Here is the best account of Adams's divorce from his wife: | |||
| * "While appearing on 'The Les Crane Show' the following evening to plug ''Young Dillinger'', Nick shocked audiences by announcing that he was leaving his wife. ... After that announcement, Nick's career and personal life went into a tragic free fall. Nick and Carol publicly announced a reconciliation a week later, on Jan. 19. ... Alienated from Carol, Nick fell in love with actress Kumi Mizuno and even proposed marriage to her later. ... Nick and Carol's reconciliation didn't survive Japan. At the end of July 1965, they decided on a legal separation. Carol filed for divorce in September. Nick was still in Japan when Carol was granted a divorce and custody of the children on Oct. 12. On Jan. 26, 1966, Nick and Carol announced another reconciliation on a local television show, 'Bill John's Hollywood Star Notebook.' It wouldn't last. ... On Nov. 26, 1966, Carol resumed divorce proceedings and obtained a restraining order against Nick. Carol alleged that Nick was 'prone to fits of temper' and in a special affidavit charged that Nick had 'choked her, struck her and threatened to kill her during the past few weeks.' 'I'm going to fight this thing all the way,' Nick said. 'I want to keep possession of my home and possession of my children.' It was the beginning of an acrimonious, contested divorce and child-custody battle. Nick became enraged after discovering that Carol's boyfriend was physically disciplining his children and telling them that Nick was 'a bad man' and a 'bad daddy.' Nick hired an attorney, former L.A.P.D. officer Ervin Roeder. Robert Conrad says, 'He (Roeder) was a very, very tough guy and he was a kind of man that was tough to like.' Nick got a restraining order prohibiting Carol's boyfriend from coming to the family home and being in the presence of the children. On Jan. 20, 1967, while waiting for a court hearing to begin, Nick was served with an $110,000 defamation suit by the boyfriend. Ervin Roeder's job was to wrest custody of Allyson and Jeb Adams from their mother. It was one he did well. On Jan. 31, Nick won temporary custody of his children. It was a hollow victory in his tug of war with his wife. Jeb Adams said, 'He saw it as a competition, basically, more than anything of getting custody of us. But, a matter of a week or two later, he gave us back to my mom.' She later regained legal custody of her children." See | |||
| I do not understand what Ted Wilkes is doing now. ] 16:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==AfD which might be of interest to you== | |||
| ==]== | |||
| You contributed to the article so I'm letting you know: ] ] (]) 10:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Please rethink you're indefinite block of the IP address above. It might be an vandal account but he might want to come back one day an edit in good faith. Can I suggest instead of indefinite, you extend it to about 6 months? ] <sup>]</sup><sup>]</sup> 04:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Joel C. Rosenberg == | |||
| ==Violation of probation?== | |||
| I think ] is now continuing edit warring and, together with ] as it seems, still harassing me. For their behavior, see the following Misplaced Pages pages: ], ], ], ], etc. In my opinion, this may be a violation of the arbcom probation order which says that "Ted Wilkes and Wyss are banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality." . On the ] page, Wilkes again goes as far as to call me a "convicted liar" which is certainly a personal attack and unacceptable. See . On the ] page, he has added a fabricated text to my direct quote from Peter Guralnick's book, ''Careless Love: The Unmaking of Elvis Presley''. In the book, the original passage reads: | |||
| :"Nick Adams and his gang came by the suite all the time, not to mention the eccentric actor Billy Murphy, longtime friend of John Wayne and Robert Mitchum..." See | |||
| Ted Wilkes's version reads: | |||
| :"Nick Adams and his gang (roommate Dennis Hopper, Russ Tamblyn, Red West) came by the suite all the time, not to mention the eccentric actor Billy Murphy, longtime friend of John Wayne and Robert Mitchum ..." See . | |||
| This is of much importance, as another source, namely Rona Barrett's autobiography, ''Miss Rona'' (1974), says that "Nick had become the companion to a group of salacious homosexuals." It seems as if Ted Wilkes, with such additions, tries to obscure the impression that the members of Adams's gang were homosexual. Wilkes has also repeatedly deleted two external links to websites concerning the Memphis Mafia, presumably because the content of these sites is not in line with his personal view. See . He only accepts hyperlinks to external personal webpages he likes. This is POV and not O.K. Would you please have a look at the related pages. Thank you. ] 19:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| FYI: . Cheers, ] <sup>]</sup> 05:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Would you please also have a look at the ] article. Ted Wilkes has added fabricated passages to the text. He has repeatedly included the words "Pentecostal", "virginity" and "slut" in the said article, thereby deleting the direct quotes from the book I had inserted (see ). The fact is that these words nowhere appear in Priscilla Presley's book, as an Amazon search proves. See , and . Therefore, I rewrote the said paragraph which included the correct quotes for many weeks. Now Ted Wilkes is continuing edit warring, as he reinserted his fabricated version of Priscilla's text and removed another paragraph including critical remarks by Suzanne Finstad about Priscilla Presley's book (see ) which certainly belong to the ] article. It seems as if he is trying to suppress critical remarks about one of his favorite books. This is not acceptable and not NPOV. ] 23:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == San Francisco International Airport GAR notice == | |||
| == Thanks for quick deletion == | |||
| ] has been nominated for a ]. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are ].--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 01:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for your responsiveness to the Mafia-related copyright violations. Nice to see someone who isn't afraid of the delete key. ] 04:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == An exciting opportunity to get involved!== | |||
| ==Relentless Bias== | |||
| ] | |||
| From ] | |||
| As a member of the ] or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the ]! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up ], read up on the rules ], and discuss the contest ]. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback ], or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - '''] ] ]''' 00:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| "Keep deleted and plow a ton of salt under - There is nothing encyclopedic to say about this person, and the content of the article was essentially "ha ha look at this guy he's funny-looking and he's a sex offender, OMGWTFBBQ LOLLERSKATES." It's a juvenile and pathetic attack page." | |||
| ==]== | |||
| * 03:09, 1 April 2008 FCYTravis protected Gabrielle Giffords () (hist) | |||
| * 03:15, 1 April 2008 FCYTravis changed protection level for "Gabrielle Giffords" (edit war ) (hist) | |||
| * 21:44, 19 May 2008 FCYTravis changed protection level for "Gabrielle Giffords" (reduce to semi-prot ) (hist) | |||
| That was well over a year ago so I'd like to review this to see if semiprotection is still considered necessary. This is part of my large scale review of longstanding indefinite semiprotections. Please see the discussion I started at ]. --] 16:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| This is an '''unjustifiable''' claim and I find it '''disgusting and hypocritical''' that you say this after your ridiculous tirade against the supposed lack of factual verification in the actual article. If you go to so much effort to make enforce verification on other people, how dare you make such ridiculous claims? I thought that administrators were meant to be pillars of the community, not detractors and hypocrites. --] 11:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Family Guy FAC == | |||
| Hello. You had previously reviewed ] for FAC. The article has been nominated again, and the review page can be found ]. Thanks. ]]] 14:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Unreferenced BLPs== | |||
