Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:35, 21 April 2013

Nomination of Michael Brutsch for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Brutsch is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Michael Brutsch until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breadblade (talk • contribs) 01:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Archives

2006-08, 2009-10, 2011-12

2013

Happy New Years! If you're not shitfaced by now, you're doing it wrong. Tarc (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Bit early in the afternoon where I am, but I'll give it a try. Happy New Years to you, too.--Shirt58 (talk) 03:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Better Badges

I would like to say that I also do not think Better Badges should be deleted. It is a very notable institution and the page is very interesting. It should even be enhanced with photos of products. It should not matter if Joly MacFie is the founder of the business and also the only editor, as he is the one who would know the most about the institution. For these reasons I urge that it not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PCrulees (talk • contribs) 23:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but why are you telling me this? I have not seen that deletion discussion until this moment. Tarc (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

ROFL

...at "sparkle vampire". Are you a fan of Cleolinda's? KillerChihuahua 13:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The 15 Minute Movie person? I've read a few, yea. She did a Harry Potter, Prisoner of Azkhaban one that boiled down every Buckbeak scene to one word; OMGWTFHORSEYBIRD. I was in stitches. Tarc (talk) 14:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, she is hilariously witty and brilliant. See My thoughts on Twilight, let me show you them KillerChihuahua 14:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

THe funny part is in the individual book reviews, tho, from the links at the end of the page. KillerChihuahua 14:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Fort Hood terrorist attack

WSS recreated it again, so I sent it to Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 January 20#Fort Hood terrorist attack. NW (Talk) 04:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

Tarc, I take it in "good faith" that you are not intentionally misrepresenting WP policies WP:NPOV, WP:DR, & WP:ANI. I replied to your post on Guerillero's Talk page:

"Guerillero, on 1/19/2013 on my WP:NPOV Administrator's noticeboard discussion you posted: "I agree that a block is needed here. I suggest that it be an indef one. I see lots of POV pushing here."

The WP Administrator's noticeboard indicates: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page."

WP:CONS indicates: "This page documents an English Misplaced Pages "policy."

Therefore, WP is clear & unambiguous re WP:CONS being a "policy."

WP:NPOV indicates: "The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other "policies" or guidelines, or "by editors' consensus."

Therefore, WP is clear & unambiguous that WP:NPOV is "not" "coequal" with WP:CONS, but "supreme" to it, & that WP:NPOV "cannot" be superseded "by editors' consensus." . Yet volunteer & Admin editors are attempting to do just that.

There would be no reason for WP:NPOV to state "by editors' consensus" if this "policy" did "not" supersede WP:CONS.

Therefore, please advise if you disagree with WP:NPOV since you arbitrarily blocked my editor grievance.

Otherwise, I will post my grievance re you enabling editors refusing to comply with WP:NPOV: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources,"on the Administrator's noticeboard. Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 5:07 pm, 20 January 2013, last Sunday (1 day ago) (UTC−6)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/20/2013

You can't wikilawyer your way out of this. For example: The WP Administrator's noticeboard indicates: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page."

That applies to the person bringing objections not the people replying to threads.

Therefore, please advise if you disagree with WP:NPOV since you arbitrarily blocked my editor grievance. Otherwise, I will post my grievance re you enabling editors refusing to comply with WP:NPOV.

I suggest you read my favorite summary of NPOV.

“The problem with your analogy is that on a sports team the two ides are equal, in that both take the field with the same opportunities to advance, score, and win. Here, the two sides are not equal. We have a word that is widely used to describe a particular prejudicial belief, and we have a tiny handful of people off to one side who don't like it.

WP:NPOV doesn't mean "everyone gets a seat at the table", it means "everyone of significance gets a seat at the table".

If you're so fond of analogies...we're at the main Thanksgiving table in the dining room, while you're at the kids' fold-out table next to the kitchen. ” —Tarc (talk) 12:22 pm, 10 December 2012, Monday

You can post to your heart's desire but that doesn't change that you hold a minority opinion and are trying to make it seem equal to the majority opinion. Guerillero|My Talk 5:33 pm, 20 January 2013

I thought I was on Guerillero's user page, not Tarc's page. But anyhow, you can't WP:LAW your way out of this by getting on a WP:SOAP soapbox.

WP:DR indicates: "This policy describes what to do when you have a dispute with another editor."

Guerillero's user page indicates: "My editing style..." "I change what I am focusing on editing..."

Therefore, it looks like Guerillero is an administrator/editor, & I have a dispute with him as an editor.

WP:DR indicates: "This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators." "Assistance in resolving disputes → dispute resolution."

WP:ANI indicates: "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Misplaced Pages that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Guerillero is a "user."

Tarc, I do not see a cite for: "That applies to the person bringing objections not the people replying to threads."

