Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:21, 10 October 2014

Dear visitors: I am officially retired, but even after retirement, I discovered that I cannot stop visiting and (once in a blue moon) editing it. So, if you post a message here, I guarantee neither reading it nor taking action on it.

Deletion review for Windows 9

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Windows 9. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. NYKevin 23:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014 - Your abusive edit summaries at List of The Big Bang Theory characters

Tendentious, really? Tendentious is reverting a valid correction that would be made by any of the automated tools - Reflinks, AWB etc. As for your bogus claim about coming to my talk page "in peace", you attacked me on the page and were called out for it by another editor. You need to stop being so confrontational. It's caused you no end of trouble in the past, and likely will continue to do so in the future. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, guys. I am here to have a word with both you.

I've been watching you both for a while now and this has gone long enough. Per WP:NOTBROKEN, both {{Official}} and {{Official website}} are okay but "fixed template incorrectly named by FleetCommand" (by AussieLegend) and "Reverted tendentious violation of " (by FleetCommand) are personal attacks and a violation of WP:CIVIL. Also, imitating a bot's mistake is not a good excuse.

• @AussieLegend: Now, you, dear AussieLegend, must especially be careful: It was very mature and commendable of Fleet Command to say "I humbly apologize" in response to Cyphoidbomb saying "fuck" and "crap" as well as posting a raspberry. Looking slightly deeper, it seems Fleet Command, who had the right to press the revert button, instead resorted to a discuss-first approach and started with an ice breaker. So, instead of slapping a block log into his face, you could have negotiated over your unresolved dispute. All in all, your conduct has a lot of room for improvements.
• @Fleet Command: As for you Fleet Command, I see you having posted another controversial edit summary:

  'Repaired damage inflicted by User:AussieLegend. Also, I don't care if "Zack" alone is used elsewhere as the common form, as long as the first sentence of this section introduces the full name.'

  Now, "damage inflicted" is okay (and eligible for being taken strictly in technical capacity) as long as you don't follow it up with "Reverted tendentious ". But instead of "I don't care", always say "I don't mind".

Please both of you note that it was not a social call or ordinary TPS: You two are not the only people in Misplaced Pages and what you two do hurts others as well; this is specifically correct as both of your occasionally appear in the computing topics.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 09:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Based on FleetCommand's edits made after the "apology", I believe that his apology was disingenuous at best, especially given the "damage" edit summary. No damage was actually done, and if you had checked the edits you'd realise that. FleetCommand's assessment of the "damage" based on his edit, was that I used {{anchor}} instead of {{visible anchor}}, and I did that deliberately, after first using {{visible anchor}}. The edit summary that I left was a subtle hint that FleetCommand is not as perfect as he seems to think he is, that he makes mistakes as everyone does. His latest edit is such an example, making a bold claim and throwing out a silly challenge, even linking to WP:BURDEN, only to be easily proven wrong. (The citation uses the actual episode that generated that addition) Had he taken the hint and not made the "tendentious" summary, there would have been no need for further discussion. Changing a template's title is not a "bot's mistake". It's done partly because of the variations that we have with templates that can and often do result in errors (the various tv.com templates immediately come to mind), but that's another dicussion.

"So, instead of slapping a block log into his face," - I'm sorry but that's confusing. The block log wasn't mentioned until this discussion, which was started by me, not FleetCommand, in response to FleetCommand's continued aggression, which I remind you was not only started by him when he accused me of being "scatterbrained", but continued without provocation a month later, quite out of the blue. The previous discussion started fine and was progressing until FleetCommand was uncivil, which is what prompted Cyphoidbomb's comment. After that it degenerated when FleetCommand claimed he was uncivil for my own good, which was a quite ridiculous thing to say.

"it seems Fleet Command, who had the right to press the revert button" - Well, not quite. He could have done that but that would have been contrary to MOS and consensus in the Television project.

"this is specifically correct as both of your occasionally appear in the computing topics" - I fail to see how this has any relevance to the discussion at hand. I don't think we've had any interaction elsewhere. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)