Misplaced Pages

User talk:Writ Keeper: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:00, 11 December 2012 editWrit Keeper (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Interface administrators, Administrators26,036 edits December 2012: on notice← Previous edit Revision as of 06:09, 11 December 2012 edit undo142.161.182.190 (talk) Your revert and protection..Next edit →
Line 132: Line 132:
== Your revert and protection.. == == Your revert and protection.. ==


Thanks for the advice. Will try on the talk pages first If I want to make a significant edit ] (]) 05:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, noticed you reverted my edit and locked the page. Can you explain why? I think a more appropriate intro is the one in the manner put forth by ] rather than the current one, which reads as follows

"Depiction of lesbianism has been a relatively common theme in erotic art and pornography throughout history. Studies indicate that heterosexual men were more aroused by depictions involving lesbian sex than they are by depictions of heterosexual activity, while heterosexual and lesbian women were aroused by a wide range of sexual stimuli. Historically, erotica and pornography involving sex between women has been produced by men for a predominantly male audience."

Now, let's address this argument and intro put forth by unknown contributor.

This isn't a good intro for numerous reasons, being the style (intros are meant to introduce a topic, not list some type of conclusion), the fact that every sexuality is a common theme in erotic art, and the most absurd of all, the claim that the editor marked as fact; "heterosexual men were more aroused by depictions involving lesbian sex than they are by depictions of heterosexual activity". This isn't a sound conclusion because only one study (reputability of source: unknown, credibility of claim: Low, reasons why will follow) out of numerous ones studying male arousal came to that conclusion, and there isn't enough evidence. Nor will there ever be. The study and claim it entailed was simply the most controversial. Being controversial does not make the study's findings or claim factual, and it shouldn't be expressed as strong evidence for a sound conclusion. Usually you base conclusions on a medium between conflicting sources, providing the research methods are sound, leaning towards the more reputable source that contains the higher credibility in the claim, not using the extremes.And if both sources are reputable, have credible claims, maybe we should let the reader make the conclusion for themselves? Blanket statements (All x are Y, or All x are not Z), tend to be inaccurate for many articles. Also, the most commonly purchased and consumed erotic entertainment (pornography) by males depicts heterosexual activity (See statistics based on adult video sales, views, etc), which corresponds to what arouses the individual; You watch and consume what gives the most pleasure. This conclusion is offensive and opinionated and based on the counter evidence, a blatantly false claim, so a change was needed. Also, the last line, it is produced for both a heterosexual male and a homosexual female audience.

I assume you're a male, a fairly reasonable person, and it would be easy for you to see the bizarre intros? I know I've been reverted a lot.. but I know I am right in removing opinions from articles that simply propose misandrist, sexist, statements, for the benefit of information. As a male, these opinions offend me (that in itself is no reason to edit, but I'm just saying why I don't readily accept such sentiments to be presented as fact), which is why I seek to correct such articles (scanned through pages regarding feminism, found it fair. Scanned through pages regarding lesbianism, found degrading opinions of males expressed as factual, and one sided arguments based upon selective "pick and choose" sources (What I mean by this, essentially, is presenting sources in an article that aligns with the editors point of view, and disallowing presentation of sources that are to the contrary of the editors views, and contrary to the sources S/he puts forth, regardless how reputable the opposing source is, or how credible the findings are), thus I decided to awkwardly revert and correct). I don't care about what the article is about, in fact it is very uncomfortable to me, as is writing this. But if it's where harmful views of men are frequently presented, then that's where I must correct. Opinions in the form of some type of claim, presented as fact for a conclusion, are still not tolerable, and I will oppose them, no matter what the article is about. Misplaced Pages must be a beacon for information, not user opinions! Now, all the points I made, all of what I said have been factual, not of my own opinion, and my debunks have all been based on what constitutes a fact or non-factual (false claim/opinion). In short, the intro I proposed was

"Lesbianism in erotica is the representation of sexual intercourse between females. It's primary goal is sexual arousal in its audience. Erotica depicting lesbianism may be produced ambiguously for both heterosexual male and homosexual female consumption." Which corresponds directly for it's topically linked article, only with female and male roles switched, ], "Gay pornography is the representation of sexual intercourse between males. Its primary goal is sexual arousal in its audience. Softcore gay pornography also exists, at one time constituted the genre, and may be produced ambiguously for both heterosexual female and homosexual male consumption.".

