Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:35, 9 November 2007

WP:3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Richard Dawkins. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. --Strothra 17:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You are in clear violation of WP:3RR. May I politely suggest reading "Dawkins' God" and quote mining that instead of a triple-XXX satirical show? Jok2000 17:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

As said above, please try to discuss controversial edits rather than just reverting back to them. Reverting is disruptive and can lead to you being blocked from editing even if you don't break the terms of the three revert rule. Sam Blacketer 18:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Brian Peppers

While I believe you were acting in good faith in nominating this article for deletion review, you would've done well to take the advice provided for you at the help desk. The Peppers issue has been discussed, and discussed, and discussed again. As you have not brought up any new source information, nor any manner in which the previous concerns could be addressed, I have closed the discussion. If you can find a significant amount of source material which may allow a full encyclopedic article to be written, you may want to open the discussion later on, but please keep in mind that we've been trolled ad nauseum on this issue, so if you're going to bring a case it better be airtight. And calling people "wikinazis" will not help your credibility either. Seraphimblade 05:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Clan (Warriors)

What. The. Hell.

I return from a long day, and check some edits... And see that you nominated the Clan (Warriors) page for deletion. Why the fuck did you do this! You have never been involved in any Warriors-related things here, why just randomly nominate a page? It's quite an asshole move. We've had that page for over a year. It's perfectly fine, and you've done a very good job at pissing me off now. You... Gah. There are so many things I want to call you right now. Just give a good answer. --~|ET|~() 03:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is hella long and doesn't make any sense. There is no real world context and nothing is really cited. I hit random article and ended up with a bunch of nonsense about anthropomorphic cats living in the woods. Pilotbob 04:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Anthromorphic? Nowhere does it say that in the article, by the way. Because they aren't. And, instead of being a complete and utter bullshitting asshole, you could have just told us how to fix it rather than nominating it for deletoin! Honestly, it's you kind of people that make Misplaced Pages a bad site in the eyes of fans of anything. You just want to go around eleting anything you see without having a discussion beforehand about how to improve articles. If it's at all possible, go back to the deletion review, tell them not to delete, and ask for a period of time to fix it (Then put it back up for review if you still don't like it.). I'm trying to come to a compromise here... It's just nobody will pay attention to me on the deletion review page (Such as, we do have sources...) --~|ET|~() 11:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of Warriors...

Aside from what ET's said above, since you, Pilotbob, have gone ahead and tagged a number of other articles related to the series, rather than just telling us that we need to go about fixing them and such, could you, perhaps, help us in doing it? Or maybe provide an example of how to improve them? I'm a bit sorry to say that the Misplaced Pages articles on what the site expects in its articles, what it's not, etc aren't very helpful in telling you just how to fix what's wrong. Well, no, I suppose I ought to say "showing," as showing is often more effective than telling (which it would be in this situation with the Warriors articles). Also, I feel a little surprised that you've gone after only these articles so far. Some of the Harry Potter articles are rather alike these ones, providing much information about the series universe that would probably be found on a fansite, etc.... TakaraLioness 01:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The comments of ElectricTurahk and TakaraLioness are groundless generalisations for which there is no evidence. They forget that the Burden of evidence lies with the authors of these articles; without reliable secondary sources, notability is unproven. --Gavin Collins 08:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I was asking if he'd help us fix them, not trying to prove the notability... TakaraLioness 11:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Good evening.

I'm hoping to have a discussion with you about, or at least provide some constructive criticism about, why deletion sprees are a bad idea. Particularily ones about notability or "cruft". Unfortunately, before getting to it I still need to get a fair bit of rest, fashion much of an essay on ethics and calm a fruitless argument by holding a spontaneous picnic on a talk page. (Long story.)