| ==Disambiguation== | |||
| ] Hello FCYTravis! Thank you for your contributions. I am a ] alerting you that '''2''' of the articles that you created are tagged as]. The ] policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure ], all biographies should be based on ]. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current '']'' article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{tl|unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list: | |||
| YYZ means several things, so a disambiguation page is necessary. See ]. ] 19:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Ah okay, you do have a point; the song is included at the top of the page. Okay, I'm officially neutral on this issue now :) ] 19:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::And if we run across a third page called YYZ, for whatever reason, I think going to a dab page is good. I was simply following precedent set with pages like ] and ] - which redirect to their "most noted" meanings. If there's another way, perhaps those two should be changed as well. ] 19:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| # ] - <small>{{findsources|Norm Silverstein}}</small> | |||
| # ] - <small>{{findsources|Mark Wilkins (racing driver)}}</small> | |||
| Thanks!--] (]) 19:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==GA reassessment of ]== | |||
| I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the ]. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at ]. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. ] (]) 21:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Star Wars Kid == | |||
| If you could comment at ] it would be greatly appreciated. ] (] | ]) 21:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Yes Aimbots Are Notable == | |||
| == Portal of Evil was deleted == | |||
| Software is notable, for research on cheating people will want to know about the only two colour aimbot's avalible and further information about cheating software. | |||
| I'm not sure if you are still around, but I would like to bring to your attention the deletion of ]. It has been noted by many that the nomination of deletion was done with COI (Conflict of Interest) involved. Thank you! --] (]) 00:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
| I am expanding uppon the past cheating material please do not interfere. | |||
| <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 ]. | |||
| It's like saying is ] Notable? | |||
| 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 good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines. | |||
| Yes, it is. | |||
| 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 template from the top of the article. ] (]) 18:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ==Suspension of admin privileges due to inactivity== | |||
| Hey. You deleted ] but neglected to close the AfD debate. Just a heads up. ]<sup>] ]</sup> 06:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{ {{#ifeq:|{{void}}|void|Error:must be substituted}}|Inactive admin}} | |||
| *Hey, thanks, I didn't even see an AFD on it! ] 06:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| Following a ] in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative privileges of users who have been inactive for one year, meaning administrators who have made neither any edits nor any logged actions in over one year. As a result of this discussion, your administrative privileges have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these privileges reinstated, please post to the ] and the userright will be restored per the ] (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. <!-- Template:Inactive admin -->] (]) 21:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==MfD nomination of ]== | |||
| ], a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ] and please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). You are free to edit the content of ] during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.<!-- Template:MFDWarning --> — ]] 02:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==Alcatraz== | |||
| == Deletion of ] == | |||
| Genuinely, I was open to discussion on whatever concerned you, but the way you addressed it I found most objectionable. OWN or not I put several days of hard work into writing this article which was strangely missing from wikipedia so naturally I find the plastering of tags and removal of verifiable content most unsettling. Had you approached me warmly originally none of this would have happened as if you actually check the article now most of the changes have actually been made. But you assumed the article was trash and that the editor writing it was equally incompetent. What's gone from bad to worse here is that you've decided to return to wikipedia in this context and have demanded your tools be restored despite not having done anything for us in 4 years, The context in which you have returned and the way you addressed this issue, sorry but you must be able to see why I'm miffed about this. If you edit for us for a month during which time I can see your editing skills and demeanour in general, I'd probably be more likely to support you having your tools restored. But I question ''why'' now you return and why at this moment you want editing power on here. I'm actually a very reasonable person if you work ''with'' me not against you but I'm pretty pissed off at the moment with how this has panned out.♦ ] 21:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Travis. I see you have deleted ]. Responding to a speedy request, I had deleted (then undeleted) the article an hour or so prior to your deletion. You might want to consider AFDing the article instead. If you haven't already you should probably take a look at ] for the details. Regards ] ] 14:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I am certainly interested in working together to improve the article, and I highly disagree that I "assumed the article was trash." The vast, overwhelming majority of it is great! I didn't delete the whole thing and start over from scratch, did I? | |||
| :I have one specific disagreement with the way the article is written, and that's with the weight given to speculative claims of "paranormal activities." That's it! That's the only disagreement. I made several efforts to discuss changes that I thought should be made to the presentation of "paranormal" stuff, but you blindly reverted all of them. I You even blindly reverted edits that did nothing more than insert the "disputed" tag into the article, which is a standard measure taken by editors who feel there are significant issues with an article. That's simply not kosher, and, I feel, not acting in good faith. | |||
| :Whether I work "with you" or "against you" is not the issue. My goal is to work for a better encyclopedia. My reasons for returning are of no consequence - I don't need a "reason" to take issue with the presentation of material in an article. Nor do I need a reason for requesting the return of administrative tools which I earned many years ago. ] (]) 22:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think it's worth mentioning that administrative tools are granted because the granting of them is believed to be beneficial to the project of building an encyclopedia, not because an individual has "earned" them or is entitled to them as a form of privilege or reward. | |||
| == ] and date notation == | |||
| ::Or at least, that's how it supposed to work these days. --] (]) 00:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Unfortunately ] appears to be renegeing on his agreement not to change date notations; see, for example, , and the sad history of this article: . ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's more than a little nitpicky of word choice. Would you like me to put it another way? I was ] by a community consensus process. ] (]) 00:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thank you, I am much happier with that wording. The RfA certainly makes interesting reading. --] (]) 09:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::When I said "earned," I meant it not in any sense of entitlement at all, but in the sense that through my work, I earned the support of fellow Wikipedians, who handed me a mop and bucket. And yes, that's kind of a flashback. ] (]) 09:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Kaiser Permanente article== | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi! Thank you for the improvements you made to the article on ]. Unfortunately, several of your edits were reverted by ]. Particularly, you'll note that she restored the link to in the External links section... | |||