Your "favorite summary of NPOV" reminds me of the Thanksgiving turkey: "Turkeys are highly vocal, and 'social tension' within the group can be monitored by the birds’ vocalisations."

I do not see: "...doesn't mean "everyone gets a seat at the table", it means "everyone of significance gets a seat at the table" on WP:NPOV.

Exactly where are those quotes from on WP ? Because I did a search on WP & did not find either one.

However, I do find: "1 Explanation of the neutral point of view. This page in a nutshell: Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all notable and verifiable points of view."

Guerillero, please cite the support for your statement: "ou hold a minority opinion and are trying to make it seem equal to the majority opinion." Because I do not see anywhere where I have not been open to WP:DR: This page in a nutshell: Resolve disputes calmly, through civil discussion and consensus-building on relevant discussion pages."

If administrators are unwilling to comply with WP:NPOV WP:DR WP:ANI I will be happy to proceed to: : "There are several available options to request opinions from editors outside the dispute: other dispute resolution mechanisms include requests for comments, mediation or, after all other methods have been tried, arbitration." Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 3:43 pm, Yesterday Didymus Judas Thomas 1/21/2013" Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 09:51, 22 January 2013 Didymus Judas Thomas 1//22/2013

I'm not sure what Tarc will make of it, but I find the above a completely unreadable wall of text. Perhaps you could add some paragraph breaks or something? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The copy-pastes instead of diffs make it unwieldly...it's incomprehensible (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Tracked this down to User talk:Guerillero#WP:NPOV, where Guerillero quoted a post of mine from a discussion on Jimbo's talk page last month. This Didymus copy and pasted that whole thing, which is quite nicely-formatted, here but must have missed a character or something. All of which stems from an argument at here. So, following that long and winding road, Didymus is here because he doesn't like how I interpret NPOV. Tarc (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2013

Who in their right mind copy/pastes a discussion like that? It makes it look like the discussion took place here instead of someone else ... and loses all of the attribution. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion taken to reformat. Thank you very much. 166.205.55.17 (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/22/2013

Who in their right mind interjects themself into a discussion on another users' Talk page, posts statements in quotations as if they are citing/referencing WP policy; yet provides no cite/reference for those quotes, & has a picture of a dog on their User page with a note not to mess with the dog, & doesn't expect anyone like me who walks softly & carries a big stick, to poke the dog in order to find out if the dog has a bite as big as its bark. The top of the discussion clearly states that this discussion came from G's page, & if anyone thinks WP posted WP policies because they had nothing better to do, my suggestion would be that any individual who believes that should contact the top WP decision-making authority & let them know their 2 cents. Thank you. 166.205.55.42 (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1//22/2013

Well, anyone who knows that talkpages are not private, and is sincerely trying to help the project is always welcome to interject anywhere. I see no evidence that you have a big stick ... a big misunderstanding about Misplaced Pages and its policies, maybe. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that tarc --Guerillero | My Talk 14:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries, you didn't do anything wrong/bad. :) This guy is just going off on a bender because he didn't like you explaining policy to him. Tarc (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

?

I don't know what I might have in common with Will Beback (besides an FA star). I just read the arbitration case, and if you're claiming that I'm like him in any way, that's either foolish or assholish (and unsupported). What I do know is that the whole "What this sort of thing comes down to is how many supporters you can line up vs. how many opponents they can line up" is no different from CoM's habitual whine about abusive admins toeing the liberal line. If you are correct, then no decisions are ever reached on the basis of arguments, and that's something I refuse to accept. I don't even get why you're pissing on me: I have defended Rob many times (though not always) in the past, and abstained from participating in the discussion. Your WOW comment basically just repeats the accusation he made ("long-standing enemies"), with at its bottom the unsupported claim that everyone here makes decisions based on personal connections, animosities, etc. It's the exact same claim made by a gun lover, and on the talk page of about every other blocked POV pusher. If you wish to express sympathy, you should find better words to do it in. Unless, of course, you wish to strengthen him in what got him banned. I, for one, would rather find a way to get him back in more than expressing some unhelpful "it's all their fault" sentiment. Drmies (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, don't read too much into it; you compared me to a disgraced editor, I compared you to a disgraced admin. Will was the first name that popped to mind. Tarc (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but thiz is seriouz bizniz. Since I got the mop I've been seeing things a bit differently, and what I'll call the WOW line of argument now is a bit more serious. Besides, you know I liked CoM, and I am not yet a disgraced admin (I do kind of take that personally, since I haven't acted as an admin here, I didn't even vote). But it's a distraction also: rather than bitching at each other we should be figuring out a way to get him back in, maybe with restrictions--though that didn't seem to have helped the last time around (I don't know if his being mentored earlier did any good). Drmies (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It was a potshot, just as yours was. Stop over-analyzing. :) Tarc (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair use image help requested

