Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:50, 5 January 2025

If I leave a message for you: Please respond on your talk page. I'll probably add it to my watchlist, but if I miss something, feel free to leave a talkback. If you leave a message for me: I will most likely respond here. Either add this page to your watchlist or ask me to notify you of a response on your talk page. Note: I reserve the right to decline or withdraw from a situation that is escalating or uncomfortable, without giving a reason, or to take further action through permissable means. (See this policy.) If I mistakenly called your edits as vandalism when I reverted them, it was probably because you did not leave an edit summary. Please realize that, in many cases, unexplained edits are indistinguishable from vandalism! This also applies to Rollbacks. If you're here to troll, harass, or vandalise, I might not be able to stop you, but you will be reverted...and beware the giant dice.

This editor is a Grand High Togneme Vicarus and is entitled to write the Book of All Knowledge: 2nd Edition.

Archives

as Aerobird - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 - 21 - 22 - 23 - 24 - 25 - 26 - 27 - 28 - 29 - 30 - 31 - 32 - 33 - 34 - 35

This page has archives. Sections older than 1.5 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present.

DYK for Beechcraft BQM-126

On 2 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Beechcraft BQM-126, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1980s Beechcraft BQM-126 target drone could be launched from aircraft based on aircraft carriers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Beechcraft BQM-126. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Beechcraft BQM-126), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much

Thank you so much for riding herd on BLP violations at that breaking news story. I've been all but begging people on article talk to respect WP:BLP but it's good to see an admin taking an active hand here where it'll definitely be needed. Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

All in a day's work! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I

I reopened your ANI close at "TTTEMLPBrony and continued addition of unsourced/crufty material, zero communication" as I was in the middle of an edit when you closed it. The issue of User:Bishonen's very poor block duration that is completely outside of policy had not been dealt with. That said no one seems to have the gumption to actually discipline Admin's who ignore the rules and don't treat nubes they same way that admins are treated, so I've reclosed. Nfitz (talk) 06:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Indefinite is not infinite, and his block was entirely within standard procedures. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Which procedure do you refer to? WP:INDEF says Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy.; which I think we can all agree wasn't the case. Perhaps there is a new policy I am unaware of? My concern (as always) is that being heavy-handed with new users alienates them, chasing away desperately need resources. Though now they trotted out good old WP:LITTLEBROTHER, I just look a bit of a fool for mentioning it - sigh. Nfitz (talk) 08:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

A failure to WP:COMMUNICATE can be considered a form of disruptive editing, and it's widely accepted that "block until communicating" is a standard option. And don't worry, we all have those moments - nobody expects the little brother inquisition, after all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

In WP:COMMUNICATE the only mention of disruptive editing is "Restoring your edits multiple times without consensus is a form of disruptive editing". And as far as I can see, they weren't restoring stuff. The ANI complaint was days after the last incident. Consensus used to be start with escalating warning templates, then proceed to a short block to get people's attention. I don't see that the (and I certainly haven't checked them all) that edits in question were damaging - more content disputes; and not much of a dispute if there's not even a 1RR. If "block until communicating" is a generally agreed upon standard, then we should document it. Nfitz (talk) 08:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)