| Revision as of 05:05, 25 June 2006 editAnsell (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers7,237 edits →Tony's "No refactoring page" edits: i think you removed important information← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 05:30, 6 October 2021 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2)Tag: AWB |
| (141 intermediate revisions by 39 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
==Gold Stars== |
|
'''Welcome to my talk page. Please abide by the following guidelines:'''</center> |
|
|
*Sign and date your comments by inserting <tt><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></tt> at the end. |
|
|
**To start a new topic of discussion, ''. |
|
|
**To continue a pre-existing topic of discussion, edit the relevant section. |
|
|
**If you're going to be using talk page comment templates, subst: them and remember to actually sign them. I deserve that much consideration. |
|
|
*I will respond on my talk page. |
|
|
*I archive my talk page arbitrarily. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};" |
|
==Cuppa tea?== |
|
|
|
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ] |
|
]<sup>]</sup> 16:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)]] |
|
|
|
|rowspan="2" | |
|
|
|
|
|
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The da Vinci Barnstar''' |
|
Nice effort anyway on the archiving, and your post-archiving posts were admirable. Nicely handled - I hope I have such aplomb when I fumble something. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|- |
|
:Thanks! I'm just glad I didn't do any irrepairable harm. But then, that's what I love about wikipedia...it's hard to break anything forever. ]<sup>(])</sup> 17:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For doing my job for me: specifically, re-ordering the mire of proposed principles and FoFs on the ] arbitration case to make them readable. ]<sup>(])</sup> 17:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|} |
|
== Assuming good faith and all... == |
|
|
|
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" |
|
|
|
|
|
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ] |
|
Sorry mate, I didn't mean you. I have no doubt about ''your'' good faith, and if I've offended you tell me and I'll apologise again. What I was actually referring to was assuming that good faith (in the form of trying to actualy resolve something) was intended when submitting<br/> |
|
|
|
|rowspan="2" | |
|
::<span style = "font-sixe: 80%; color: blue;">24) In the vast majority of the cases cited, Tony's decisions accurately reflected Misplaced Pages's goals and policies.<br/>Has the advantage over several other findings of actually being true. Phil Sandifer 00:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)</span><br/> |
|
|
|
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar''' |
|
I just want a straightforward discussion of the issues, and we're not getting that. We've got over 30,000 words used now, and I'm getting pretty frustrated. All anyone I see progressing this case wants is for Tony to be respectful, listen to other contributors, stop wheel warring, and perhaps even admit that he's wrong once in a while. Can you explain to me why ''you'' think that he's pressing so hard for the "Tony banned" and "Tony dead-minned" findings to be put in?<br/>]]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 23:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|- |
|
:No offense taken, but thanks for coming here to say so. You've put a lot of effort into this case, and I can tell it's important to you. I hope you don't let it overwhelm you. |
|
|
|
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | With gratitude, for helping me file an RfC after my long and fruitless wrestle with the bot. ] <small><sup>]]</sup></small> 21:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|} |
|
:As to why he probably wants those sections in...I wish I could answer your question, as I suspect it'd go a long way to defuse a lot of similarly stressful situations (User Boxes, Brian Peppers, Kelli Martin/Grue, etc.). My opinion on the two primary viewpoints keeps shifting as I try to understand things, but here's my take on it today. |
|
|
|
|
|
:On one side, we have "Consensus builds the Encylopedia", which I think it's fair to say includes yourself. This is comprised of folks wanting seek peaceful dialog to resolve any situation. On the other side, we have "The Encyclopedia is built mostly by consensus" which acknowledges that fundamental principles supercede consensus. Principles like NPOV, Verifiability, and so on, as well as the Foundation's concerns for keeping the Prohject going. So back to Tony and the proposed solutions of banning or deadmining: Tony, I suspect, understands his actions caused disruption but acted in the interests of those fundamental principles. If he's right, it's like, really, any admin action...some might object, some might complain, but it's done in the best interests of the encyclopedia. |
|
|
|
|
|
:In that second viewpoint, someone who takes bold actions in the name of those principles and does so ''in bad judgement'' is no better than a rogue admin going willy-nilly. The end result does more harm than good. I think Tony might accept an admonishment to be more respectful, and maybe to listen to others more...but when it comes to his actions outlined in the case, to breaking rules or causing disruption, I think he'll always put the principles before the rules. And I think he's absolutly serious when he says if he makes those calls and his judgement's not sound when he does, he shouldn't be an admin. I've no doubt he holds any admin to that standard. |
|
|
|
|
|
:It reminds me of the first rule I was ever taught about firearms. "Don't point a gun at anything you're not fully prepared to shoot." As the number of admins seems to grow exponentially, we need to think more carefully about who we entrust with those tools. ]<sup>(])</sup> 01:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==]== |
