Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shooterwalker (talk | contribs) at 15:25, 27 December 2010 (→Sympathies). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1

Reply: War for Cybertron vs Prime series

I've replied to comments on Mathewignash's talk page. --Teancum (talk) 02:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Ironfist AfD

I thought I might drop by and explain my voting at the Ironfist AfD a little better. You are absolutely correct that, in most senses, the only meaningful vote is a vote in accordance with policy. And were I a closing admin, there's no way I'd give much weight to my argument there unless a large number of other commenters backed it with considered comments. But the way Misplaced Pages policy evolves is through changing practice. Sometimes, after looking at a page, and after coming to a conclusion on what policy says should be done with it, I still feel inclined to vote the other way, in which case I follow my conscience and vote that way, making the best rationale I can for why that outcome would benefit the project. Occasionally deliberately straying from policy, with detailed reasons, benefits the project. And when it doesn't, the community will spot that, and rightly reject it. It's absolutely natural that you should point out that my vote does contradict policy, but there's nothing inherently offensive about the attempt. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Social Networking

Looking at your list of contributions here in Misplaced Pages, using your vast knowledge base, what articles have you contributed to or written here in Misplaced Pages? Or am I mistaken again, are you a BOT? Please do justify your reasoning for chastising me on my Talk Page about "nice" or the behavior of such "nice-ness". As I pointed out before, Misplaced Pages is not a social network. The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to SHARE KNOWLEDGE; to SHARE INFORMATION about a subject or topic. Your comment on my Talk page can be construed as a public appeal or solicitation. In good faith, I will assume you were not doing that. Ronewirl (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, this sock puppet looks like you!

I guess we should investigate this guy: User:NotARealWorld, I'd guess it's Wiki brah immitating you. Mathewignash (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Sock Puppets and Checkuser

Hello there, "Not a Real Word," and Merry Christmas. Just one thought to mull over: because an editor, say Shooterwalker, was "unrelated" to Wiki brah doesn't mean he's out of the woods yet. Don't you think that each suspect editor should be screened against known exemplars of Wiki brah, Editor XXV, and Claritas (and all their socks) before declaring someone "unrelated?" Keep in mind that a wiki brah sock, Tedescoboy22, was 'cleared' once in a checkuser because he was just checked against Claritas. see here This allowed Wiki brah (Tedesco) to run wild for a few more weeks on the wikiproject. If it was me, I'd just block any new users on sight just to be safe. Well, have a nice day! Decepticon Trans Master (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Sympathies

Hi. Not sure if when you dropped the word "troll" you were talking about me or not. But taking a look at Wiki brah's presence in the SPI... I want to apologize if I gave you a hard time. I'm somewhat of a libertarian and can react strongly when it comes to privacy issues. It looks like this is indeed a frustrating and persistent problem. I wish I could help settle it so it doesn't continue to be an issue. But maybe the best way I can do that is to just stay out of the whole area entirely. Sincerely. Let me know what you think. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. If I'm to participate in future AFDs and not get dragged into the drama... can you think of a way we can reduce the drama level? Do we need some kind of centralized discussion to talk about how to handle all these transformers articles, including a fair timeline so there is sufficient time to save the articles that can be saved? Shooterwalker (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I've attempted some centralized discussions on improving articles, but I did not get much response. I'm planning to start another one, but I'm not quite sure when I'll be doing that. I need to think this stuff through and make sure I get enough response in time when I do start a major discussion. As for AfDs, I think what we're doing is already okay. A centralized AfD-related discussion was proposed (see here), but it didn't get much support nd was eventually withdrawn. I think this was mentioned in one of the ANI archives that I showed you. NotARealWord (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I remember seeing it... it looked like a good idea but I'm not sure why it was turned down. Was it because it was perceived as a blanket AFD? What we really need is to develop some kind of guideline (or even just the interpretation of how to apply our guidelines) for how to handle these articles. Not something that says "delete all" or "merge all" or "keep all". But one that says "delete if X, keep if Y, merge if Z"... and maybe even find a compromise on how to manage the flow of discussions. Something similar occurred around the backlog of biographies of living people. Even though that topic area is much more serious (we're talking about potential lawsuits that mess with real people's lives)... the issue is fundamentally the same. We have a topic area that needs to be cleaned up... but trying to deal with the whole backlog at once could be disastrous. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)