These intros are fair, factual, and don't entail opinions or conclusions about half of the population's desires and attractions based on a study that's extreme to the norm. Hope you can see the better choice for an intro to such a topic that I couldn't care less about. But such negative opinions of men, women, or any group of people declared as fact, I do care about. Which is what this article contained, no matter how distant I feel to the topic at hand. I think I made a cogent enough argument here, detailing why what's stated in original intro is opinionated and not supported with enough evidence to reach a sound conclusion, why you shouldn't have an article based on an editor's opinion, and why when presenting information, it is only fair if the claims (providing they're credible) of reputable sources on both sides of the editor's view are presented, (I think you only need a conclusion on an encyclopedia if it's 100% accepted as fact, otherwise leave it out and let the reader decide, but provide the source and claims for them to do so?), (the ones that align with the editor's personal opinion AND the ones that oppose the editor's opinion), and what my personal agenda against these opinions being presented as fact was (harmful portrayals of a group of people, in this case, men, in a non-factual manner). Again, if the harmful portrayals or conclusions are accurate, based on valid premises, and well backed up containing a wide variety of sources, then it is quite acceptable for the presented material to be regarded as fact, and okay for presentation on the wiki, whether the group depicted likes it or not, for the sake of truth and clarity. But otherwise, without these virtue of truth characteristics, the claim is merely a personal opinion added into an encyclopedia. And as we all know, wikipedia is for facts, not some random guy on the internet's opinion! It's sad because I love the concept around wikipedia but dislike a lot of the content that is accepted by the users that frequent here. The majority opinion is not the right opinion. These are two separate categorizations. And the fact that I am punished for trying to limit articles to fair presentations of information (my only disputes so far have been about the invalid conclusions (fallacious) and portrayals of men presented, but if I find others, I will be sure to try to correct it, because like any logical thinker, I pursue sound conclusions made by strong reasoning and valid supporting claims), based on factual evidence and not opinionated views.

Lastly, you also reverted my edit and locked the page on another article. Want me to explain that edit is reasonable? It involves more opposing sources to the contrary of what is presented, when the article only shows sources in favour of the point the editor's trying to make (more selectively choosing sources and making your conclusions based on them), and removing conclusions based on editor's opinion or ones that are poorly evidenced.. And the fact comparisons aren't needed on the article. It is not an article intended to compare. ] (]) 05:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


:To be honest, I didn't even read the edits, other than scanning them to see if you were the same editor that got blocked earlier. This is because I have no opinion about the content issue, and I don't care to form one. That's not an admin's job. The point isn't whether your intro is or isn't better, the point is that you don't get to keep adding it over everyone else telling you not to. This is the time for discussion of it on the talk page, ''not'' ]. I could've blocked you; it's pretty obvious who you are, and even if you aren't, continuing the edit war is probably enough. But against my (perhaps better) judgement, I left you unblocked, because maybe, ''maybe'', you'll start a discussion of this in the proper place (the article's talk page) and keep it there, now that you can't continue to edit-war on the article itself. And maybe you'll accept that consensus might in fact be against you, and that you might not get your way. That happens in Misplaced Pages; it's what it means to edit in a collaborative environment. I doubt that you'll do this; I'd guess that you'll spend the 48 hours kvetching and moaning to all who will listen, and many who won't, and then when the 48 hours are up, you'll reinsert the changes ''again'' and you'll be blocked for edit-warring. But this is your chance to prove me wrong. Please take it. :To be honest, I didn't even read the edits, other than scanning them to see if you were the same editor that got blocked earlier. This is because I have no opinion about the content issue, and I don't care to form one. That's not an admin's job. The point isn't whether your intro is or isn't better, the point is that you don't get to keep adding it over everyone else telling you not to. This is the time for discussion of it on the talk page, ''not'' ]. I could've blocked you; it's pretty obvious who you are, and even if you aren't, continuing the edit war is probably enough. But against my (perhaps better) judgement, I left you unblocked, because maybe, ''maybe'', you'll start a discussion of this in the proper place (the article's talk page) and keep it there, now that you can't continue to edit-war on the article itself. And maybe you'll accept that consensus might in fact be against you, and that you might not get your way. That happens in Misplaced Pages; it's what it means to edit in a collaborative environment. I doubt that you'll do this; I'd guess that you'll spend the 48 hours kvetching and moaning to all who will listen, and many who won't, and then when the 48 hours are up, you'll reinsert the changes ''again'' and you'll be blocked for edit-warring. But this is your chance to prove me wrong. Please take it.

