Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:52, 4 February 2015

Please add new talk topics at the bottom of the page, and sign with ~~~~

		The Original Barnstar
		I'm not sure why you haven't picked up a bevy of these already, but thanks for all your effort, particularly in tracking down good sources with diagrams, etc., on the photography- and color-related articles (not to mention fighting vandalism). Those areas of Misplaced Pages are much richer for your work. Cheers! —jacobolus (t) 02:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		To Dicklyon on the occasion of your photograph of Ivan Sutherland and his birthday! What a great gift. -User:SusanLesch 04:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		For your hard work in improving and watching over the Ohm's law article SpinningSpark 00:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For your improvements to the Centrifugal force articles. Your common sense approach of creating a summary-style article at the simplified title, explaining the broad concepts in a way that is accessible to the general reader and linking to the disambiguated articles, has provided Misplaced Pages's readership with a desperately needed place to explain in simple terms the basic concepts involved in understanding these related phenomena. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

		The Surreal Barnstar
		For your comment here which at once admits your own errors with humility yet focusses our attention upon the real villain Egg Centric (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		For your great contribution to Misplaced Pages in adding pictures and illustrations to articles improving the reader's experience by adding a visual idea to the written information.--Xaleman87 (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Committee of correspondence

Hi. I've come to you on this, because you are passionate about these things, and if you don't object then it may sail through like a ship on open water. Would it be appropriate to rename the page Committee of correspondence to 'Committee of Correspondence' (I've made a proposal on the talk page)? The google and bing search engines seem to list sources which capitalize it almost exclusively except for Misplaced Pages (and yes, in the bodies of the pages), and these committees served as shadow governments of the United States before the Declaration of Independence, which would indicate that even at the time they would have been referred to as proper names. They are similar to the Committees of Safety, a page which is capitalized here. Seem okay? Thanks. Randy Kryn 14:38 24 January, 2015 (UTC)

In books, it's capitalized often enough that I would not object. Unlike all the things we argue about. Dicklyon (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

But cut the nonsense of looking at Bing or Google web search hits. Have you ever trying searching for a generic term like "dog" or "air"? All the early pages of hits show uppercase. That's because the ranking algorithms prefer to show you your search term in titles and headings, which are usually in title case; they may also explicitly favor capitalization (not sure, but it looks like it). Dicklyon (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts on religiosity

Hi Dick, Thank you for weighing in at Talk:Most religious US states#Requested move 26 January 2015. Note that the article, when you saw it was (and still is) poorly written and didn't have a lede, especially since the title would be a difficult one to frame a lede around. I have rewritten the lede around my proposed theme of religiosity in the US. You might take a second look to re-assess your input. You can also add to the discussion in that same section. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 00:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm still not liking religiousity, a peculiar word that means a lot more than the kind of data that the article is about. Dicklyon (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Linking

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Linking. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hatting

I hatted the discussion because it degenerated into shouting and tendentious editing. I've archived it now instead. Dreadstar ☥ 04:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

If you continue revert warring, I'll block you. Dreadstar ☥ 05:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

You can do that as an admin? Block someone that you get into a dispute with? Cool! Dicklyon (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not in a dispute with you, I'm closing down a tendentious discussion. Dreadstar ☥ 05:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a discussion that I just joined when I got back from a trip. Contentiousness is not a reason to shut it down. Dicklyon (talk) 05:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked you for revert warring and tendentious editing. Dreadstar ☥ 05:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're way out of line if that's what you've done. Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Do I get the customary notice about how to ask for an unblock? Dicklyon (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

