Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:26, 19 November 2007

Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 /Archive 7 /Archive 8 /Archive 9 /Archive 10 /Archive 11 /Archive 12

• Archive
• More featured pictures

Holocaust table

How is an image thats tiny better than information which summarises the article? --Hadseys 00:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• The image doesnt symbolise anything, its just a group of people getting of a cattle truck. The star of david sign s far more symbolic, which was featured in the table, as well as accurate, documented information which gave the article a good overally summary of the events which transpired —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadseys (talk • contribs) 00:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Revision history of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability

Hi. I note that your last four or five edits to this page have been reversions, but that you haven't been to the talk page since July.

While I do understand that policy pages get unintentionally scrambled by people who mean well, reverting since I didn't ask permission is, err, suboptimal. I had created a section on talk to discuss the change, you made no comment there but simply reverted blindly as far as I can see.

Please do recall that these aren't stone tablets, they are wiki pages, even though they are wikipedia policy pages. In particular, please take part in discussions when/where they occur.

CygnetSaIad 07:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:CygnetSaIad

I agree policies aren't stone tablets. But it is also very important to preserve stability, as these policies and their specific wording are cited throughout the project on a daily basis, and changes cause confusion and disruption. Therefore, any non-trivial changes require wide consensus. A lot of collective thought and compromises went into the existing versions. A talk page thread is a good starting point, but does not represent a wide consensus. Crum375 13:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You are entirely missing the point, mate: No claim was made that it represented a "wide consensus," but that at the time that you reverted:

1. A talk page thread for discussing the change existed, and
2. You did not take part in tht thread.

Thus you were simply blindly reverting a change since it wasn't "pre-approved". I'd highly suggest that you canvass the opinion of other experianced Wikipedians as to how inappropiate this is. Try the noticeboard to see if there is wide acceptance of this practice.

CygnetSaIad 23:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Quoting for your convenience from the top of the policy page:

This page documents an official policy on the English Misplaced Pages. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Hopefully you can appreciate that when you change longstanding policies without consensus, it can create serious disruption, as many editors rely on their exact wording throughout the project. Please be sure your changes reflect a wide consensus. Thanks, Crum375 23:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

1. I'd again strongly suggest that you check if your views match the consensus. Check ANI, really.
2. In non-heated pages, I'm going to continue to operate exactly as I did in this case: Edit + talk page.
3. You might also want to review the suggested editing paridigm and note that you skipped the "discuss" step.
4. Anyone who depends on the "exact wording" is again missing the point in most cases. Policy is descriptive, not proscriptive.

Cheers,

CygnetSaIad 23:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Being WP:BOLD is fine, as long as you understand that you will be reverted quickly if your changes do not reflect consensus. In that case, it is up to you to gain such consensus on talk. Not everyone can instantly respond to every item that comes up, many people have a Real Life, so allow time, and be sure you have a sufficient quorum. Thanks, Crum375 23:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If you've got time to click "revert" take the time to read and take place in any talk that is ongoing. Otherwise don't revert. I'm not going to engage you on this further, but please please chat to some other admins. Try an ANI thread titled "I reverted without discussing" and asking the questions "1) Do changes to policy need to be pre-approved?" and "2) Can I revert just because they aren't?" I think you might be suprised at the response.
CygnetSaIad 23:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

CygnetSaIad, thank you for all your suggestions. I am sure you mean them sincerely, and that your motivation is to help improve Misplaced Pages. Please be aware, however, that long standing crucial policies such as WP:V are widely used throughout the site to decide many content issues and conflicts, and I am sure you can appreciate that having these policies as fluid moving targets, subject to the whims of fly-by editors who believe they can better phrase something, can be very confusing and detrimental. If you wish to change policies, please do so after gaining a wide consensus. Otherwise, despite your good wishes, the end result is negative. Thanks for your understanding. Crum375 20:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith here and thinking that you don't realise how incredibly patronising and condescending that message was.

• Policy pages remain editable. If you want that to change, I suggest you bring it up at the pump or something.
• Please don't post to User talk:CygnetSaIad on this topic again. I've moved your messages several times, said that I wasn't engaging further, and even changed my talk page header, yet you continue to post there.

Your whimsical, fly-bi, and sincere fellow editor,

CygnetSaIad 00:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverting

Hi, I think this one maybe should have stayed the way it was. I think it was preventing the user page from being sorted into the category "WikiProject user templates". But if I'm wrong, just ignore me. Thanks! -- But|seriously|folks  21:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I didn't get far enough into it to see that. You're correct of course. I'll take a look at that page and see if it makes sense to independently fix any problem. -- But|seriously|folks  21:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft

Hi — For future reference, what do you think the cons of using tables are? Thanks. Sardanaphalus 10:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The tables idea came to me due to regularity of -- I picked up while scanning the list. I recently discovered the {{hidden begin}} etc templates so have placed a copy of my experiment on my user talkpage, but it seems you reckon folk won't warm to the idea. Thanks for your reply. Sardanaphalus 22:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Please explain to my why you felt this edit was necessary. Both entries you deleted were linked and the links were bolded. The entries may not be perfect, but surely improvement would be more constructive than deletion. LeadSongDog 00:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again — Had a another thought about the list, in light of your comment:

"I think the current format is more story-like, advancing from event to event in a given year, while the table format is dryer..."