In the meantime, I'm sorry that you've received insults. Those are uncalled-for and unacceptable in any circumstances. And being insulted by a group that you feel compassion for just shouldn't happen. --Kizor 19:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Tags

Putting seven different clean up tags onto an article is getting really disruptive. Instead of going about doing that in what appears to be in response to the AFD on Power Animal (Gaoranger), why not improve the article yourself, instead of making it even longer (visually) with all those tags?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not disruptive to put warranted tags on an article. It is disruptive to remove all of them even though they are warranted. If you wanted to improve the article, you would consider the tags placed on it and attempt to address those issues instead of removing them. I would expect an administrator would understand this. Pilotbob 13:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It's disruptive to put seven warranted tags on two articles when you have the same issues with another article at AFD that is likely to be kept.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• What evidence do you have that this is disruptive? Have you any particular example with which to support your assertion? Please provide links to the articles invovled. --Gavin Collins 21:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Amedio Jungle et al.

I closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Amedio Jungle as withdrawn based on your comment there. You can nominate the one(s) you wish separately. Thanks! -- JHunterJ 16:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Tell you what. I'm currently trying to engage in several discussions about why mass-nominating articles for deletion on notability grounds is a bad idea. Given what you're currently doing, I'd like to have one with you. Thing is that I suck at punctuality, (consequently) am busy IRL, and managed to accidentally close an edit window with my half-done arguments to you while staying up late, so could you hold off the nominations for a couple of days while I get my thoughts sorted out and maybe get an eight-page essay off my back? The articles aren't going anywhere, after all... --Kizor 02:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A "no" would've been polite. :-( --Kizor 08:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore you, but I feel that I am helping clean up Misplaced Pages with these deletions. I would be happy to listen to your arguments to the contrary, but I don't wish temporarily stop helping to wait for your comments. I appreciate your concern and I'm sure we both want what is best for Misplaced Pages even if we disagree on how to approach it. Pilotbob 14:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Sorting

It be useful to me and other editors who are interested in the Game-related deletions if you could add a deletion sorting tag to any game related AFDs at the time of nomination. Please have a glance at WikiProject Deletion sorting for guidance as to how this works and why it is benefical.

Basically, as adding certain tags helps with identifying game-related deletions by the addition of the following tag and then adding the AFD to Game-related deletions page:

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 14:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This example is done by adding this tag to the AfD by adding the following text:

{{subst:delsort|Game-related}}<small>—~~~~</small>.

This way we can all keep a tab on game-deletions.

P.S. Thanks for the Barnstar! --Gavin Collins 14:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome, and thanks for the info on sorting deletions. I will make sure to do that from now on Pilotbob 14:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ballydung 666

Hi Bob, Sorry for making a mess of my AfD nominations, I'd don't do it often but I stumbled into this nest of P'n'R articles. In truth, they should all (or most) be simply merged into one. (Sarah777 23:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC))

Sure thats not problem, just remember that once you put the page up for an AFD there are a few things you have to do. They are listed at the footer of the template for can be found here Template:AfD_footer Pilotbob 22:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Assuming Bad Faith

I had noticed that you tagged the kekkei genkai article for deletion and posted my reasons to keep it on the AfD thingamajig or whatever you call it. Then I came here to this talk page and found out that there were other articles tagged for deletion. This leads me to believe that you have a personal vendetta against Misplaced Pages and are performing a deletion spree.

I suggest that you work with editors to fix the articles in question rather than automatically propose them for deletion, using deletion as a last resort instead of a first strike. I also suggest you read WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:CRUFT.

Thank you and have a good day. ItachiUchihaArticleForTheWin 21:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOT, and WP:FICT. Pilotbob 21:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, now I know why Itachi is accusing you of bad faith, Pilotbob, compare his comment to Wrestlinglover420's. Looks like a sockpuppet to me. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Who is this guy you are accusing me of being a sockpuppet for? If I don't know the guy, how can I be a sockpoppet for him? ItachiUchihaArticleForTheWin 23:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, you must realize that by deleting and merging all these articles per these guidelines, you think you are improving Misplaced Pages, but all you are really doing is pulling everything into a really cluttered up main page. This is why I do not use some hardback encyclopedias for research. I do not understand things that are cluttered up. The information in an article must be succint and to the point or I will most likely not be able to get it. I hope I have explained my reasoning for TRULY improving Misplaced Pages. ItachiUchihaArticleForTheWin 23:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