| I think, instead of editing Iraqi footballer articles, it may be more useful for you prioritise your edits at BN for the time being? Just a suggestion, particularly as there are outstanding questions and comments for you to respond to there. ] (]) 17:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I'm not quite sure what to do... Some of the edits you made, which she didn't restore, were important in making the article more readable. Unfortunately, I now stand accused of being biased, so I don't think it's appropriate for me to make edits to the article. | |||
| :Fine, but you didn't need to be an admin to make edits to articles. Or did you? ] (]) 17:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I didn't say anything about pitch forks, consensus to demote you or anything. I just suggested a new RFA would clear out all the cobwebs. If only "five" people are "after you" then you should have no worries, and as I said at BN, it's a good opportunity for you to demonstrate that you are up to date with all the changes here that have happened over the past four years. It's nothing to do with assuming good faith at all, it's to do with the community confidence in your ability to demonstrate that you understand the differences between what happened in 2008 and what happens now. Believe me, the changes are significant. If you have nothing to hide, requesting a new RFA is the only way ahead. And you really don't need to be an admin to edit articles, do you? ] (]) 18:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| The article still needs your help. Please? | |||
| ] 11:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==reverting changes in pardis== | |||
| ==Thanks== | |||
| Sorry we had to meet for the first time under such circumstances, but I certainly need to let you know I appreciate your comments. I'm off for a break, one I obviously need. | |||
| a construction company is advertising here for the new city of pardis. the meaning of word pardis has nothing to do with the new city of pardis | |||
| My new flagship quote, to help me keep perspective: | |||
| the word is originally an ancient word and has nothing to do with this city that has been built less than 15 years ago.don't interfere without enough knowledge please. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :I think you are mistaken. :) It is not "advertising" to have an article about a city in Iran - that article is the very definition of what an encyclopedia should contain. The meaning of a word (its definition) belongs on ]. Also, there is a page called ] which provides information and links on the various uses of the word. ] (]) 07:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ys polar people come here to find the meaning or the right definition for something not for advertisements.your action is totally biased.even in wiki persian there's a difference between pardis (city) and the word pardis.i dont think you are iranian or even know anything about iran polar.so dont interfere here. | |||
| "Care about what you write and articles you love, but be careful about caring for Misplaced Pages as a whole. It's like trying to feed the world; in the end it will only break your heart." | |||
| :]. On the English Misplaced Pages, the first priority is not providing definitions for the translation of foreign language words. There is a separate project called ] which provides a multilingual dictionary. Please cease reverting the article, or it will have to be semi-protected to prevent blanking. ] (]) 08:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| --] 15:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :so if the english wikipedia is an advertising site we will introduce our products later is it?!!!!! <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 08:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::Having an article about a city is not advertising - it is, in fact, the purpose of this project, to develop a comprehensive encyclopedia. ] (]) 08:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| the problem is that the city is a new city that is still being built and has less than 15 years history!!!!its a subarb city around tehran and its supposed to absorb people from tehran.thats all but the companies are using the name to advertise and it doesnt suit wikipedia.!<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 08:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| == Facebook == | |||
| :I think that Roxn/2.145.33.17 does have a point. The National Geospatial Intelligence Agency has the name of this city rendered as Shahr-e Jadīd-e Pardīs and (yes I know you can't use WP to ref itself) the map used in the article itself refers to 'Pardis city'. I think a name change should be considered, I'm not sure that calling an article about a place without the country is proper according to Misplaced Pages place-name conventions. For instance, all the place-names for 'Paradise' are rendered as 'Paradise, (Country or State)'. Maybe the title of this article should be changed to something along the lines of ] or ] or ] or whatever. The Pardis disambiguation page lists 'Pardis, Khuzestan' as one of the possibilities, why does 'Pardis, Iran' not get its country name? Even the 'New York, New York' article gets named 'New York City'. ''(I also posted about this at the article's talk page.)'' ] (]) 14:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| You moved Facebook back to Facebook (website) saying that there was "no consensus". However, the closing administrator on that vote was the one who moved the page. It doesn't really matter if the move ''was'' disputed because the article which they were disputing about no longer exists (it was transwikied to wiktionary). It is unheard of to disambiguate for a project page and a wiktionary page. Therefore, since there is no namespace conflict ] belongs at ]. Could you please move it back? ]<sup>] ]</sup> 16:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::What about Roxn/2.145.33.17's contention (not expressed in Wikispeak I agree) that the '''article is mis-named'''? I am posting on ] proposing that the article be re-named. ] (]) 18:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :There's great potential for an encyclopedic article about college facebooks at ]. The fact that one hasn't been written yet doesn't mean we should remove that potential. ] 19:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have no objection to that discussion taking place. ] (]) 18:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree that there one day could be an article on facebooks. I don't agree that it would be a ''great'' article, though, or that the move ''removes'' the potential for it. It just doesn't seem like there are that many references that could be utilized/that much that could be said. I've started a new merge discussion at ] that takes into account that the old article has been transwikied. Even if a new stub is created for facebooks, it doesn't seem like the disambiguation page should be the primary page unless both articles are of comparable quality/notability. Since there are only two pages with claim to this namespace, one should probably be the main article and the other should have a dab notice prominently at the top of the other. Please weigh in on the move discussion. ]<sup>] ]</sup> 20:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Protection of ] == | |||
| == User:Pansophia == | |||