|
|
|
|
|
I have just done a massive refactoring of ], in order to |
|
|
*remove personal attacks, irrelevant comments, and bickering |
|
|
*make the page readable and usable for the arbcom, as at its previous size of 183KB, it was not. |
|
|
|
|
|
As your words appear on that page, I'm letting you know so that you may review the changes. I have tried not to let any bias or POV I may have color my summaries; however, it's a wiki, so if you think I've misrepresented your words, please fix them. Wearily yours, ] ] 08:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
See my comments to Mindspillage; I don't think you modified anything I said from my summary. ] 16:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:You had a comment in the '''Userboxes limited''' section that got factored down to ''David Gerard, Geni, and Septentrionalis discuss how to define "spoken human languages" within the terms of the policy.'' I just wanted to leave you a notice in case you felt that part of the discussion shouldn't have been reduced to one line. The original, by the way, is still on the Withdrawn page. ]<sup>(])</sup> 16:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Welcome! == |
|
|
|
|
|
<div style="align: center; padding: 1em; border: solid 2px yellow; background-color: darkblue;"> |
|
|
<center ><font size="+1" color="yellow">'''Hello, {{PAGENAME}}, <font color="lightblue">]</font> to Misplaced Pages!</font ></center ></div > |
|
|
<div style="align: center; padding: 1em; border: solid 2px black; background-color: white;"> |
|
|
<center >'''I hope you like working here and want to ]. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at the ], and for help on formatting the pages visit the ]. If you need general help, look at ] and ], and if you can't find your answer there, check the ] (for Misplaced Pages related questions) or the ] (for general questions). There's still more help at the ] and the ]. Also, don't forget to visit the ] — and if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on ].'''</center> |
|
|
---- |
|
|
<center><big>'''Additional tips:'''</big></center> |
|
|
:Here are some extra tips to help you get around Misplaced Pages: |
|
|
:*If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the ]. |
|
|
:*Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did. |
|
|
:*You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles. |
|
|
:*You might want to add yourself to the ] |
|
|
:*If your first language isn't English, try ] |
|
|
:*Full details on Misplaced Pages style can be found in the ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
<center>There's also a regular ] on IRC.</center> |
|
|
---- |
|
|
<center ><font size="+1">'''Happy editing!'''</font ></center > |
|
|
</div > --] (]) 21:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Regarding... An opinion please. == |
|
|
(On Tony Sidaways Talk) |
|
|
If you have a moment, could you My instinct is to revert it as unfounded opinion (NOR?), but I want to seek a more experienced opinion before acting. Thanks. --]<sup>(])</sup> 03:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: I'd suggest that you copy those words to the talk page and query them. There may be a source for this--Pratchett or Gaiman may at some point have acknowledged drawing directly on The Omen. I don't see it myself but it's about fifteen years since I read the book--which is not one of my favorites. If nothing is forthcoming by the end of the Easter weekend, remove the words from the article until someone can source the statement. The copy on the talk page will still be available for editors to work on. --] 16:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::On the above, I'm familiar with Practchett, and it seems likely owning about half his works— pretty good at comedy though. I'd advise searching some of the web forums specific to sci-fi community, or perhaps start in B&N and Amazon reviews of books (this will likely turn up immediately if reviewed there). I think he's in ], or would hope other discussions in ] would lead you to right place. OTHO, <s>why not just use <nowiki>{{fact}} and {{disputed}}</nowiki> and post a note on both the (users) talks that the statement needs supported.</s> Ahhhh Two edits total, I see now. (co-posted to ] before closing this edit on ]) <B>]</B><font color="green">]</font> |
|
|
:*To get off the dime, with two edits, the statement is further in peril, but I still consider the edit was likely made in good faith. |
|
|
::Welcome, and feel free to poke around my user page, as I've squirrilled away a lot of goodies there for my own use. Might I suggest following the TOC down in particular to the links section and find ''My Welcome'' and make a copy on a subpage to play with. If that's unclear, Put it here: ]. All in all, I wouldn't sweat that sentence much. It feels 'real'. I 'likees' your user name! |
|
|
Best regards, <B>]</B><font color="green">]</font> 18:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== You get one too! == |
|
|
|
|
|
For participating in my insane project and surviving, here is a present! Enjoy! ] (drop me a ]) 01:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{userbox |
|
|
|id=aWP |
|
|
|id-s=20 |
|
|
|id-c=red |
|
|
|info=This user survived ]. |
|
|
|info-c=white |
|
|
|info-s=12 |
|
|
|border-c=blue |
|
|
|border-s=2 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Tony's "No refactoring page" edits == |
|
|
|
|
|
The parts which you removed include instructions as to preferences for the cases where refactoring is mandated currently (ie. ANx pages). I know you were trying to make it better but I feel you have removed important extra instructions, like my preference for talk page refactoring as Tony has in the past redirected to ] instead of ] or even ]. ] 05:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