Hey Tarc, I was scrolling through the WikiProject Alt-Rock rollcall and saw that you like to help out with fair use images. I have submitted R.E.M.'s "At My Most Beautiful" as a Good Article Nominee, and wanted to ask if you could go over the fair use rationale for the cover image to make sure it was up to code. The image was already in the article before I started expanding it, and I'm still somewhat foggy on the intricacies of figuring FUR stuff out. Anyway, if you can give it a look-over I'd much appreciate it. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I changed the fair-use section to the template, as the old wording was rather sparse. Album art doesn't need to be discussed directly in the article in order to justify usage in an infobox like this, but on occasion there are some non-free purists that will grumble. Last I recall though, their position (commentary == necessary) was not a consensus point-of-view. Tarc (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the look-over! WesleyDodds (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting edit comment.

(Just to be clear: I don't care one way or the other which order it appears in. But I am very interested in your edit summary comment.)

"as it is an American band, emphasis should be on domestic sales" - Why do you say that?

If it wasn't an American band, do you still feel the emphasis should be on domestic sales?

I'm looking forward to reading your response(s). Thanks in advance. Pdfpdf (talk) 07:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

"divorced from reality"

Don't suppose you could dial it back a bit, could you? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Sarek, you know me; that is dialing it back. :) Tarc (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Heh. True, but still... :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello, Tarc. You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Misplaced Pages cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000 14:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Your revert

I think your revert of my edit to my userpage was not in order. As you should have noticed, it does not contend that I am blocked, but that I was. That and all the reasons I gave in my revert of your revert. Int21h (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you're being quite a spaz over all this, really, but it is good theatre at least. Keep it up. Tarc (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Tut, never fear me: I am as vigilant as a cat to steal cream. Int21h (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Schwoogie?

Holy shit Batman, the stuff I ran into when I tried to look up that contribution of yours to my vocabulary. For all this criticism of the civility police (and I'm a critic myself), sometimes I'm glad we're not really in the real world here. Drmies (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

That's awesome, it's like an Irish ED. Tarc (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It was an idea

to make tarc to defend russavia. Please have a nice day. 76.126.174.12 (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Well Mbz, that is a rather interesting idea. Now, do you know what conclusion that we can draw from this experiment; you are on the bottom rung of the ladder, looking up at everyone else. Have a nice day. :) Tarc (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I did not know you want to continue the discussion, but if you'd like why not. I agree with you, tarc, I am on the bottom rung of the ladder, actually I am even below the bottom rung of the ladder (and still I am looking down at you and others not up), but there is a very interesting phenomena that I cannot understand :a wikipedian will defend a wikipedian no matter what. One could be a racists, a criminal, sell items on EBAY, but not mail them to his customers, whatever, but as long as one is a wikipedian one is defended by wikipedia and wikipedians. It is sooo... should I say "wikipedian" or maybe Kafkaesque that basically are the same things. You too have a nice day. I enjoyed our little conversation today.76.126.174.12 (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

No, there is no one beneath you. And it had really nothing to do with defending any other Wikipedian, it simply had to do with denying your voice here. You are persona non grata in the Wikimedia universe, and I intend to see that it stays that way. However, if someday you decide to grow the fuck up, drop these neverending hysterics, and sincerely take advantage of WP:OFFER, then I will cheerfully say "welcome back". But darlin, you got quite a bit of changin to do before that could ever happen. Tarc (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Tarc, if you want to offend me, you'd not be able to do it (I do not take offense from wikipedians), and no worries, tarc, I would not like ever again to be a part of "the Wikimedia universe", this universe is all messed up, just like in Kafka's and Orwell's novels combined. The Misplaced Pages Universe is not for me. I got more than enough of something very similar to the Misplaced Pages Universe, when I lived in Soviet Union. By the way, when I left Soviet Union they took away my citizenship, not only mine, everybody even newborn babies who were leaving Soviet Union with Israeli visa automatically were loosing their citizenship. So as you see I used to be persona non grata in the communist Soviet Union too, and where is that Soviet Union now! I have never felt sorry about being persona non grata in the communist Soviet Union Soviet Union, and I assure I will never be sorry to be persona non grata in the Misplaced Pages Universe. I'd better be a part of the Universe,the Universe, where friendship matters, and where everybody is allowed to defend himself no matter what, and where a person rights are respected. Goodbye now. I wish you a happy editing in the Misplaced Pages universe . 76.126.174.12 (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh Mbz, you sure sound like you need some cheering up. Have a cup of tea and listen to some nice music. Tarc (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Homer Simpson?

? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Cheese-eating surrender monkeys. :) Tarc (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah. :) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

More bullying by the ultra-nationalists

here.  LittleBen (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)