Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:37, 11 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)

AussieLegend, you are still discussing the editor, not the problem and you are making it worse. Discussions in Misplaced Pages tend to get heated and it is important that we assume good faith and do not hurry to take offense. Please take a break, calm down, assume good faith and discuss the contribution, not the contributor. In addition, I do not find the factual accuracy of all your arguments (including those about the consensus) within the optimal range. Your treatment of the matter is closer to WP:POINT than WP:NEGOTIATION. e.g. arguing that a person is not entitled to a BRD revert because you disagree with the revert is self-invalidating: People resort to BRD cycle when they disagree (i.e. have a dispute), not when they agree. Also, siding with a person who uses one of the seven dirty words is simply inexcusable.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@AussieLegend and Codename Lisa: Alright. I'll start by discussing the contribution, okay? Article has this unreferenced sentence: "Most notably, she is one of the only characters in the series who can control Sheldon, mostly because of her knowledge in dealing with stubborn children." I believe this sentence is outright wrong and must be removed. AussieLegend contests this by adding a source that shows one instance in which "she" (Bernadette) ordered Sheldon and he obeyed. I contend that this type of source is WP:SYNTH because it does not bar out the possibility that others may have done the same or the possibility that Bernadette have attempted this and failed. Indeed, Sheldon's mother has trice directly interfered in Sheldon's life and has successfully ordered him to do something. (In addition, once in the show, the Department of Homeland Security called Sheldon's mother and Sheldon implies that this dissuaded him from buying enriched Uranium.) Also Penny has twice successfully made Sheldon do something. Leonard has once succeeded in season 7. What do you think?

Fleet Command (talk) 05:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)