| Revision as of 15:09, 20 May 2013 editSW3 5DL (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers21,544 edits →need to know: cmt← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:08, 20 May 2013 edit undoPhoenix and Winslow (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,909 edits commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 127: | Line 127: | ||
| * Ok, I see now...Well, the 'rescue' is essentially the discussion on the articles for deletion thread...if you make your case with the interested people there, then you 'win'. You can ask other people you might think would be interested to weigh in, but you need to be careful about not ]. ] (]) 15:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC) | * Ok, I see now...Well, the 'rescue' is essentially the discussion on the articles for deletion thread...if you make your case with the interested people there, then you 'win'. You can ask other people you might think would be interested to weigh in, but you need to be careful about not ]. ] (]) 15:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::Okay, I'll ask contributors to the article. Thanks. ] (]) 15:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC) | ::Okay, I'll ask contributors to the article. Thanks. ] (]) 15:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ==Regarding Moderated Discussion at ]== | |||
| Let me say from the beginning that this is not canvassing. This is an attempt, with the best of intentions for Misplaced Pages, to resolve a problem. | |||
| *''I think we should seriously consider Arthur's suggestion that we vote to ban Xenophrenic from this page ...'' I recommended that at ArbCom, but I'm not sure they'll do anything; unfortunately the Moderated Discussion page and the article's main Talk page are not appropriate places for such a discussion. The gentleman has been engaged in this behavior on several articles related to U.S. politics for several years. It's completely unacceptable. So I recommended, and I'm again recommending, a topic ban on all articles related to U.S. politics, broadly construed. | |||
| *I recommend RFC/U as they did with Arzel. Allegedly ANI is also an appropriate forum to begin with, but that has every likelihood of turning into a bloodbath. We need to go to RFC/U first to establish tone, numbers, and the body of evidence. You and Arthur could certify the RFC/U, we could discuss it, and then (if consensus suggests it) we could move to ANI and "vote" on a community ban. In an RFC/U followed by ANI, we do not need to rely on ArbCom to make the decision. We're the ones who have had to deal with this behavior on a daily basis, so we're the ones who are in the best position to see the problem and the solution with the greatest clarity. We'd need to bring SilkTork into it to ensure no one challenges its legitimacy. | |||
| *This should be done with the caveat that Xeno should have the option of asking for a removal of the topic ban, after a substantial period (six months to a year) of productive work on other articles. I'd like to believe that almost anyone can be rehabilitated, and he does have the potential to be a productive editor. And it is altogether possible that during the course of all these discussions, Xeno may accept that his behavior is unacceptable, and change his behavior without a topic ban at all. I am placing the same message on Arthur's page. kind regards ... ] (]) 16:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:08, 20 May 2013
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
| This is SW3 5DL's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
When Vandals care enough to say it best. . .
Landon Donovan
Baby does faceplants
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SS3dHKWVP7Y
Jude! What are you doing up there?
Nothing!
You know you're on Misplaced Pages when. . .
- The Care Bears article has a criticism section. .
Charles Barkley says he can still kick ass
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html?ref=todayspaper
Leave messages starting here
Leave messages starting here:
Ichthus: January 2012
 |
ICHTHUS |
| January 2012 |
In this issue...
- From the Editor
- What are You doing For Lent?
- Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
- Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here
New messages
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Tea Party movement Moderated discussion
A discussion is taking place at Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion to get consensus on finding and addressing the main points of contention on the article, and moving the article to a stable and useful condition. As you are a significant contributor to the article, your involvement in the discussion would be valued and helpful. As the discussion is currently looking at removing a substantial amount of material, it would be appropriate for you to check to see what material is being proposed for removal, in case you have any concerns about this. If you feel you would rather not get involved right now, that is fine; however, if you later decide to get involved and directly edit the article to reverse any consensus decisions, that might be seen as disruptive. Re-opening discussion, however, may be acceptable; though you may find few people willing to re-engage in such a discussion, and if there are repeated attempts to re-open discussion on the same points, that also could be seen as disruptive. The best time to get involved is right now. SilkTork 08:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#Taking_stock. Cheers.--Ubikwit見学/迷惑 15:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
RFC/U on User:Arzel
You took part in a discussion that dealt with user:Arzel, which took place here. There was a clear community consensus for a topic ban for user:Arzel. Many of the issue fell outside of discussion on TPM. With such a large community consensus and with arbitration committee only dealing with issues directly related to the TPM, I went ahead and started a WP:RFC/U, here. You are invited to endorse this and to take part in the WP:RFC/U. Casprings (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Did you say something at the ANI? I'm certain you did not mention anything at ArbCom except recently on the talk page. Why this now? Malke 2010 (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Struck for non neutral working.Casprings (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
RFC/U on user:Arzel
You took part in a discussion that dealt with user:Arzel, which took place here. Based on that discussion, I started a WP:RFC/U, here.Casprings (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- You haven't answered my question. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Nomination of New-adult fiction for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article New-adult fiction 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/New-adult fiction 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. Orange Mike | Talk 00:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have removed the "hangon" template you placed on this article - those are only used where speedy deletion has been proposed, which is not the case here. The deletion discussion will run, normally, for seven days. JohnCD (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
need to know
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Need help for an article being considered for deletion. How do I contact the 'rescue squad?' and is there a template I can use for that? Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hi. Well, it depends on exactly why it's being considered for deleletion. What article is it? Revent (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- New-adult fiction and there doesn't seem to be a legitimate reason. And someone essentially blanked the page after the nom. I restored the content. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Leave a message at Misplaced Pages talk:Article Rescue Squadron. There are some links at the top of that page. JohnCD (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, I see now...Well, the 'rescue' is essentially the discussion on the articles for deletion thread...if you make your case with the interested people there, then you 'win'. You can ask other people you might think would be interested to weigh in, but you need to be careful about not WP:CANVASSING. Revent (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll ask contributors to the article. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Regarding Moderated Discussion at Tea Party movement
Let me say from the beginning that this is not canvassing. This is an attempt, with the best of intentions for Misplaced Pages, to resolve a problem.
- I think we should seriously consider Arthur's suggestion that we vote to ban Xenophrenic from this page ... I recommended that at ArbCom, but I'm not sure they'll do anything; unfortunately the Moderated Discussion page and the article's main Talk page are not appropriate places for such a discussion. The gentleman has been engaged in this behavior on several articles related to U.S. politics for several years. It's completely unacceptable. So I recommended, and I'm again recommending, a topic ban on all articles related to U.S. politics, broadly construed.
- I recommend RFC/U as they did with Arzel. Allegedly ANI is also an appropriate forum to begin with, but that has every likelihood of turning into a bloodbath. We need to go to RFC/U first to establish tone, numbers, and the body of evidence. You and Arthur could certify the RFC/U, we could discuss it, and then (if consensus suggests it) we could move to ANI and "vote" on a community ban. In an RFC/U followed by ANI, we do not need to rely on ArbCom to make the decision. We're the ones who have had to deal with this behavior on a daily basis, so we're the ones who are in the best position to see the problem and the solution with the greatest clarity. We'd need to bring SilkTork into it to ensure no one challenges its legitimacy.
- This should be done with the caveat that Xeno should have the option of asking for a removal of the topic ban, after a substantial period (six months to a year) of productive work on other articles. I'd like to believe that almost anyone can be rehabilitated, and he does have the potential to be a productive editor. And it is altogether possible that during the course of all these discussions, Xeno may accept that his behavior is unacceptable, and change his behavior without a topic ban at all. I am placing the same message on Arthur's page. kind regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)