AFDs and tags

Was it entirely necessary to list five similar articles on five different AFDs and tag a dozen other pages with inuniverse, tone, etc.? All of this appears to be a bit retaliatory due to the keep of Power Animal (Gaoranger). It would appear that you are attempting to make a point. Just because an article is written bad does not mean it needs to be deleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This was necessary because I want each article to be considered individually. I have tried to nominate several articles together for AFD before and is difficult to get a clear consensus. Many items have different levels of notability so the consensus on 1 article may not match that of another. These discussions are about a community consensus and I feel that it is easier to get a good clear consensus by nominating one article at a time. These articles do not meet Misplaced Pages policy and that is my only concern. The community will decide whether these articles belong on Misplaced Pages, not me. Pilotbob 04:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

That's right. Look at the kekkei genkai AfD page. This has become a heated discussion that started right here, with the keep of Power Animal (Gaoranger) and has now engulfed our entire discussion in the oppression of User:Subdolous. Look what has happened because of your vendetta against WP. Sasuke9031 04:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why you think this is all this is related to the Gaoranger article. I'm not angry that it was kept. I have no problem with the community consensus here. Kekkei Genkai isn't even related to the Gaorangers and the other articles are only loosely related. Also I don't appreciate the assumption of bad faith. Pilotbob 04:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, honestly, at the moment, the only article that I could see be kept that's decent is the longer character list, that I'm going to find someone to cut the crap out of in the next couple of days. I'd link to official and other sources, but it's too late at night to go searching in Japanese.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

HALLO!

AndalusianNaugahyde 04:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Article shortening

Hi just so so you know I am working on removing unecessary details from Misplaced Pages on Power Rangers and Super Sentai to deal with your excessive deletions and moving it over to the Power Rangers Wiki. First step I am doing is removing all monster related details to that Wiki and then delete every bit of it from Misplaced Pages once everything has been moved to it's proper place on that site. Just so you know if you think the monster list on Super Sentai is bad, the Power Rangers monster page is also about the same shape. -Adv193 03:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Discworld languages

Fair enough. I'd only request that if you are going to delete it that you put the info back where it came from. That the Dwarf language bit goes back to Dwarf (Discworld), the Troll language bit goes back to Trolls {Discworld) etc. Ook could probably be merged with the Librarian's article. Serendious 11:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Note the the deletion is a discussion and you should discuss this Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Discworld_languages. Pilotbob 14:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep on Jedi

*Choir sings out*

*Descends from above, adminship gem still burning in chest*

*Adjusts glasses, begins speaking in a wheezy nasal voice*

I performed my first AfD closure when I closed one of yours as speedy keep earlier today. Though you apparently didn't notice, the article had survived an AfD scant weeks before and they should be left alone for long enough after they do. There are a variety of reasons for this, including the opportunity to cleanup and improve the articles (work that often proceeds with nigh-glacial slowness, volunteer projects being what they are), the drain on resources and contributors, and the enormous potential for abuse. Once the previous nomination was pointed out, there was only one way this one could end. To my knowledge there's no standard on what is long enough, though mere weeks is rejected outright and two months should cause some indignation.

To be neurotic, I reiterate that the decision is unrelated to you, your actions, my nonexistent ill will and slowly growing desperation, and the opinions that I keep failing to express above. (Fortunately, I am only mandated to be competent when exercising these new powers.) --Kizor 17:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That just isn't true. You always disagree about my deletions and it is clearly bad faith. Pilotbob 17:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm sure you didn't mean this is a bad way, I just took it wrong. I'm blocked now for no reason, but we can still be friends when I get unblocked. Pilotbob 01:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Closure of two AFDs you nominated

