Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:22, 11 February 2007

Note: I usually respond to comments on the talk page on which they are made. If I left a comment on your talk page, you can respond on your talk page and I will reply there. If you leave a comment on this page, I may respond on your talk page—please be sure to specify if that's where you would like me to respond—but most likely will only respond here, so please keep an eye on this page for my response. I greatly prefer to keep the entire discussion in one place instead of fragmenting it across multiple pages.

Archives
January 2006 – February 24, 2006 February 25, 2006 – April 1, 2006 April 2, 2006 – July 31, 2006 August 1, 2006 – November 27, 2006 November 28, 2006 – December 14, 2006 December 14, 2006 – February 7, 2007

Riana's RfA

Hi there, the support vote was a joke. I know that I have to wait for her to accept and for the page to be listed at RfA, and even though I like her personally, I still think that it's my responsibility to read her answers and to more thoroughly review her contributions before choosing how to vote. Thanks for responding. --Kyoko 07:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It's kinda daunting... as in, if I reach 100, I have to be just that good :) I'm trying not to keep an eye on it too much, but then I'm scared someone will ask me something incredibly soul-searching and I won't see it, so I'm kinda fidgety right now. riana_dzasta 11:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Everyking's RfA

Please note an RfA is not a vote, but a discussion, so I'm entitled to "badger" as you put it. I have harassed nobody at all, and as it is Proto has still not explained why he wouldn't ever trust him again. Please don't tell me to stop doing things I am allowed to do. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not tell you what to do, I asked. Please be civil as you have asked others. In a discussion, someone can say "I don't think that's a good idea." That opinion can be judged for its value based on the reputation and experience of the person making it. That is a contribution to the discussion, not a vote. They can choose to elaborate on why it's not a good idea, and that adds further to the discussion, but the statement itself is still part of the discussion, not a vote. Nobody is required to add anymore to the discussion than they choose, and for you to make disparaging remarks about another person's contribution to the discussion, when the sole basis of your complaint is simply that they did not contribute enough, is badgering and at best impolite and at worst incivil. —Doug Bell  18:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"Please stop" is telling me what to do. I don't really know where I wasn't civil, but to call my comments badgering is incivil. It's a discussion, so I can comment where I like and as much as I like. In this case, Proto put Absolutely not. That is what I call impolite – not only is it degrading to the candidate, it helps the discussion no further. Why absolutely not? What has the candidate done to deserve such a strong two word !vote? Same with your comment – simply putting oppose means nothing in a discussion. What you've done is voted. A sensible bureaucrat would normally ignore votes. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 18:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"Stop" is telling you what to do, "Please stop" is asking. English 101. The bureaucrat is free to weigh anyone's comments as they see fit. The same goes with support. I don't see you querying Terence Ong about his reasons for supporting, and a bureaucrat may well decide to discount his contribution as well. —Doug Bell  18:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It is general etiquette to provide a reason for opposing – the candidate should be "innocent until proven guilty". And support traditionally means they agree with the nomination. That's why I don't question Terence, and anyway, I often support without comment myself. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 18:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have participated on at least 100 RfAs and this is only the first (or maybe second, not positive) time I've left an oppose without stating my reasons. I will leave it to the bureaucrat to decide whether to take my comment in light of my past reasoning or to discount it. I prefer not to get into my reasons, but I have them. I think Proto's response to your request was quite clear, and nearly identical to Radiant's immediately preceeding oppose, which you seem to have no issue with. It was your followup response that I found to be badgering and bordering on incivility, not your initial request for clarification, especially since with his response to your request, Proto's reasons are as well stated as many other opposers. —Doug Bell  18:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Radiant! at least stated why he opposes; Proto didn't. He did indeed explain vaguely after I asked; it was the edit summary (as I said) that bothered me: "constructive and polite response to patronising". If he had simply put "reply" or whatever I would have taken the issue no further, but he obviously has a problem with clarifying himself, if he finds it patronising. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 18:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice colour scheme

