Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:00, 13 December 2007

On your commentary

		The Socratic Barnstar
		I was starting to lose hope. --Kizor 20:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks.--Father Goose 01:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

RE:{{Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines}}

Hey Father Goose, I had a quick question about the changes to the above template. Most of your edits have been great, but just recently you removed WP:AB and moved WP:COI. I think this change should be reverted because if you look at precedent here that is how it has always been listed. Not a big deal but I think WP:AB at least needs to be listed. Thanks!
Gonzo fan2007 20:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I made the same change there, then. AB is really just a specific form of COI, and we should stick to the most basic pages to keep the templates tidy. There are some other changes I'm considering too, like moving/removing disambiguation, which is not particularly fundamental and is at least partially subordinate to naming conventions. Since your template is "policies and guidelines", it shouldn't use exactly the same set of links as Template:Guideline list, which by definition covers guidelines only.--Father Goose 20:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah whatever, I just would rather have too many listed than too little. I have just seen many people cite WP:AB so I thought it should be listed. And remember it is not "my template" its the community's template :P haha thanks for your work! Good luck editing!
Gonzo fan2007 20:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"Your template" is easier to type than {{Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines}}. I wasn't implying that you own it, though you did create it. You can add WP:AB back in; I've just been being bold and changing it according to my sensibilities.--Father Goose 20:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha sorry, that was actually a feeble attempt at a joke on my part. Thats why I put :P next to my comment lol. Your changes are fine, I just wanted to hear your reasoning behind it. Thanks again for the work!
Gonzo fan2007 20:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yay!!

Ahhhh... so much better! I knew there was at least one word in the english language that would work. Thanks again!!
Gonzo fan2007 04:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

:-) --Father Goose 05:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a directory: A section "Contact details" in an article is generally not appropriate

See Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not. Thanks. --Edcolins (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you very much for the kind gesture of awarding me this wonderful barnstar. But your edit prior to mine on the Barbara Woodhouse article as well as your comment on the edit summary about the lead of the article gave me the idea to further clean it up. Therefore you deserve a lot of the credit as well. Take care and thanks again. Dr.K. (talk) 12:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but it's not every day you start a job in a half-assed way and someone finishes it for you. Enjoy the barnstar.--Father Goose (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Give it a time

It will be one day. Other users have done it in the past, and as long as people go along with it, it all works out fine and dandy. But thank you for your concern. Hiding T 20:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Puzzled

Hi. I'm puzzled at the idea that we should keep the wedgie article in it's uncleaned state in order to talk about its deletion. When other articles are nominated for deletion, do we go back in the history to find the worst, most bloated version, and then discuss that? If someone's just done some decent work on the article (I added a source, which your edit removed), why should people not evaluate it in its improved state? -GTBacchus 23:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I was mistaken; you didn't remove the source. I'm still puzzled. -GTBacchus 23:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There is an ongoing debate as to whether lists of cultural references to a subject belong in Misplaced Pages. Some people say "fuck no", some, "fuck yes". Most of the material you removed could be verified (again, see WP:PSTS), so I don't agree with its removal on OR terms. The "types of wedgies" section does appear to contain some OR, though a quick search suggests that at a minimum the "atomic wedgie" and "melvin" can be sourced.

Pared down to little more than a dicdef, the logical choice would be to merge it with a nearly identical paragraph in school pranks, but no article should be deleted on the basis of such a purged version, where the purge is not justified by policy so much as the claim that it is "bloated".

You're free to disagree with me but I hope you are no longer puzzled.--Father Goose 23:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a bit, although now I'm puzzled as to why anybody would think that lists such as that belong in Misplaced Pages. Is this "ongoing debate" centralized in some place? Do you think that my edits made the article worse? -GTBacchus 00:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've posted to WT:NOR#Relation of PSTS to "... in popular culture" sections, if you're interested. -GTBacchus 01:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of content

How dead is this? I only came across this discussion when it was in its death throes. I don't understand why this is controversial. I think it's very clearly stated in the good article criteria and the featured article criteria and, in that context, it is utterly uncontroversial. Do you think there's any point in my adding something about WP:GACR and WP:FACR to the essay? Or would I just be opening a can of worms that most editors would like to keep shut? ---- 09:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be uncontroversially accepted as an "essay" at this point, so edit it all you like. I too don't understand why it was faced with so much hostility at various points in its life, but I think most of that has died down now.--Father Goose 21:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

NOR Request for arbitration

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 00:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)