You seem pretty familiar with how to handle blocks, e.g. the last one. Dreadstar ☥ 05:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I just waited for it to expire last time, but I picked up that tempate from that link, thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, you seemed to have extensive experience. Dreadstar ☥ 05:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I did manage almost 4 years without a block. And I don't believe I ever contested a block before, or asked for an unblock; or if I did I've forgotten. Dicklyon (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to start a new discussion, but edit warring to undo a discussion that was archived because it degenerated into shouting and tendentious editing is what is out of line here. Enabling disruptive editors isn't the best plan. I'll unblock you if you agree to not undo the archiving, and instead start a new discussion. Dreadstar ☥ 05:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Dicklyon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dreadstar has used his admin powers against me when we were in a dispute over this hatting and closing a conversation that I wanted to participate in. I undid his hatting, and I undid his closing when he broke my comment off into a new section instead of letting it be part of the section that I was replying to. And I reverted him again after he threatened to block me if I did, because on general principles one can't let an admin get away with that kind of threat. I promise not to mess with his close again, but I ask that his behavior here be looked at. Can an admin really get away with this kind of thing? Dicklyon (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I agree with EdJohnston and Ched's comments. In essence, there is a difference between closing a discussion and editing an article, which means Dreadstar acted properly in warning you, and then blocking you. PhilKnight (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This is very simple. all I asked was for Dicklyon to not continue reverting the close, and I'd grant an unblock. Dreadstar ☥ 05:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but I did not accept your offer, as I want some other admin to look at it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Which is why I didn't merely unblock you. I also welcome the scrutiny. Dreadstar ☥ 05:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

OK. Goodnight. Dicklyon (talk) 05:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Dick, it's not the same thing. Admin tools can't be used to get your way in a content dispute, but this is a case where the admin believed he was stopping the degeneration of a talk page. You may disagree that this step was appropriate, but it's not a misuse of tools. Dreadstar has indicated you can be unblocked if you will agree not to unhat the discussion. You will remain free to appeal the hatting at ANI if you want to. EdJohnston (talk) 05:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I will offer to unblock if you can realize the why you were blocked. Dreadstar took administrative actions on discussions which were disruptive, you undid them, you were warned, and you continued with the disruptive editing. Your talk page is on my watchlist because I became aware of your tenacious and confrontational style of discourse in recent RM discussions of a couple Mustang links. MOS style guidelines may be up for debate, but our behavior policies are not. Dreadstar was well within his rights; indeed it is part of his tasks to clean these things up. The choice is up to you Dick. You really do need to tone down the confrontation dial. — Ched :  ?  05:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Offering to stop the behavior in question was not enough? Now I have to agree that Dreadstar was right for what he did? No, thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ched, the problem here is that the discussions simply were not disruptive. The only disruption was the edit warring over the hats. That is it. It was a terrible block. If I had been online at the time I would likely have warned both for 3rr and then issued blocks to both Dreadstar and Dicklyon if they had continued. But given that that had stopped, and there was no other disruption to begin with, an unblock was clearly the right call. The unblock request said, "I promise not to mess with his close again" – that should have been enough, easily. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

ErikHaugen, why wouldn't you have threatened to block Dreadstar if he didn't stop disruptively and inexplicably hatting the discussion? --В²C ☎ 22:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Did you misread what I wrote? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I just saw this! Unbelievable. This has to be one of the most outrageously inappropriate blocks in the history of Misplaced Pages. Dreadstar had no idea what was going on, made no effort to figure it out, and simply decided out of ignorance that there was dispute and disruption (when there was neither), and in the process created disruption himself, first with me, then with Dicklyon. In fact, what was required was MORE discussion to resolve the misunderstanding, which was thankfully accomplished despite all the disruptive closings (see my talk page). Dreadstar and any admins who reviewed and upheld this block should really take a deep breath and think about what they're doing. If this is not an example of misusing admin tools, I don't know what is. Admins actions like this are what is making WP less and less enjoyable. --В²C ☎ 23:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I expect your bold all-caps line triggered Dreadstar's tendentiousness detector. Pretty lame he was. Dicklyon (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I tried everything else, but he and Montana kept responding as if I was trying to start another RM ("there was no consensus for the change you were advocating; continuing to pursue it ..." ). So I stated it in bold caps, and that was in response to Montana asking me to stated it clearly, so I did it as clearly as I could. Dreadstar still didn't get it. Lamest admin ever. --В²C ☎ 23:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Dicklyon, was Dreadstar's claim that you agreed to the archiving/hatting] a lie? --В²C ☎ 23:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what that edit summary refers to. Perhaps by "agreement" he meant his threat to block me and my comment about how cool it must be to wield such power as an admin over those who disagree with you (top of this section). Dicklyon (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I was traveling most of yesterday, and had not noticed Dreadstar's previous block threat at this edit. I had no idea he was an admin until he threatened to block me; he didn't appear to be acting as an admin in these arguments. Dicklyon (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like he was prejudiced by your block history. That, combined with his apparent faith in Montana's perspective (which was confused) without establishing a firm understanding of the situation on his own resulted in this misuse of admin tools. Highly irresponsible. --В²C ☎ 02:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Above, EdJohnston defends Dreadstar's block of Dicklyon with the following novel argument; "but this is a case where the admin believed he was stopping the degeneration of a talk page", and argument which PhilKnight supported. What the heck is "degeneration of a talk page"? You mean talk degenerates talk pages? Nobody, certainly not Dicklyon, was filling it with anything inappropriate.