| I don't see why you protected it (albeit for an extremely short period of time) which made it unavailable to all non-autoconfirmed editors & IPs even though there was only one problematic editor. ] says: {{xt|Subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to media attention) when blocking individual users is not a feasible option.}} Thanks, ] (]) 08:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I think you should be aware of allegations that ] is making against you, both privately such as and publicly at ]. I've been the target of sneak attacks like this before and I thought you should be alerted so that you can be prepared. -- ] 20:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The article is such a low-traffic situation with relatively few edits, I felt that a very brief semi-protection would hopefully allow the user in question to reconsider his/her situation without resorting to the heavy-handed drop of the block-hammer. lf you would prefer, I would be happy to undo the sprot immediately and simply block if the reversions continue. ] (]) 08:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Protecting an article in your preferred version when you are in a content dispute? Oh, very well done! ] (]) 13:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)? | |||
| :There was nothing sneaky about it. I went everywhere complaining about that problem.--] 03:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Reverting a page-blanking is a content dispute now? Are you serious? ] (]) 17:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::When someone removes content while commenting that they believe it is inappropriate for Misplaced Pages, then yes, I don't think it's too much od a stretch to say it's a content dispute. ] (]) 17:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well, it's not. That's all there is to it - it's a textbook example of administrative action under ]. If you really think I violated policy there, you're free to file an RfAR over the matter. ] (]) 17:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I suggest you take another look at the protection policy, as it's always been preferred to block a user rather than protect a page. "Subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to media attention) when blocking individual users is not a feasible option.". I suggest you remove the protection you placed and block the user instead, if that's necessary. <i><b>] <sup><small>]</small></sup></b></i> 13:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::I noticed the protection has since expired, so I simply advise you to go back and read policies you're no longer familiar with. <i><b>] <sup><small>]</small></sup></b></i> 13:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::FWIW, in cases like this where the user is ''trying'' to contribute, even if they make a total mash of it, then I ignore that specific wording and protect the page. It seems common sense to me to lock the page briefly and give the editor time to stop and think. <s>With that said; polarscribe you probably should have reached out a little more to them in that situation (i.e. you were allowing them the opportunity to continue to edit rather than blocking them).</s> So sorry, I took on good faith what other editors had said & missed the section above. So struck some of my comment. --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 14:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If their editing is being disruptive (in any sense of the term, vandalism, a good-faith editor failing to edit the page correctly, etc) shouldn't they be the only ones prevented from editing the article? I would suppose its picking which is the lesser of two evils: preventing a set of editors not able to edit a page (semi-protection) vs. preventing one editor from editing all of our pages (blocking). I would think in a place like this, it would be better (or less bad) to block the editor until it can be communicated to them and their understanding that their actions were not appropriate. ] (]) 15:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::My thinking was that the article was '''so''' infrequently edited (I mean, look at its edit history, a '''total''' of 12 edits in the last three years before this issue) that a very brief semi-protection would likely not inconvenience any editors. If the page had been even ''slightly'' more active, I would have simply issued a block. ] (]) 18:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I note that the editor in question has settled down, is apparently engaging in discussions on the talk page as to ]' content and is participating in the consensus-driven process relating to the article's future. I believe that using the sprot tool rather than a banhammer encouraged that positive outcome. ] (]) 18:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Sort it out! == | |||
| ::The same can hardly be said of your jumping to the conclusion (based on his geographical location) that Travis has relatives or friends employed by Kaiser Permanente and your suggestion that this allegation could be raised against him to try and limit his ability to edit. -- ] 03:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| "Seriously? Now you show up here, too? Perhaps I should suggest a sockpuppet investigation on you and Dr. Blofeld, seeing as you "just happened" to show up to the same edit war" - make that three then. I am firmly on the side of my two colleagues {{u|Schrodinger's cat is alive}} and {{u|Dr. Blofeld}} whom I know and have worked with on many, many things. I most certainly am not a sock puppet. I think you need to take stock of the situation and appreciate where we are all coming from. -- '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]]</span>''' 16:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| :Yes, that was an unwarranted and inappropriate statement made in the heat of a moment, and I have apologized and struck it. ] (]) 17:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you. -- '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]]</span>''' 21:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Ninja'd == | |||
| Jimbo has deleted this. Thank you for your advocacy and perseverance on this difficult matter. I have blanked some of the discussion from your talk page and its archive, among many other places, for reasons I'm confident you can appreciate. ] Co., ] 20:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I was deciding if I should speedy delete or XfD a page until I went to look at the talk page and find it deleted. As always, I never get credit for patrolling. I guess I should thank you. ] (]) 02:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Looks like I'm going to need some help because some editors want to fight the whole war over again for each and every talk page deletion. I'm not going to do that. I do think it's important to edit out any content from the former article because it is going to show up in seach engines and caches otherwise, and I know from experience that many people who get to the point where they're complaining to Jimbo are not especially receptive to the "oh, that's in a discussion page, not an article" line of reasoning. You can help by looking at my contribs, my talk page, and the stuff that links to ]. At some point we should search for references that don't link, but the search database here is way out of date and it will take time for Google and the like to catch them all, so that will have to be done later. Thanks again. ] Co., ] 22:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Hah, trust me, it happens to all of us. Which article was it? ] (]) 02:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == ... == | |||
| what is wrong with my edits?? | |||
| --] 05:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Jack Thompson== | |||
| I had cut this down to a sensible size when I saw your note on the Admin board but someone keeps adding it all back - so get the scissors out! ] ] 11:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Justen== | |||
| Hi, FCYTravis - is there anything that can be done about Justen's false accusations of sock puppetry on the ] talk page? --] 19:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Abusive edit summaries == | |||
