Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:28, 31 January 2013

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Regarding this

...Unless you consider CIR... I admit I was tempted, but it's not worth the drama... Salvio 15:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree about the drama.--v/r - TP 15:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yo, TP, I think you put your response in the wrong place (Kosh screwed up the indentation a little bit, so it got pretty confusing). I moved it for you; here's the diff, in case it's not what you meant. Cheers! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That's alright, he wouldn't get it anyway. The guy was using unrelated comments from 5 years ago to support his case today. I finally figured out whom he was quoting and I'm tempted to point John (talk · contribs) to this so he knows what he is being quoted for. I understand now why Beeblebrox said what he said now. Kosh keeps dodging the clue stick and doesn't know how to drop the one he's beating the dead horse with.--v/r - TP 19:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I've had a run-in with Kosh (forget the context, but I remember the impression I got of him, aye, remember it very well.). I know the feeling. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• sigh Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Why is he still editing?--v/r - TP 19:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Mention at AN/I

I have mentioned you at AN/I with regards to a request to block User:Danjel. ClaudeReigns (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

VPP comment hiding

Just saw your reversion of Kosh's inappropriate use of the collapse template on your comment. This has been a longstanding problem with him, explained over and over but he refuses to get it. See this thread and elsewhere in his talk page history. postdlf (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

"refuses to get it" summarizes his approach to any piece of information that contradicts with his rigid, ill informed view of WP. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't particularly care about the comment. The person who was intended to see it responded already. If he wants it boxed, he should get an uninvolved editor to do it. I wouldn't argue about such a thing.--v/r - TP 19:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

As an isoated incident I agree it si not worth making a big deal about. However, as part of a seemingly unbreakable pattern of WP:IDHT behavior it is concerning. Part of the problem is that it is o frustrating to try and reason with him that users seem to give up and walk away, and of course I was unable to get him to leave me alone and that led to the unpleasantness lest week that the discussion was about to begin with. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Kosh has made me rethink my opinion of Malleus a bit in the sense that my short conversation with Kosh almost led to me joining you in the corner last week.--v/r - TP 19:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

ygm

X!'s Edit Counter: K7L does not exist.

I do exist... really I do... voy:special:contributions/K7L. Yet http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pcount/index.php?name=K7L&lang=en&wiki=wikivoyage fails with "K7L does not exist." K7L (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The Wikivoyage database replication has issues, it's not an edit counter issue.--v/r - TP 00:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks... sorry to have bothered you about this. K7L (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Your .02 real quick

I was just stopping by to get your two cents on something real quick since I'm kind of noobish in some regards. So, I tagged 2nd Combat Weather Systems Squadron for what I think is a lack of notability according to WP:MILUNIT. I was wondering if I did things right by tagging it and explaining why I tagged it on the talk page. Also, I noticed a member of the unit created the article as well when I took a look at the article history. Should/could I have done anything else do you think? I appreciate the help/feedback. (I also asked Bwmoll3 for his input too just to grab another opinion)—  dain- talk   16:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I would say per WP:MILUNIT that this squadron isn't notable. First off, it reads as promotional. But besides that, when the guidelines speaks of squadrons, it is speaking of aviation squadrons; not weather squadrons. A general rule of thumb for Air Force units is Wing or higher. Groups and Squadrons are generally not notable unless they are covered in 3rd party sources. A notable squadron would be 101st Air Operations Squadron. On the other hand, with a little bit of cleanup to remove the promotional stuff, it's not really hurting anything and WP:MILUNIT isn't a guideline.--v/r - TP 16:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/IZAK

Did you see that? It appears that, after the RfC/U on Epeefleche wasn't going his way, Danjel is attempting to discredit the people who disagree with him. He's basically mentioned every single participant in the RfC/U except you and me. Dude needs to drop the stick and back away, and we need to get that interaction ban in place ASAP pbp 17:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Danjel has been beating the caucus a little hard, but User:Rachack does seem a bit suspicious.--v/r - TP 18:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)