Then Ched (talk · contribs) weighs in: "Dreadstar took administrative actions on discussions which were disruptive". What discussions were disruptive? What were they disrupting? Who decided they were disruptive? Now an admin can be judge, jury and executioner? There was no consensus that the discussions were disruptive. Nobody even claimed they were disruptive. Despite multiple efforts to get him to explain, he refused.

So, admins can go to any talk page, unilaterally decide a discussion is "disruptive", close it, and then block anyone who disagrees by reopening? As Dicklyon says, must be nice to be an admin. I'm trying to find something at Misplaced Pages:Administrators#Expectations_of_adminship that was followed here. Here's a good one, "if you are granted access, you must exercise care in using these new functions, especially the ability to delete pages and to block users and IP addresses." Empty words, apparently. No care was taken in this block, and it was upheld. Obviously no care was taken in the block review either. --В²C ☎ 02:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's give them another chance to look (though it seems a bit insane that you are defending me, or that I would accept your help!). Dicklyon (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Dicklyon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The block is clearly not preventative at this point, and while I have no problem waiting a couple of hours, I'd still like for an uninvolved admin to look into what happened here, and call Dreadstar on it. It's wholly inappropriate. Dicklyon (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are not blocked at this point. The block seems to have been reasonable; repeatedly reverting the work of an admin who is performing his duties was extremely unwise. For future reference, unblock requests that show you understand why you have been blocked are far more likely to succeed. John (talk) 07:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Nonsense, John. Dreadstar was not "performing his duties". No admin intervention was appropriate. Dicklyon (talk) 07:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

John, due to our strong and often differing opinions about titles, Dicklyon and I probably disagree with each other more than we do with any others, but we agree 100% on this: Dreadstar was not performing any legitimate admin duties prior to threatening and then blocking Dicklyon. He was disrupting substantive, relevant and productive discussion (by collapsing, closing, archiving it, without explanation or assessing consensus) without bothering to even pay enough attention to realize that that is what it was. He misread the entire situation. For example, he assumed my involvement was to pursue another RM when in fact I was doing the exact opposite. He didn't ask any questions, he didn't make any requests, he just made a rash judgment and ruled by unexplained decree. There was no consensus for what he did. There were not even any accusations of policy or guideline violations in that discussion, much less a shred of any evidence of such. This was gross abuse of admin tools, totally unjustified, plain and simple. The fact that none of you are willing to explain exactly what you think Dicklyon did to warrant a warning much less a block speaks volumes. If threatening blocks, and blocking, is considered to be an appropriate response to someone challenging a rogue admin abusing his powers, WP is in bigger trouble than I thought. --В²C ☎ 19:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	I could not find a barnstar for standing up to an outrageously unjust block so you get a special one. Hang in there. В²C ☎ 23:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)