I've recently closed the AFDs (link provided in the header) both as keep. If you have any further comments to make, please don't hesitate to contact me anytime on my talk page. Regards, Rudget _{Contributions} 17:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, they were basically snowballed. Thanks for the notice Pilotbob 17:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It's okay. Rudget _{Contributions} 18:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I just did one more as a snowball keep - Peripitus (Talk) 06:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I saw that coming Pilotbob 06:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours while I and other admins try to work out what you are up to. Since yo don't edit content other than to tag or AfD it, this should not cause you too much inconvenience, but please bear with us while we investigate. Guy (Help!) 01:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I read your false accusations at ANI. I edit regularly anonymously. You really are not a nice person for doing this and I am quite angry at you, but I am willing to accept an apology and move on with no hard feelings. Pilotbob 02:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This isnt fair at all. Pilotbob 01:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

I don't think its fair that I was blocked. I can't participate in any discussions related to this block due to being blocked. If you want to unblock me, I can stay off the AFDs for 24 hours while we discuss this matter in a fair way

Decline reason:

it seems like a fair and just block to me given your behaviour — Alison 05:33, 9 November 2007 (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.

It's reasonable. Tagging articles for AfD en-mass is seen as pointy, while discussion could achieve results without the need for a massive series of disparate discussions. In any case, I would recommend you read Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction), which you use as a reasoning for many of your deletions, in which merging should and always be pursued as a possible avenue before bringing an article to AfD. Although you are free to be bold and act unilaterally if you feel it is proper, discussion is nearly always better. Regards, Sephiroth BCR 01:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I see your point here, but some of these concepts cannot meet the standards set forth in Misplaced Pages policy. Merging can be a noble goal, but not everything should be merged. I could have put multiple articles together in an AFD, and I have tried it before and it ended up a mess. We may have different points of view but it seems heavy handed to block me for 24 hours as punishment Pilotbob 01:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, so I made a mistake in the nomination of Rincewind for AFD. That isn't a reason to block me. Pilotbob 01:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

For the articles that you are nominating for deletion, merging is certainly a more pliable and workable option than deletion. If there is a parent article, then there exists a merge target. If there is not one, then talk concerning whether one should be created is the topic that should be addressed. The problem with your activities is that it is immensely disruptive and gives the appearance of being pointy. An AfD consumes time, effort, and (more often than not) the sanity of editors of those articles you are nominating that could otherwise be put towards improving those articles. If you have a concern concerning the notability of the article, then bring it up on the article's talk page, or on the parent page, whichever is receiving more traffic or is appropriate. Misplaced Pages is not a race. We don't have to hunt down every single non-notable article and delete it on sight. For garbage and nonsense, the watchers at Special:Newpages take care of that (although with the decision to enable IP creation of articles again, this might turn into a false statement). If your concerns are not addressed, and you feel that the article definitely is not notable, then bring it to AfD. More often than not, however, your concerns can be addressed beforehand, making the stress and trouble of an AfD unnecessary. Regards, Sephiroth BCR 02:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me throw in my two cents by saying that its not the fact that you nominated several articles named the Fist of the North Star) that I worked on for AfD that bothers me, its the fact you basically just ran a random user scriptt to generate the AfD nominations and only provided a generic automated rationale for each nomination. Nobody likes dealing with a robot and ultimately your edits are more counterproductive than helpful. Jonny2x4 04:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that you are bothered by my AFDs. I only nominate articles that I believe fail Misplaced Pages policy. I am not a robot and I hope you are not offended because I have no personal problems with you. AFD is a community consensus based process and I'm sure that if these articles meet or can meet policy they will be kept. I appreciate your concern and I'm sure that we both want to do what is best for Misplaced Pages even if we disagree on what that is. Pilotbob 04:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages also works on common sense. It will not kill you to limit your AfD sprees to about half and take one or two minutes to write out an AfD rationale that doesn't make it appear as if you're being deliberately disruptive. It also wouldn't hurt if you paid attention to what you're deleting. The block should show you that you need to reassess what you're doing. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I was blocked by a rogue admin so I don't think it indicates a need to reassess anything. However, I have to say that I should have been more careful in some AFDs (the wizard guy, and the power rangers series specifically) and I will make sure to review them better in the future. Thanks for your concern. Pilotbob 05:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That you automatically assess him as rogue makes it clear you do need to reassess something. You're nominating main character lists and clearly notable subjects with carbon-copy rationales. That indicates a lack of attention if I ever saw it. Your latest set in particular indicates extremely bad faith with other users. Not the way to go about, and more blocks will likely follow if you're not more careful. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