Revision as of 06:09, 11 December 2012

Hello, and welcome to my talk page.
  • If I post on a talk page please respond there. I'll be watching it for a while. No need to {{talkback}} me unless you think I missed it.
  • If you start a conversation here, I'll reply here (unless you request otherwise, here or on your talkpage), so please watch this page.

Archives (Index)



This page is archived by ClueBot III.

APA New New Version

Hi Writ Keeper.

When you get time can you take a look? Thanks SRobinsonOP (talk) 10:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey, SRobinson! It still needs more inline citations and some trimming; the middle few sections are what's really hurting it. A lot of what's in those sections might not be citable, but that's usually a good sign that it shouldn't be in the article to begin with, as it might be going itno too much detail to be backed by sources. Writ Keeper 20:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Writkeeper, thanks for continuing to assist me here. I am not sure what else I can do the middle sections simply say what the system is I am not sure how else to prove this other than the various Newspaper and magazine Articles. I can take the mention of the TV appearance out though that is quite a historic event. I shall trim it down and have a look at other examples on wikipedia. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SRobinsonOP (talkcontribs) 06:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Writ Keeper I have taken out some of the middle section. I am not sure what else I can do as we have Citations from independent magazines, newspapers included plus I have PNG images which can be used for supporting evidence. Let me know how this looks if still not okay then I might need to make it just one section about APA and then another for Citations and References keeping very short.SRobinsonOP (talk) 08:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Additionally I have just found I have access to a number of official publications by the National Police Agency, Taipei, Taiwan on the subject of APA and its use within their official training. I have looked at the Wiki guides as to what is permissible and I am not sure still as to whether these could be used. Thanks. SRobinsonOP (talk) 07:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