| Hi, I don't appreciate you swearing at me in edit summaries, and I don't appreciate you abusiving WP:SNOW to delete articles which pass WP:CORP just because some other articles from the same source were deleted when no-one tried to save them. ] 14:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Maybe you should have taken a closer look at the article before your knee jerked "omg keep that rouge deletionist admin is out to get u." The article you cited is about A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT COMPANY based in Colorado, and we have no available evidence that links the firm in Colorado with the firm in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. It's arguably libelous to conflate the two, given the negative coverage for the Colorado company. ] 19:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :*Um well would have been helpful if you had mentioned that thinking in a PROD tag instead of speeding it with a "fuck you Kappa" message. ] 19:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I didn't say "fuck you Kappa," Kappa. I said "For fuck's sake, Kappa." It was an admittedly obscene expression of frustration, not an insult directed at you personally. But no matter how I intended it, what matters is how you understood it - and really, I shouldn't have expressed my frustration in such a manner that would easily be misconstrued. My apologies for being both uncivil and for the unintended insult. Mea culpa. ] 20:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Travis you should do what I do ... only swear at yourself in edit summaries, i.e. when fixing a mispelling you just put in, "OMG I'm such a fucking retard". I actually had someone complain about that on my talk page though, telling me to be civil. Lmao. My response was to, "I'll curse at my own fucking self as much as I damn well please." Didn't hear back from him :-P <font style="background: #000000" face="Impact" color="#00a5ff">]</font> 19:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{RFM-Request|Kaiser Permanente|Kaiser Permanente}} | |||
| ==] & PROD template== | |||
| From the ] page "...If someone removes Template:Prod from an article for whatever reason, don't place it back. If the template was removed and replaced, the article will not be deleted. If you still believe the article needs to be deleted, list it on AfD." Please do not replace the template but you may want to list it as either a speedy or a AfD. Thanks. ] ] 23:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Ted Wilkes has now clearly violated his probation== | |||
| ] has violated his probation, as he is continuing edit warring and has removed content from the ] page which deals with Adams's supposed homosexuality. See, for instance, , , , . Wilkes also included some additional passages in the ] article which try to denigrate this author who has written on the homosexuality of celebrity stars. See . The arbcom clearly said that "Ted Wilkes and Wyss are banned from any article regarding a celebrity regarding which there are significant rumors of homosexuality or bisexuality..." and that "Ted Wilkes and Wyss are banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality." See and . Wilkes also removed an external link to a website which includes the best account of Nick Adams's life, presumably because this webpage makes mention of Adams's supposed homosexuality. See . ] 04:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==David Quinn deletion== | |||
| I respectfully disagree with your proposal for a 24 hour ban. Ringess has been somewhat off-put by the fact that most people are recommending deletion and has now inserted a template to prevent new users from voting. Her attempts to manipulate new users by the use of this template is misleading, given the 700+ revert war on the main page and the ABSOLUTELY ENDLESSSLY mindless revert dialogue discussion occuring between her and about 40 Quinn students. Rather than just to her side, look at what she has done to the pages and her commentary. She's writing an Encarta entry at this point...for a teacher! It's nuts. | |||
| :Firstly, the block warning is in regards to one specific thing - you've got to not worry about the AFDNewbies banner. It's a bog-standard template that simply explains our deletion process, and has no binding impact on the closure of the AFD. I haven't had a chance to take a look at the article in detail, but someone who hosted ] (I watched that when I was a kid!) and won a Peabody Award seems to me to probably merit an article on Misplaced Pages. Whether it should be so detailed is a question for discussion. It's certainly not particularly of great quality at this point,, but the general subject appears acceptable. Work to improve, not delete, encyclopedic subjects. ] 09:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't want to be rude, but you really should look at both the history and the article and the delete discussion before jumping in on the side of Ringess, who clearly has some agenda, given the fact that she has been living on the David Quinn page all week. The insertion of the template, no matter how standard, was a purposeful manipulation of the process. And, to be honest, David Quinn could care less about the fact that some nut created a bio for him a few months ago. He wants it gone; if not gone, then at least correct. This isn't a fight to join this late, given the 700+ reverts, the three dozen people involved, and the fact that Commander Keane is involved to a great degree.] 09:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Then what's not correct about it? If it's not correct, spell out what isn't correct. ] 09:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hi, I just left a nice message for you on the David Quinn entry. -DQ | |||
| :::::And a voicemail. | |||
| == ] AfD == | |||
| You recently voted in the ] for ]. I'd appreciate it if you would reconsider your "delete" vote. Since your vote, I've added some information to the article and removed more of the "advertising". Would you revisit the article as well, as the comments that I made a number of entries below your vote. Thanks so much for your consideration. —] @ 23:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Final decision== | |||
| The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the ] case. ] 19:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Hey mate, sorry they were hard on you. If you made an error it was one I could easily have made myself - it's easy to be wise after the event; the real problem is with POV-pushers, the rest of us are often just collateral damage. That mop is heavy sometimes, no? ] 23:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::An "admonishment" is a small price to pay for the successful conclusion of a fight to ensure encyclopedicity and fairness on Misplaced Pages. ] 00:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] page NPOV edit war == | |||
| I spoke to you earlier on IRC about a certain malicious user who insists on performing edits on the Duke3D page which aren't NPOV in nature, and you told me to leave a note here if he continues; as predicted, he has done it again. Please look into this when you get a chance, thanks! ] 06:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi FCYTravis ! be sure you read properly all the Duke3d talk's page, especially the . Then be sure to read the ] page. You are facing TerminX in person. Then be sure you evaluate xDuke (me) so called selfpromotion - 1 line. Then be sure you are evaluating eDuke32 (TerminX) selfpromotion (a few paragraphs). Then conclude who is doing the selfpromotion before acting. If it is decided that 1 line is still too much, I'll remove it. | |||
| :Edit: Btw TerminX you can't talk about NPOV issues when what's stated is a verifiable and proven fact. For example, stating a given political party sucks or stating there is life on the moon is not a Neutral Point Of View. Stating Canada is the biggest country in north america or stating that MacOs is the 2nd most used OS or stating xDuke is the most played port (cf duke3d talk page for proofs that xDuke is the most played port, and by far) is a NPOV, because these are verifiable facts. In such cases we call those NPOV statements a 'precious information for the readers'. Damn I'm stupid, why do I explain you that? You know it already. Oh yeh that's true, it's because you are trying to fool Travis and exploit him as you use to exploit mods. No respect for him, no respect for me. Bad underhanded boy! Trying to commit a bad action is already a bad action. Hey Travis how comes you are on IRC with him, is he a friend of yours? Everything is finely calculated with TerminX so I have to check out. Thanks. | |||
| :The 'Mega Drive port was legit' issue in Duke3D is fixed, TerminX lost. - matt klein ] 07:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Contact info on ] == | |||
