Misplaced Pages

♦My Spellbook♦ (Or, "How I Learned to Stop Hatin' & Love All the Crazy")
Arc 001 Arc 002 Arc 003 Arc 004 Arc 005

mostly out all weekend

Weekly RfA Dramaz

What was archived

* What has gone before...

DR with KillerChihuahua

(cont'd from archive)

We disagree on who the wronged party is; hence, the disagreement. And you have provided no evidence of wrongdoing on my part. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 02:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(more on this in a bit...)

Hi, Arcayne, you've asked about my intent. I look things over, and call it as I see it. Since this discussion arose over the recent warning you were given about the Arrest of Henry Louis Gates article, I've had a look at it. At the article talk page three editors expressed concern over using mug shot as the main image in the infobox, and JN466 replaced it by the double picture. You wrote "And why was the image of the mugshot not retained elsewhere in the article?" and Mattnad who also objected reverted the change. Following a brief discussion JN inserted the mugshot in the Arrest section and replaced it in the infobox with the double picture. You then began reverting to keep the disputed image in the lead and demanding consensus before the change. Wrong. Per WP:BLP, "Article improvement to a neutral high quality standard is preferred if possible, with dubious material removed if necessary until issues related to quality of sources, neutrality of presentation, and general appropriateness in the article have been discussed and resolved." All the other editors appear to have accepted that the layout was dubious, and accepted the compromise. Consensus was required if the dubious image was to be kept in the infobox, not the other way around. Far from accepting that policy, you made a false and bullying accusation on agr's talk page that he was "reverting images over and over again" and that he should "maybe take a little break,, and come back and build a consensus". After that, agr raised the issue at BLPN, where KC responded and gave you the warning. In response you called the warning a "bogus claim" and threatened "repercussions".
Let's examine the issues you have raised about the warning, in the section you have now archived. Firstly, "continuing to add 'defamatory content' would find me blocked.(1), this despite the fact that nothing of the sort had been added to the article". You were adding the image in dispute to the infobox, in clear violation of BLP as cited above. "The image itself possesses no defamatory portion, nor would a neutral view of my actions be considered part of a "smear" campaign, and I take specific offense at that particularly base, unfounded and bad faith accusation. A look at the article discussion would support my characterization of the image." Several editors disagreed with you, as is clearly shown by the talk page, and the consensus is that its use in the lead is inappropriate. KC did say "Cease your campaign to make this article a smear; cease edit warring." and while that's not actually a reference to a "smear" campaign and refers to the effect of your actions rather than intent, it could be misunderstood.
Regarding edit warring, you stated "Even if that were the reason (and, looking back over the warning, it was indeed there, tucked in at the very end of the warning, right after accusing me of engaging in a racist "smear" campaign), we both understand that it takes two to edit-war. To illustrate my point, allow me to ask if KC warned any of the other participants of the edit-warring (including the editor filing the BLP noticeboard complaint) the same warning?" Where did that "racist" come from? I've not seen any edits where KC accused you of that. As before, making the article a smear is not the same as engaging in a smear campaign. As for warning other editors, they'd each only reverted you once, restoring the version with majority support and least BLP concerns, as required by policy. Admins warn editors making multiple reverts, as you'd done. You complain that you've "received three warnings from KillerChihuahua in as many months.... And yet, not once in the past three months have I been offered an apology", and demand that she stop dealing with your misdeeds. You don't get to pick and choose which admin deals with you, and think yourself lucky it wasn't someone who just looked at your record and decided that you should know by now about edit warring and didn't need another warning. As for an apology, you've falsely accused agr of edit warring, and far from apologising continued to bluster when that was pointed out. Your reputation for acting properly would be greatly enhanced if you were to apologise to him. . dave souza, talk 21:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I will respond to this email in due course with DIFFS. As for an apology, I am fairly certain that successful alchemy has a better chance of happening. - Arcayne () 00:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The stone is still grinding

I hate to ask you to look at this again, but Talk:Batman: Battle for the Cowl#Blackest Night tie-in is still running.

I'm really starting to think it turning into a badger game and I'm getting tired of having to hit the same point to this editor over and over.