A question

Regarding my dustup with Yworo, I would like to let a few days go by for emotions to settle and then open a discussion with him, however I've booted him off my talk page and therefore feel odd about posting on his. Would it be asking too much of you to act as an intermediary, only to the extent of asking him if he would allow an inquiry from me? I wouldn't expect you to act as a mediator or anything like that, just to see if you could get the ball rolling. If you would rather not, I'd certainly understand, but if you're willing, maybe you could drop a note to him in a couple of days, and a report to me that it's OK to proceed? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, if you like. Writ Keeper 01:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks, sorry to impose. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Please allow me to rescind my request. I'm, frankly, feeling a bit depressed and sorry for myself, and I'm not particularly inclined to do much of anything Misplaced Pages-wise at the moment; and Yworo's behavior since my message above has not been such that I see any real purpose in talking to him. My apologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course, no worries. I was going to ask you again before doing it anyway; after seeing the latest thread, I didn't think it would be very productive. Do what ya gotta do, and hopefully I'll see you around. :) Writ Keeper 00:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do here. Yworo just hit a bunch of the articles that were part of his recent campaign (Topper (film). Broadway Melody of 1936, North Adams, Massachusetts, and Gramercy Park, an article I took from 9K to 40k). I thought there was supposed to be something of a cease fire in effect? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we need an interaction ban? That would be fine with me, as I've never gone out of my way to cross paths with him, as he has to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I assumed there was something like that in effect, but since the ANI thread closed, I guess it's not unreasonable for him to think it was over. I'm a bit out of my depth here. :/ A two-way interaction ban (I wish it didn't have the word "ban" in it, since it makes it sound like a huge scary sanction) sounds like a good idea to me, but I think we need community support for that, and I don't really know how that works.
I'm not really sure what to do; I hate to seem like I'm abandoning you, but I'm still pretty new at this. ANI and the like are not things I've really done before, and not something I expected to do, either, but I somehow got drawn into this. I hate to make it look like I'm abandoning you, that's not my intention, but you might be in better hands elsewhere. :/ Maybe Dennis? You know him already, I expect, but he's much more experienced with this kind of thing than I am. Writ Keeper 23:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay, on advice from Dennis, I've sent Yworo a friendly email. I'd really like this to be concluded without any formal sanctions for anyone, if possible. Writ Keeper 00:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I have no druthers for formal sanctions for anyone, I'd simply like to be able to edit the encyclopedia without worrying that someone's going to be targeting my contributions. Thanks for your effort. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
BTW, my experience is that you are correct that a formal interaction ban would have to be imposed by the community, unless we were both to agree to it voluntarily. I would have no objection to agreeing to a IB similar to those that exist between Prioryman & Delicious carbuncle, or between DIREKTOR and Timbouctou as detailed here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
There's also the question of off-Wiki coordination between Yworo and CurbChain, as indicated here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that, and I'm somewhat concerned by it, but I'm willing to AGF on it in absence of onwiki behavior. Not much I can do about it, even if I was convinced they were up to something (which I'm not). Writ Keeper 01:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious if you ever had a response you can talk about from Yworo. I ask because this is a pretty good indication that he continues to follow my contributions. (Not that his edit wasn't helpful, it was, and, indeed, I had thoughts of making the same change myself.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not, though if I do, I would imagine it would be onwiki anyway. That's not great, but if he's editing constructively and not reverting you... I mean, I'm hoping that the most recent thread on his talk page means that he doesn't want to be involved in any offwiki collusion with Curb Chain, which is definitely for the best, and a positive sign for future sanity. I'd say just ignore it as best you can unless he starts reverting you or starting pointless discussions on talk pages or something. :/
And to be honest, if his intention is to just keep an eye out for specifically the whitespace and fixed image size things, then--while I strongly disagree with his methods--I can sympathize a bit with his goal. If you don't mind taking advice from someone who has much less experience of Misplaced Pages than you do, I think it'd be best if you just leave those issues alone. :P I agree with you on the whitespace; I don't think I agree with you on the image sizes (haven't looked that closely at it), but in both cases, I'm just not sure they're battles worth fighting, you know? Misplaced Pages is oft-touted as a collaborative website; that does mean that sometimes you have to give ground, and in this case, I think the easiest solution would be for you to just roll your eyes and let 'em have their way. Of course, that doesn't work all the time, and I definitely don't recommend that you surrender any time anyone uses unsavory tactics against you (not that you would!). But at some point, we have to look at the outcomes here: I think both of those issues are pretty minor, and I really don't think that "fixing" them is worth all the pointless drama and bad blood that it would entail. Your mileage may vary, of course, and I'm by no means the last word on any of this; just my opinion as a fellow (still somewhat newish) editor. Writ Keeper 14:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, which I appreciate. These are indeed concerns that I actually have given a great deal of thought to, and will continue to do so. I'm also not quite as bull-headed as I perhaps might appear to be. There are other formatting choices that I have made in the past, and when someone took the time to explain what the actual, real-world problem with them was, instead of simply decrying them because they went against the Manual of Style, I stopped, and even took the time to go back and undo them. So far, I have not found the arguments for other choices either convincing or, in some cases, reasonable -- but, as you say YMMV. I had hoped to open up a dialogue with Yworo to find out more about his argument concerning problems for the visually impaired, since he did not make it clear just what the problem was, but that (as you know) went by the by. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the ANI has been closed, and had I have the resources, I would have found this before it closed.Curb Chain (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
What? BMK's editing history was prominently discussed--by you--on ANI. You're more than welcome here if you want to try constructive conversation, or even complaints and/or criticism, but if your only intent is shitstirring and agitating, then I'd rather you didn't post here. Writ Keeper 16:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid your hope that Yworo and Curb Chain would not continue to work together to harass me has not been fulfilled, as you can see here, which resulted in this and this, as well as these.