| i didn't think the contact info was noteworthy but i didnt think i could delete it so i just rearranged it in a previous edit - thanks for deleting it though didnt really want it there anyway ] 10:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Brilliant DRV comment == | |||
| You said in the Pokemon Kid DRV: ''"I think the meme inclusion guidelines should include no meme younger than one year, to allow perspective to build and "faddishness" to die away."''. I think that's a fantastic idea, and if you ever propose it as policy somewhere, let me know and I'll gladly support it. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 14:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Qantas SFO-YVR == | |||
| Hiya, Travis! I was wondering if you had any further details on the planned Qantas service from SFO to Vancouver. All I have is the , and it has not shown up yet on their web site as bookable or on the travel meta-search engines like Mobissimo. Since the press release calls the Vancouver segment an "extension", I wonder if they actually have traffic rights SFO-YVR, or if the segment is only available to through passengers to/from SYD. I'm also going to ask on one of my airline mailing lists. (I'm interested for myself as well as Misplaced Pages, since I go to Vancouver now and then and it would be a hoot to do it on a QF 747-400!) Best, ] 01:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *. Qantas is offering tickets for sale SFO-YVR. You don't need "traffic rights" SFO-YVR because the US and Canada have open skies for international service. ] 02:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Wow, that looks like a pretty good deal -- thanks! ] 06:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Question == | |||
| I an image simply being an orphan grounds for deletion??? | |||
| If it is what is the template? | |||
| Thanks for your help! ] 01:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :From ]: "Unused copyrighted images. Images that are not under a free license or in the public domain, which are not used in any article, and which have been tagged with a template which places them in Category:Orphaned unfree images (or a valid subcategory) for more than seven days. Reasonable exceptions may be made for images uploaded for an upcoming article. The templates <nowiki>{{or-cr}}, {{or-cr-nr}}, {{or-cr-re}}, {{or-fu}}, and {{or-fu-re}}</nowiki> place an image in this category." | |||
| If it's uploaded under a free/PD license, you'll have to take it through Images for Deletion. ] 01:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Gatekeeper== | |||
| I don't know if your rewrite will stick - I think it will be reverted, or the NPOV stuff will be added back in. ] 22:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :He's right -- I did revert it, for deletion of information. But I would be happy to work with you to re-write it; as I understand it, Misplaced Pages policy is that it is better to NPOVize articles by adding balancing information, as opposed to deleting information. I'd like to suggest that we discuss it on the article's talk page, as per normal Misplaced Pages practice. --<font color ="darkred"><font face ="georgia">]</font></font> 01:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::And I reverted back. Said version is clearly not considered workable by editorial consensus - but instead of deleting the article, we're simply going to start from a stub. Add referenced, sourced information back to the stub and build it from there. It is much easier to keep an article neutral rather than try to change an article which is patently misfocused and arguably not neutral. The article as it stood focused far too narrowly on one alleged aspect of leftist gatekeeping, rather than presenting an encyclopedic overview of the concept of gatekeeping. ] 01:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Should the ] be added to the talk page, or does the fact that the name is now different make that problematic? ] 01:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == sports wiki == | |||
| Hey, I noticed your edits to the NCAA tourney page. You may be interested in visiting , a brand new sports wiki. Lemme know what you think! --] 23:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 04:16, 23 February 2023
Erb?
Hi, Could you explain what just happened with the article we were discussing and your talk page? Hobit (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment
Yes, that is predictable. You have my support. Nandesuka (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Your talkpage
Travis, enjoy your break, and hopefully you are less stressed when you return. When you do come back, could you please undelete the history of your talk page? With respect - Kelly 02:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
FWIW....
Deletion review for Historical pederastic couples
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Historical pederastic couples. Since you were involved in the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Alaska Airlines and SeaTac
"(cur) (last) 20:19, 12 July 2008 FCYTravis (Talk | contribs | block) (22,630 bytes) (this is WP:OR, the Web site says Seattle.) (undo)"
Alright, let me tell you something. Just because a city has a United States Postal Service designation of "Seattle, Washington" doesn't mean that the place is in Seattle. The USPS is strange that way.
The address is the citation. Plug it into Yahoo Maps, and it will be within the boundary of SeaTac. Plus I found a SeaTac page stating that AS is headquartered there.
Next time, for USA addresses, when someone says "I plugged this and this address into Yahoo Maps and it is in the City of Y," double-check (Either with Yahoo Maps or with maps from city websites) and check to see whether she is right or wrong. Just because an address has "Houston, Texas" or "Baltimore, Maryland" doesn't mean the place is within these particular cities. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area roll call
Hello from WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area!
As part of a recent update to our project main page we are conducting a roll call to check which members are still active and interested in working on bay area related content. If you are still interested in participating, simply move your username from the inactive section of the participant list to the active section. I hope you will find the redesigned project pages helpful, and I wanted to welcome you back to the project. If you want you can take a look at the newly redesigned:
As well as the existing pages:
If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page, and add it to your watchlist, if it isn't already.
Again, hi! -Optigan13 (talk) 07:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Deletion review for Alana Austin
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alana Austin. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cenarium 17:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject California roll call
Hello from WikiProject California!
As part of a recent update to our project main page we are conducting a roll call to check which members are still active and interested in working on California related content. If you are still interested in participating, simply move your username from the inactive section of the participant list to the active section. I hope you will find the redesigned project pages helpful, and I wanted to welcome you back to the project. If you want you can take a look at the newly redesigned:
As well as the existing pages:
If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page, and add it to your watchlist, if it isn't already.
Again, hi! Optigan13 (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Article nominated for deletion
I've just nominated List of United States journalism scandals for deletion. I don't see the point of two articles giving the same information. Redddogg (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Seasons Greetings
AfD which might be of interest to you
You contributed to the article so I'm letting you know: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008 Borock (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Joel C. Rosenberg
FYI: . Cheers, Tiptoety 05:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
San Francisco International Airport GAR notice
San Francisco International Airport has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
An exciting opportunity to get involved!