- J Greb (talk) 04:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Seek admin input, J; I've talked 'til I was blue in the face, and he simply doesn't get it. I am going to assume good faith that he is not purposely missing the point, but its growing increasingly difficult to assume such. We both have other things to do; bring the problem to some admins who aren't afraid of reinventing the wheel, or file an RfC about the nonsense, and maybe the crush of voices will tell him what we have for weeks. I wish I could help, but with work and family issues, I'm going to be of little help, my friend. - Arcayne () 08:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Understandable... take care and I hope things work out. - J Greb (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2009 Newsletter

The August 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILM September Election Voting

The September 2009 project coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators from a pool of candidates to serve for the next six months; members can still nominate themselves if interested. Please vote here by September 28! This message has been sent as you are registered as an active member of the project. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2009 Newsletter

The September 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Batman Split

I just want your thoughts on the disscussion I posted at the Batman article talk page if you have any questions feel free to contact me. --Schmeater (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS October Newsletter

The October 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. The newsletter includes details on the current membership roll call to readd your name from the inactive list to the active list. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS' Tag & Assess Drive and Roll Call

The project's Tag & Assess drive has begun. We will be assessing over 50,000 articles during the drive and we need your help! 200-article ranges can be adopted and completed at any pace. A variety of awards are available based on the number of articles assessed. Please help review whatever you are comfortable with, and if you have any questions, leave a message on the talk page of the drive. In addition, please add your name to the active member list if you have not already. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:River.and.reavers.jpg

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout

Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Misplaced Pages:The Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

AFD for Comparison between Roman and Han Empires

You are invited to join the discussion at for Comparison between Roman and Han Empires, since you have participated in the discussion of the article.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Eyyo

Replied on my talk page. Keegan (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Spells in Harry Potter

Would you mind looking into this issue? (You may need to look into today's history to clear up any confusion.) Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan's Occupation

Hi, I've had a bit to drink, and don't want to do something as irresponsible as updating an important Misplaced Pages page in my current state, but I'm still cursed with being a stickler for details. So I'm hoping that you can help me. The page for Ronald Reagan says that you are actively involved with it. It also lists Ronald Reagan's occupation as "Actor." I guess you could make an argument that he doesn't have an occupation, since he's dead, but I'm assuming that the occupation field is meant for the occupation(s) that he was known for when he was alive. As I am fairly confident that Governor of California and President of the United States are both paid positions, I would really appreciate it if you, or someone else, could update President Reagan's occupation section to read "Actor and Politician" or "Politician and Actor."

Thank you very much, and sorry to be a pain. I'm just not that good with Misplaced Pages sober, and don't want to risk messing things up drunk.

Wikinovice828 (talk) 04:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Your RfA proposal

Hey, thanks for the thoughtful response, especially in view of the fact that I was floating an alternative to your proposal. While I still think my idea has some value in some cases, it’s clear that it didn’t get sufficient support, so I’ll drop it for now. However, that’s not why I’m writing.

I’m writing because of my surprise at your statement - “Additionally, I think you might be confusing how the phrase "term limits" is being utilized here. The initial proposal did not suggest that admins serve x years and then then never again.”. Wondering if I misread, I went back to see how you defined it, but I don’t see a clear definition. Term limits means serving x years and never again. It isn’t uncommon for WP to use a phrase in a very specific way, not always matching general usage, but it should be avoided if possible. If you are willing to allow service forever, but wanting periodic community buy-in, then you are proposing terms, not term limits. One of the reasons I came up with an alternative is that I thought term limits was too severe. I’m probably more in favor of your idea, now that I know you didn’t mean term limits. I wonder if I’m the only one who had the same thought?

Note that Rlevse responded “We have enough trouble getting good admins to stay, why make them leave when they've not abused their position?” That sounds like a response to a term limit proposal, not your proposal.SPhilbrickT 22:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of belaboring this, have you read term limits? That's how I assumed you were using the phrase. I've reread carefully, and see you mean something else, but it looks like you mean that admins should serve a term, then rerun. No? I'm in favor of terms. SPhilbrickT 22:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:RfC: Inactive admins

Hi Arcayne. Well, to be honest, I have never started an RfC either. But yes, I would certainly be interested in working on a proposal regarding the desysopping of inactive admins for the purposes of maintain a more accurate statistics list. I'll look into the RfC process weekend and get back to you shortly on that. Regards, FASTILY 07:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)