It really is antithetical to the concept of collegiality to have two editors working together to follow the work of another editor to revert entirely defensible edits in the name of strict MoS interpretation, something about which there is no consensus, and about which ArbCom has recently warned several times. If I were harming the encyclopedia, that would be another thing entirely, but any such argument is totally hyperbole, and does not justify their WP:Wikihounding.

I know that at this time their actions are small scale, and you would be perfectly justified in saying "Why doesn't he just ignore them?" but I've been the subject of this before, from User:Bouket (who had to be warned off by Toddst1 and Drmies ) and, much earlier a user named User:Miami33139 who persisted in following me around and had to be warned by Jehocmanl he also harassed another editor and was eventually sanctioned for it as the result of an ArbCom action. There have been others as well so I am very aware that this kind of thing can get out of control if not nipped in the bud. I really think that some sort of admin action is required here, in the form of an official warning to these two not to trawl through my contributions looking for ways to annoy me. If my contributions are as bad as they seem to think they are, they will be corrected in the normal course of time by other editors, and do not require (or justify) vigilante action by a Gang of Two. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Stay calm

The take-it-easy-we-know-you-didn't-do-it bud
Don't worry, be happy. When you do break the wiki, we will give you credit for it. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
'Twas a joke; all in good fun, my dear Drmies. :) Writ Keeper 02:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Ha, it just happened again, just once, on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/International Marxist Tendency (2nd nomination), and went away after I hit Shift+Reload. I'm going to check your recent edits, Writ Keeper. Put the blunt down just for a second... Drmies (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

My Talk Page

I was unfairly banned, called a twat, bullied, and humiliated. I am Cycling Road's little brother. I didn't impersonate mods or flood a chat room. Also what's wrong with the article Accidental Flood? Is there a such thing? I type fast and refuse to slow down. What username are you? I was MichaelXD. (MaxXD1 (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxXD1 (talkcontribs) 19:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't go there much any more; I haven't been on more than once or twice in the last two years, I'd imagine. I used to need to for trading, but it's no longer necessary. Look, the point is that, while yes, I can see how you could've been wrongly banned, and yes, that sucks, editing Misplaced Pages like you have been isn't going to help anything. I'd be glad to help you out if you want to try to edit Misplaced Pages constructively, but I can't help you out with your issues with Serebii, and neither can anyone or anything else here.
Anyhoo, the problem with your addition about accidental flooding is that, while it's certainly a plausible thing that could happen, we need the information in our articles to be backed by citations and references to reliable sources. If there aren't articles on reputable tech websites that talk about accidental IRC flooding, then we really have no reason to be talking about it. Basically, you were adding things based on your own personal experiences, rather than what's found in the sources. That's what we call original research, and it's actually not allowed at Misplaced Pages. I know that might sound weird or counter-intuitive, but there's a reason for it. If you can find an article about that (and there might well be one!), then you're welcome to add it into the article, along with a citation to the source you found. But unless you do find that source, you shouldn't add it. You see what I mean? Writ Keeper 19:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

So what sites do you get sources from? Anyway I was going there for Pokemon and they kicked me off and my friends. What's wrong with the article Unfair Ban? I know what it is and how to define it. {MaxXD1 (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC))