As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - Trevor MacInnis 00:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Gabrielle Giffords
- 03:09, 1 April 2008 FCYTravis protected Gabrielle Giffords () (hist)
- 03:15, 1 April 2008 FCYTravis changed protection level for "Gabrielle Giffords" (edit war ) (hist)
- 21:44, 19 May 2008 FCYTravis changed protection level for "Gabrielle Giffords" (reduce to semi-prot ) (hist)
That was well over a year ago so I'd like to review this to see if semiprotection is still considered necessary. This is part of my large scale review of longstanding indefinite semiprotections. Please see the discussion I started at talk:Gabrielle Giffords. --TS 16:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Family Guy FAC
Hello. You had previously reviewed Family Guy for FAC. The article has been nominated again, and the review page can be found here. Thanks. Ωphois 14:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Unreferenced BLPs
Hello FCYTravis! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 11 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
- Norm Silverstein - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Mark Wilkins (racing driver) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
GA reassessment of Chicago Midway International Airport
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Chicago Midway International Airport/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Star Wars Kid
If you could comment at Misplaced Pages:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_June_11#Ghyslain_Raza it would be greatly appreciated. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Portal of Evil was deleted
I'm not sure if you are still around, but I would like to bring to your attention the deletion of Portal of Evil. It has been noted by many that the nomination of deletion was done with COI (Conflict of Interest) involved. Thank you! --67.184.48.221 (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of Norm Silverstein for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Norm Silverstein 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/Norm Silverstein 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Physics is all gnomes (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Suspension of admin privileges due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative privileges of users who have been inactive for one year, meaning administrators who have made neither any edits nor any logged actions in over one year. As a result of this discussion, your administrative privileges have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these privileges reinstated, please post to the Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. RL0919 (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
MfD nomination of User:FCYTravis/C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute shooting
User:FCYTravis/C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute shooting, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:FCYTravis/C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute shooting and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:FCYTravis/C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute shooting during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — ξ 02:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Alcatraz
Genuinely, I was open to discussion on whatever concerned you, but the way you addressed it I found most objectionable. OWN or not I put several days of hard work into writing this article which was strangely missing from wikipedia so naturally I find the plastering of tags and removal of verifiable content most unsettling. Had you approached me warmly originally none of this would have happened as if you actually check the article now most of the changes have actually been made. But you assumed the article was trash and that the editor writing it was equally incompetent. What's gone from bad to worse here is that you've decided to return to wikipedia in this context and have demanded your tools be restored despite not having done anything for us in 4 years, The context in which you have returned and the way you addressed this issue, sorry but you must be able to see why I'm miffed about this. If you edit for us for a month during which time I can see your editing skills and demeanour in general, I'd probably be more likely to support you having your tools restored. But I question why now you return and why at this moment you want editing power on here. I'm actually a very reasonable person if you work with me not against you but I'm pretty pissed off at the moment with how this has panned out.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- I am certainly interested in working together to improve the article, and I highly disagree that I "assumed the article was trash." The vast, overwhelming majority of it is great! I didn't delete the whole thing and start over from scratch, did I?
- I have one specific disagreement with the way the article is written, and that's with the weight given to speculative claims of "paranormal activities." That's it! That's the only disagreement. I made several efforts to discuss changes that I thought should be made to the presentation of "paranormal" stuff, but you blindly reverted all of them. I You even blindly reverted edits that did nothing more than insert the "disputed" tag into the article, which is a standard measure taken by editors who feel there are significant issues with an article. That's simply not kosher, and, I feel, not acting in good faith.
- Whether I work "with you" or "against you" is not the issue. My goal is to work for a better encyclopedia. My reasons for returning are of no consequence - I don't need a "reason" to take issue with the presentation of material in an article. Nor do I need a reason for requesting the return of administrative tools which I earned many years ago. polarscribe (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's worth mentioning that administrative tools are granted because the granting of them is believed to be beneficial to the project of building an encyclopedia, not because an individual has "earned" them or is entitled to them as a form of privilege or reward.
- Or at least, that's how it supposed to work these days. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- That's more than a little nitpicky of word choice. Would you like me to put it another way? I was granted the tools by a community consensus process. polarscribe (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Or at least, that's how it supposed to work these days. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, I am much happier with that wording. The RfA certainly makes interesting reading. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- When I said "earned," I meant it not in any sense of entitlement at all, but in the sense that through my work, I earned the support of fellow Wikipedians, who handed me a mop and bucket. And yes, that's kind of a flashback. polarscribe (talk) 09:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
WP:BN
I think, instead of editing Iraqi footballer articles, it may be more useful for you prioritise your edits at BN for the time being? Just a suggestion, particularly as there are outstanding questions and comments for you to respond to there. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Fine, but you didn't need to be an admin to make edits to articles. Or did you? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't say anything about pitch forks, consensus to demote you or anything. I just suggested a new RFA would clear out all the cobwebs. If only "five" people are "after you" then you should have no worries, and as I said at BN, it's a good opportunity for you to demonstrate that you are up to date with all the changes here that have happened over the past four years. It's nothing to do with assuming good faith at all, it's to do with the community confidence in your ability to demonstrate that you understand the differences between what happened in 2008 and what happens now. Believe me, the changes are significant. If you have nothing to hide, requesting a new RFA is the only way ahead. And you really don't need to be an admin to edit articles, do you? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
reverting changes in pardis
a construction company is advertising here for the new city of pardis. the meaning of word pardis has nothing to do with the new city of pardis the word is originally an ancient word and has nothing to do with this city that has been built less than 15 years ago.don't interfere without enough knowledge please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxn (talk • contribs) 07:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think you are mistaken. :) It is not "advertising" to have an article about a city in Iran - that article is the very definition of what an encyclopedia should contain. The meaning of a word (its definition) belongs on Wiktionary. Also, there is a page called Pardis (disambiguation) which provides information and links on the various uses of the word. polarscribe (talk) 07:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
ys polar people come here to find the meaning or the right definition for something not for advertisements.your action is totally biased.even in wiki persian there's a difference between pardis (city) and the word pardis.i dont think you are iranian or even know anything about iran polar.so dont interfere here.
- Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. On the English Misplaced Pages, the first priority is not providing definitions for the translation of foreign language words. There is a separate project called Wiktionary which provides a multilingual dictionary. Please cease reverting the article, or it will have to be semi-protected to prevent blanking. polarscribe (talk) 08:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- so if the english wikipedia is an advertising site we will introduce our products later is it?!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxn (talk • contribs) 08:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Having an article about a city is not advertising - it is, in fact, the purpose of this project, to develop a comprehensive encyclopedia. polarscribe (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
the problem is that the city is a new city that is still being built and has less than 15 years history!!!!its a subarb city around tehran and its supposed to absorb people from tehran.thats all but the companies are using the name to advertise and it doesnt suit wikipedia.!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxn (talk • contribs) 08:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think that Roxn/2.145.33.17 does have a point. The National Geospatial Intelligence Agency has the name of this city rendered as Shahr-e Jadīd-e Pardīs and (yes I know you can't use WP to ref itself) the map used in the article itself refers to 'Pardis city'. I think a name change should be considered, I'm not sure that calling an article about a place without the country is proper according to Misplaced Pages place-name conventions. For instance, all the place-names for 'Paradise' are rendered as 'Paradise, (Country or State)'. Maybe the title of this article should be changed to something along the lines of New City of Pardis, Iran or Pardis, Iran or Pardis (city), Iran or whatever. The Pardis disambiguation page lists 'Pardis, Khuzestan' as one of the possibilities, why does 'Pardis, Iran' not get its country name? Even the 'New York, New York' article gets named 'New York City'. (I also posted about this at the article's talk page.) Shearonink (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- What about Roxn/2.145.33.17's contention (not expressed in Wikispeak I agree) that the article is mis-named? I am posting on Talk:Pardis proposing that the article be re-named. Shearonink (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- I have no objection to that discussion taking place. polarscribe (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- What about Roxn/2.145.33.17's contention (not expressed in Wikispeak I agree) that the article is mis-named? I am posting on Talk:Pardis proposing that the article be re-named. Shearonink (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Protection of Pardis
I don't see why you protected it (albeit for an extremely short period of time) which made it unavailable to all non-autoconfirmed editors & IPs even though there was only one problematic editor. WP:SEMI says: Subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to media attention) when blocking individual users is not a feasible option. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 08:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- The article is such a low-traffic situation with relatively few edits, I felt that a very brief semi-protection would hopefully allow the user in question to reconsider his/her situation without resorting to the heavy-handed drop of the block-hammer. lf you would prefer, I would be happy to undo the sprot immediately and simply block if the reversions continue. polarscribe (talk) 08:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Protecting an article in your preferred version when you are in a content dispute? Oh, very well done! DuncanHill (talk) 13:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)?
- Reverting a page-blanking is a content dispute now? Are you serious? polarscribe (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- When someone removes content while commenting that they believe it is inappropriate for Misplaced Pages, then yes, I don't think it's too much od a stretch to say it's a content dispute. DuncanHill (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it's not. That's all there is to it - it's a textbook example of administrative action under WP:INVOLVED. If you really think I violated policy there, you're free to file an RfAR over the matter. polarscribe (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- When someone removes content while commenting that they believe it is inappropriate for Misplaced Pages, then yes, I don't think it's too much od a stretch to say it's a content dispute. DuncanHill (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Reverting a page-blanking is a content dispute now? Are you serious? polarscribe (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest you take another look at the protection policy, as it's always been preferred to block a user rather than protect a page. "Subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to media attention) when blocking individual users is not a feasible option.". I suggest you remove the protection you placed and block the user instead, if that's necessary. Snowolf 13:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- I noticed the protection has since expired, so I simply advise you to go back and read policies you're no longer familiar with. Snowolf 13:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- FWIW, in cases like this where the user is trying to contribute, even if they make a total mash of it, then I ignore that specific wording and protect the page. It seems common sense to me to lock the page briefly and give the editor time to stop and think.
With that said; polarscribe you probably should have reached out a little more to them in that situation (i.e. you were allowing them the opportunity to continue to edit rather than blocking them).So sorry, I took on good faith what other editors had said & missed the section above. So struck some of my comment. --Errant 14:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)- If their editing is being disruptive (in any sense of the term, vandalism, a good-faith editor failing to edit the page correctly, etc) shouldn't they be the only ones prevented from editing the article? I would suppose its picking which is the lesser of two evils: preventing a set of editors not able to edit a page (semi-protection) vs. preventing one editor from editing all of our pages (blocking). I would think in a place like this, it would be better (or less bad) to block the editor until it can be communicated to them and their understanding that their actions were not appropriate. Legoktm (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- My thinking was that the article was so infrequently edited (I mean, look at its edit history, a total of 12 edits in the last three years before this issue) that a very brief semi-protection would likely not inconvenience any editors. If the page had been even slightly more active, I would have simply issued a block. polarscribe (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- If their editing is being disruptive (in any sense of the term, vandalism, a good-faith editor failing to edit the page correctly, etc) shouldn't they be the only ones prevented from editing the article? I would suppose its picking which is the lesser of two evils: preventing a set of editors not able to edit a page (semi-protection) vs. preventing one editor from editing all of our pages (blocking). I would think in a place like this, it would be better (or less bad) to block the editor until it can be communicated to them and their understanding that their actions were not appropriate. Legoktm (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- FWIW, in cases like this where the user is trying to contribute, even if they make a total mash of it, then I ignore that specific wording and protect the page. It seems common sense to me to lock the page briefly and give the editor time to stop and think.
- I noticed the protection has since expired, so I simply advise you to go back and read policies you're no longer familiar with. Snowolf 13:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Protecting an article in your preferred version when you are in a content dispute? Oh, very well done! DuncanHill (talk) 13:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)?
I note that the editor in question has settled down, is apparently engaging in discussions on the talk page as to Pardis' content and is participating in the consensus-driven process relating to the article's future. I believe that using the sprot tool rather than a banhammer encouraged that positive outcome. polarscribe (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Sort it out!
"Seriously? Now you show up here, too? Perhaps I should suggest a sockpuppet investigation on you and Dr. Blofeld, seeing as you "just happened" to show up to the same edit war" - make that three then. I am firmly on the side of my two colleagues Schrodinger's cat is alive and Dr. Blofeld whom I know and have worked with on many, many things. I most certainly am not a sock puppet. I think you need to take stock of the situation and appreciate where we are all coming from. -- Cassianto 16:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, that was an unwarranted and inappropriate statement made in the heat of a moment, and I have apologized and struck it. polarscribe (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. -- Cassianto 21:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Ninja'd
I was deciding if I should speedy delete or XfD a page until I went to look at the talk page and find it deleted. As always, I never get credit for patrolling. I guess I should thank you. Longbyte1 (talk) 02:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hah, trust me, it happens to all of us. Which article was it? polarscribe (talk) 02:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)