Aah #2F4F4F - like that colour, now I got the code....cheers Cas Liber 06:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

you might have worded things better

Hello, I ended up following the whole thing between you and Sarah and Riana and Spawn, and I thought I would say that you might have worded things a little better and perhaps gotten a better response from Spawn Man. I've left my own message on his talk page, and I hope he takes it to heart. --Kyoko 09:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No doubt, but I'm tired of his antics. While that's probably the most uncivil thing I've said here at Misplaced Pages, it's also accurate and nowhere near as uncivil as his comments have been. At this point I'm not going to tiptoe around his tantrums anymore. —Doug Bell  09:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand why you made the comments, and I chose to write something on his page because I was pretty offended by what I see as an abuse of Riana's talk page, especially when she has worries in real life. I hope you agree with what I wrote on Spawn Man's talk pagee. I'm concerned about him, that he might be acting this way out of problems in RL, but that's not something I can or should fix for him. I hope things get better for everyone, including Spawn. --Kyoko 09:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"Sordid" is precisely the right adjective. Glad you enjoyed that: if the whole thing wasn't at such an inappropriate time it would be so funny I'd be rolling around on the floor in tears of laughter, but as it is it just isn't amusing. I've seen a few things that have angered me at Misplaced Pages, but nothing so revolted me as that. Criminy. What a wikidrama to wake up to in the morning...Cheers, Moreschi 10:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW you may like to check the history of Jimbo's talk. Feel free to revert me if you like, maybe that should be allowed to stand. Then again, maybe not. Cheers, Moreschi 10:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I might revert back to Spawn's version - I understand the motive behind it, but hell, everyone else seems to use Jimbo's talk as a sounding board. It'd be disrespectful to Spawn to not let him have his say. I don't mind if Jimbo wishes to step in, either (although I doubt he would, in a hundred million years). riana_dzasta 11:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It's fine with me if you want to revert it. —Doug Bell  12:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of fake messages bar

Oh thank God! :) Glen 11:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Wranglers 04 userpage

I have no idea if this is the proper way to communicate right now, but I'll give it a shot.

Today, February 10th I logged on to my userpage and discovered it has been deleted by you. My userpage. It told about myself, it told of my wikipedia expierence, and you deleted it. At first during the deletion many claimed I wasn't an active member of Misplaced Pages.. that assumption was quickly verified. Following which the claim was it was used for "advertising", that point quickly stumbled upon my defense. Then it was it didn't have enough content about my Misplaced Pages expierences, I added a section. Though it was small I admit, but it was there. Did you delete my userpage for personal reasons? Because quite frankly, I'm stumped right now. A year ago I created the original Wranglers_04 section in Misplaced Pages's main space, a moderator kindly moved it to my userpage, a year later its gone. My personal userpage, who of which the average Misplaced Pages user (and probably the above average at that) would have never seen in the first place.

Doug, honest to God, tell me what was wrong with it. Try not to use some B.S excuse (yes, I said b.s, that stands for bull sh*t), and talk to me. My effort, my work into that page is gone like a snap, unsaved. This is demoralizing. I've never "spammed" wikipedia, I've never been abusive, sure I guess my use of words in the deletion debate could have been better but that's out of a burst of passion and pride to my work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wranglers 04 (talk • contribs).

First, this is a fine venue for communicating regarding your deleted user page.

The reason why this page was deleted is that it does not conform with what is allowed on user pages. User pages are not for creating or keeping articles that have themselves already been determined not appropriate for inclusion here. User pages are not personal pages for people to put any content they'd like on. As the closing administrator for the deletion discussion, it was my job to read the arguments on the talk page, evaluate the basis of those arguments, and then determine what the consensus of the discussion was in relation to Misplaced Pages policies.

While I can understand your frustration with people just posting shortcuts to policy pages like WP:USER, if you are interested in understanding what is allowed and why people think that your page does not meet that criteria, I really suggest that you do read the "link to a B.S site".