It depends on the subject, and how much work you're willing to put into it. Many (perhaps most) of the best sources on a lot of subjects aren't online at all, or locked away within databases like JSTOR. A good way to get a sense of the sources you could use might be to take a look at the "References" section of articles with similar subject matter, like IRC or DDoS. And of course, there's always Google searches; Google News, Google Books, and Google Scholar are all useful tools, in addition to a simple web search. The thing to keep in mind here is that any source you'll be using needs to conform to the policy on reliable sources, which basically means that something must be published by an establishment with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and it needs to be independent of the subject of the article (which, in this case, isn't much of a concern).
There's no real shortcut or way to make contributing to articles easier in that respect; it's a lot of work, no question about it. I think it's worth it, but you definitely have to be willing to put in time and effort.
For the unfair ban thing, the problem is the same: it's just not enough that you *know* what it is, you also have to be able to *show* that it's been reported in reliable sources. There's a phrase that people used to use about Misplaced Pages: "verifiability, not truth". What that means is that, while we of course want our articles to be true, mere truth isn't enough; they also need to be verifiably true, through references and citations to reliable sources. A fact being true is a necessary condition of being included in a Misplaced Pages article, but it's not sufficient; it must also be verifiable. The reason for this is that nobody knows who you are on the Internet. Nobody knows who it really is that's posting what on Misplaced Pages, so we can't just take people's word on it. They could be lying, or they could simply be wrong, and we'd have no way of knowing if they are or not. So, we require verifiability through citations, so that we can have at least some kind of assurance that our information is correct. It bears repeating: our information is only as good as the sources that back it; if something cant't have the backing of a source, it shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. Writ Keeper 20:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Could I edit Accidental Flood back with the content it was in if I add this source? http://en.wikipedia.org/IRC Would that make it any better? (MaxXD1 (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC))

Which source do you mean? If you're talking about the Misplaced Pages page for IRC, then no, that doesn't count. :) Misplaced Pages doesn't consider itself a reliable source: think of the kind of reference loops we'd create! Writ Keeper 20:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see Misplaced Pages adding any sources for anything I read. It's the only source I can find while browsing. (MaxXD1 (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC))

Well not everything is perfect, of course. That's just the nature of the beast at Misplaced Pages, which after all is written entirely by volunteers like us. Doesn't mean we shouldn't fix what we can when we see it, though. Writ Keeper 20:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Well if you go on serebiiforums can you ask who banned me with my first account? Tell them it was MichaelXD and I was Cycling Road's brother who was Max's friend. (MaxXD1 (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC))

Sorry, but no. Writ Keeper 03:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Why not? It's true. How come I didn't get another notice that you responded to me on your page? (MaxXD1 (talk) 03:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC))

Oh, those are placed manually. I don't usually bother after a few back-and-forth comments; by then, people generally know to watch this page, and some people find the notices annoying. Anyway, the reason is because frankly my dear, I don't give a damn. Writ Keeper 03:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Who can I talk to on here instead? (MaxXD1 (talk) 05:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC))

Some falafel for you!

I saw your editnotice on Drmies talkpage, and decided to join the cool table. I hope you don't mind me ripping it off and tweaking it a bit. Many thanks, some falafel in return? Yazan (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Ha, thanks! Go for it; I got the general design from the notice at the top of Misplaced Pages talk:Teahouse myself, so I couldn't lay claim to it even if I wanted to. :) Writ Keeper 17:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you?

So do you pine for the good old days on WP? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Me? Nah, I wasn't even here. I'm only a year and change old. Saying "What an outfit", along with your general point, made me think of that saying, that's all. I do wish I was around back in the day, but that's strictly academic: I don't know what it was really like. :) Writ Keeper 04:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
It certainly was not as highly "regimented" and it was not as complicated. The wikicodeing especially with templates, is getting really complicated. The bureaucracy is now really complicated. There are now some really good tools for editing saving all that hand coding for categories, XfDs, reverting etc. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Allele template