On the one hand, I see what you mean about the readability of the story-like format, but on the other, I imagine nearly all these incidents are unconnected in time and space (i.e. not particularly story-like) and it's harder to use the story-like list in a reference-like way (like). However, how about a plainer form of table, one with no visible borders etc (I agree the "wikitable" format I copied can look dry/overdone) but still providing some more reference-like structure? I've converted my first experiment in the thread on my user page into a second that tries to use this approach. What do you think? (The years would become headings as in the current article.) Thanks for keeping an eye on this list. Sardanaphalus 03:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your instant response! I think I've seen links to subpages which suggest what I'd need to do, but haven't tried it in case my deduction is incorrect and someone would need to clean up a mess: would searching for and then creating a page such as "User:Sardanaphalus/List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft" work, i.e. search for then create "/"? Sardanaphalus 03:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirming how subpages can be made - very useful. I've now created User:Sardanaphalus/List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft (example layout) and started a thread on Talk:List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft as you suggest. I guess you could copy-paste your comments about the list's format from my user talkpage to there. Sardanaphalus 05:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Misplaced Pages:List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format

Misplaced Pages:List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Misplaced Pages:List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ^demon 19:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 19:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

K. Scott Bailey

Just to let you know that I unblocked him. He has repeatrdly accepted the fact the behaved wrongly and has apologised for it. That has got be enough in my books. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Crum

I wanted to drop you a note to say thanks for at least discussing the block with me last evening. I have known admins that completely disengage after a block, and you did not do that. I appreciate your attitude, and willingness to come to my talk page and discuss your reasoning. I hadn't even realized about the blanking aspect, until I saw your diffs. Regards, K. Scott Bailey 14:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I truly do not usually have a problem with civility. I think I was just being a smartass yesterday, which was completely inappropriate. Just a general question for you: would you have instablocked had you known I did not intend to blank Theresa? Or would you have simply warned me for incivility? No ulterior motives here, I'm just curious as to the thought process that goes into an administrator's blocking decisions. K. Scott Bailey 15:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The ONLY other "example" of incivility was the ... umm ... "questionable" 3hr I received that was pretty roundly criticized by those that commented on it on the various talk pages involved. That hardly constitutes a "pattern", but you're free to see whatever you want in my contribs, I guess. Whatever you see there, I'm NOT an uncivil editor, and I do NOT engage in personal attacks, incivility, and the like. This was a lone, isolated bit of insanity, that has no bearing on the disagreement that HIEV and myself had, where somehow an admin found incivility on MY part after HIEV had spent the previous day starting a frivolous (nearly all admins commenting thought so) AN/I on me. Having a very questionable 3hr block on my log hardly constitutes a "pattern", but as I said, you are free to see what you want in my contribs. I guess it must be a bit of a Rorshach (sp?) test. Well, here's hoping we don't bump into each other in this way again. Good luck to you on the project. Regards, K. Scott Bailey 22:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If I didn't like you, I would simply not post to your page. We simply disagree about the nature of my contribs. You discount the context of my 3hr block, which was roundly criticized as excessive. Context matters, is all I'm saying. As for my caps, they're not "shouting", they're for emphasis, in lieu of bold or italics. I'm sorry you took them as me shouting at you. As for my "pattern", I think you would find, if you put this up for an informal vote, most people would find that I do not have a "pattern" of incivility in my contribs at all. But as I said, you're free to feel that way. I take no offense at it, and I hope you do not take offense at my denial of your assertions. I've felt from the beginning that you were at least willing to discuss your actions (even if you didn't seem to be understanding what I was trying to point out about the inadvertent nature of my deletion of Theresa's contrib), and I always appreciate that in an admin. Keep up the good work! Regards, K. Scott Bailey 23:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Gantuya

I saw that you have blocked him/her before and I would like to ask you to caution that editor to be more cooperative. While I think that Gantuya has made a number of valuable contributions s/he seems to have decided that only people that were "for" Mongolia should be included in a list of notable Mongols during the Qing. As of now, these edit conflicts are trivial, but I have been around long enough to see where this is heading. For more see, Talk:Mongolia_during_Qing#Please_don.27t_hate--Amban 15:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Please delete

Please delete my user page. Gantuya eng 02:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Nukepr

Hi. Yesterday you indef-blocked a new account Nukepr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who made one factual edit to the Eastern Air Lines Flight 212‎ article. He sent a note to unblock-en-l and claims that he's a local reporter who covered the crash and followed up with the NTSB report and so forth.

I don't have any factual knowledge of the crash to be able to tell if his edit was factually correct or not, but I am concerned that even if it was not, your indef block was remarkably quick response and had no warnings to the user preceding it.

Can you review your block and consider overturning? Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 22:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to look at this article...

I edited Singapore Airlines Flight 006 for awhile, using news reports and the Taiwan official report as a basis of much of the statements. Do you mind if you look at the article? Also, I want a public domain image of a seat layout of the SQ 747-400 involved so the locations of the dead, injured, and uninjured may be shown. Do you know a person willing to make a public domain image? (I cannot use the one in the Taiwan report as it is from Taiwan, not the NTSB) WhisperToMe 05:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

NPA

Take it to the bloody talk page. Consensus was gained to remove that section from the page through careful discussion, which you and MONGO chose to ignore it seems. Now you edit war to add it back in, that is ridiculous. Viridae 21:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#MONGO 2

I would like to notify you that you have been added as an involved party in the MONGO 2 request for arbitration. --krimpet⟲ 15:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)