Neither Wranglers 04 (talk · contribs) nor 71.173.50.35 (talk · contribs) (which I assume is you) have made any edits to Misplaced Pages outside of the User:Wrangler 04 user page, the previous Wranglers 04 article and the deletion discussion. This does not constitute being an active contributor, although it wouldn't really matter anyway as the content of the deleted page would be inappropriate in either case. Note also that most of the other contributors to the deleted page—68.203.244.250 (talk · contribs), Jerseyboy92 (talk · contribs), 70.182.94.68 (talk · contribs), and 69.37.50.46 (talk · contribs)—have also not made any edits outside of these pages. This constitutes a use of this Web site for purposes entirely separate from building an encyclopedia, and therefore they were deleted. —Doug Bell  00:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, why should I take the heat of what userpages are and what they aren't? Was the moderator who moved my material there incorrect? It outrages me to hear it was "inappropriate".. I'd love for you to talk to the moderator who moved my material and discuss the manner, because clearly I guess I'm out of it and it was very "wrong" for me to do this. I've seen several other userpages here at wikipedia who of which do not include the criteria you included.

So because I said "link to a B.S site", my userpage is not credible. Unbelievable.

Secondly, you are incorrect on your assesment of my editing. If you look at the Austin Wranglers wikipedia page you will see I have added over 10 paragraphs concerning the team, feversishly updating whenever a move is made. On top of this, I have added on to CJ Miles' wiki, along with contribting to Westwood High School of Austin, Texas. In addition I have made several others on other respective sites. I am extremely dissapointed in your lack of research which leads me to ponder what other mistakes you have made.

You aren't (or shouldn't be) taking the heat for the page. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be deleted, but given that another administrator moved it there, nobody should be "giving you heat". I understand that some of the comments on the MfD (the deletion discussion) were either abrupt, or assigning motives to you that may not have been accurate. Please don't take any of that personally.

Your "B.S." comment had no bearing on the decision. The only point I was making about that comment was that it indicated that you weren't availing yourself of the explanations people were trying to offer. It would help your cause to become familiar with the policies.

My assessment of your editing is based on the contributions by Wranglers 04 (talk · contribs) and 71.173.50.35 (talk · contribs). If you've edited anonymously under other IP addresses, I would have no way of knowing that.

One other thing, please sign your comments using four tildes ~~~~. —Doug Bell  02:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Doug, I'm not a spammer, I'm not a hater. I don't feel like going in circles over this whole ordeal.. I will agree to add thick and thorough details over my Misplaced Pages usage and edits I have made over the past, plus I will continue to edit under Wranglers_04. If possible I would like to have my original content below it if possible.

I've seen how other users here set up their pages-- some with the buttons representing their interests and such.

Wranglers 04 04:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Wranglers_04

We're not haters either. As I said above, even if you were a prolific contributor, the page would be inappropriate. It is not written as a breif list of your interests, but rather as an encyclopedic article. Further, although I don't quite understand its significance, the discussion of your business interest is also against policy. Misplaced Pages user pages are not to be used for any commercial interests or advertising. Including a mention of your message board id on your user page if fine. Including a lengthy article written in the third person chronicaling your history of message board participation is not. People are allowed to include a short bio, but aren't allowed to include their resumé. User pages are not for promotion, advertisement or social networking. The purpose is to support your activities writing an encyclopedia here. People are allowed some measure of leeway with this policy, but your page was outside the boundaries of this leeway. The fact that no record of your participation in the encyclopedia was evident further cuts the slack allowed to zero.

The decision to delete the page was not mine, although had I offered an opinion in the matter, it would have been to delete the page. The decision was based on Misplaced Pages policies and the consensus of the editors who chose to participate in the discussion. I can't see much on the page that would be allowed. If you want a copy to move to another site off Misplaced Pages I will be happy to provide the deleted content to you—just ask. —Doug Bell  05:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate the deleted content. Thanks. Wranglers 04 15:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Wranglers_04

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zapptastic/chess

Inasmuch as I've undertaken on one or two occasions to quibble with an administrative action of yours, I imagine that I ought to offer my compliments on your close of the instant MfD; I'd intended to suggest such a resolution myself (prima facie evidence, of course, of its wisdom) but think, more importantly, that you accurately appreciated for what general action a consenus lay, notwithstanding that no single editor appeared to have explicitly endorsed such specific action. For your fine exercise of good judgment, you receive the treasued good on ya! . Cheers, Joe 07:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) —Doug Bell  07:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)