It does fit G8. It's dependent on the deleted parent article Allele (band) and deleted sub-articles pertaining to the band's work. Tell me why it should have to slog through TFD for God knows how long. In fact, Allele (band) is a salted title, so there's no way in Hell this template would ever be kept or serve a purpose. Ten Pound Hammer15:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Replies will be at the AN thread. Writ Keeper 15:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Writ Keeper. You have new messages at MediaWiki_talk:Watchlist-details#WP:TAFI_on_Main_Page_proposal.
Message added 23:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mind giving me a hand here? I just need your mop for a second. —Theopolisme 23:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Howdy

I had some trouble on Explorer today; Twinkle wasn't working but I think it was some fault of Explorer's, or the system administrators, involving something called a dll. You didn't do it, which makes me wonder: are you alright? And on another note: does it feel like spring where you're at also? Drmies (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Preloading.Script.Again.

Well, I'm still at it, feeling silly at this point. Here's where I'm at:

1) So there's this code: <includeonly>importScript("User:Ocaasi/WikiLoveinstallscript.js");</includeonly>

...on this page: User:Ocaasi/WikiLoveinstallscript1

2) The following link is used to preload the contents of that page onto an editor's common.js page: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Ocaasi/WikiLoveinstallscript1&title=Special%3AMyPage%2Fcommon.js

3) The problem is, when I don't use 'includeonly' tags, no text is copied. When I DO use 'includeonly' tags, the tags are copied as well, and I get a fatal exception (MWException) error when I save the page.

Any thoughts? And thank you for your continued technical support and patience... Ocaasi (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think the fatal exception is because we're trying to add a new section to a .js page, even though that's not really our goal. I don't know if that's by design or a bug, but we were having the same issue with the Teahouse installer, which is why we eventually pulled it. Could be a bug introduced in a recent release of MediaWiki. Not sure about the includeonly, still looking into that. Writ Keeper 20:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Well that complicates things, because it looks like it actually only copies the importscript when it's includeonly AND a new section, which may fail on both counts. Thanks for taking a look at includeonly. I'm not sure why this preload-import deal is so difficult as it seems conceptually straightforward. Cheers and have a good weekend, Ocaasi 02:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Your revert and protection..

Thanks for the advice. Will try on the talk pages first If I want to make a significant edit 142.161.182.190 (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't even read the edits, other than scanning them to see if you were the same editor that got blocked earlier. This is because I have no opinion about the content issue, and I don't care to form one. That's not an admin's job. The point isn't whether your intro is or isn't better, the point is that you don't get to keep adding it over everyone else telling you not to. This is the time for discussion of it on the talk page, not edit warring. I could've blocked you; it's pretty obvious who you are, and even if you aren't, continuing the edit war is probably enough. But against my (perhaps better) judgement, I left you unblocked, because maybe, maybe, you'll start a discussion of this in the proper place (the article's talk page) and keep it there, now that you can't continue to edit-war on the article itself. And maybe you'll accept that consensus might in fact be against you, and that you might not get your way. That happens in Misplaced Pages; it's what it means to edit in a collaborative environment. I doubt that you'll do this; I'd guess that you'll spend the 48 hours kvetching and moaning to all who will listen, and many who won't, and then when the 48 hours are up, you'll reinsert the changes again and you'll be blocked for edit-warring. But this is your chance to prove me wrong. Please take it.
A few more pieces of advice: any time someone says that "I know I am right", that is a very bad sign for civil discourse. Editing collaboratively entails accepting the possibility that you are wrong, because it is always there. You're right that Misplaced Pages is for facts, but the facts are determined by what's in the sources. Misplaced Pages is only as good as the sources that back it up. You may know that something is true, but you cannot put it into Misplaced Pages unless it is backed by a reliable source. There used to be a saying around here: "verifiability, not truth". A lot of people were angered by that saying, because we do care about what's true. But the point is that truth isn't enough. Things also need to be verifiable. Both are important, and both are necessary. When editors start throwing the "t-word" around, it's another bad sign. Writ Keeper 05:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:Drmies, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. You knew you had this coming, right? — Francophonie&Androphilie 05:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm stopping the template war now: otherwise, we might bring Misplaced Pages down with us. Just know: WP:DTTR. Writ Keeper 06:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)