He is clearly a rogue. The recent discussion regarding Privatemusings on ANI and his lack of desire to resolve a conflict between himself and Privatemusings indicate a problem. Additionally comments on his talk page saying "edit some articles or shut the fuck up you whining twat" (from July 11 2007) don't indicate a good wikipedia administrator. He has also been blocked before due to wheel warring. Pilotbob 05:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that your unblock request was denied by another administrator, your sentiments can be proven false. Again, please realize that nominating articles en mass for AfD is disruptive. As per Someguy0830, you really aren't paying attention to the articles you are nominating. AfD should be taken seriously and only be used as a method when other forms of recourse are not available or not applicable. Practically all of your edits are focused towards finding non-notable articles for AfD, and while this is admirable, it is also not constructive seeing that your judgment in several of your nominations has been faulty. Take the suggestions of those here, many of whom have edited for quite a long time, and consider them. No one here is antagonistic towards you. We're simply telling you that your activities need adjusting. Sephiroth BCR 05:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I had something, but what he said works. Consider improving some articles once you get off your block. It's far more productive, and if you truly can find no way to do so, then maybe deletion is the answer. However, deletion is the last answer, especially in the places you're doing it. Also, I'd stop spamming the unblock template if I were you. They'll protect this page. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't agree with the last administrator. I don't think she fully considered the issues here. Regardless, I'm not going to request another unblock. I'll just let it expire. I think there are some things that I can change to increase my helpfulness to Misplaced Pages so I will be changing this in the future (for ex. not being so quick with the AFD). But it is more in response to your reasonable comments than any rogue administrator. Pilotbob

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

Request reason:

I hate to make a pest of myself, but I still don't agree that this block is justified. What behavior is specifically a problem and what Misplaced Pages policies does it violate that warrant a block. I have been blocked by someone who would say something like "shut the fuck up you whining twat" to another editor. That indicates a lack of maturity on the part of the blocker. Irrespective of this, it is wholly not justified. Pilotbob 05:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is being discussed at WP:ANI#User:Pilotbob and I don't see any consensus there to unblock.— chaser - t 05:49, 9 November 2007 (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.

Thanks for considering this Chaser. There isn't really any discussion about this block on ANI. It seems that JZG just has a problem with me (according to his writings there). I have no intention of disrupting Misplaced Pages and I think this issue is merely a difference of opinion. I don't think that warrants a block. There really is no reason I should be blocked. Additionally, I have never tried to disrupt Misplaced Pages and I find the suggestion that I would very offensive. I have been editing since 2005 and I have contributed to many articles anonymously. My intention is not to be involved in a dispute but JZG has left me no choice by blocking me. Anyway, I'm not going to spam this place up with unblock tags, but I just wanted to say my peace. Thanks and have a good night. I'm autoblocked so I can't even do my normal editing. Pilotbob 05:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with your nominating large numbers of articles without writing separate rationales or even apparently reading them. I am not alone in this. And the term you are looking for is rouge admin, not rogue. Now, instead of pretending that the problem is everybody else, what do you think about the sensible suggestion above that you slow down your rate to about half and take more time to read the articles and background? Guy (Help!) 09:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think those are reasonable suggestions and I will take them into consideration in the future. I still think this block is unjust, but I also see your point with regard to being more careful with AFDs. Pilotbob 15:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

And just FYI, doctorfluffy and AndalusianNaugahyde are not sock puppets. I know them and they are individual people. One of them is right here next to me right now. (hes a little mad at me for getting him blocked). Pilotbob 15:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)