Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Note: I usually respond to comments on the talk page on which they are made. If I left a comment on your talk page, you can respond on your talk page and I will reply there. If you leave a comment on this page, I may respond on your talk page—please be sure to specify if that's where you would like me to respond—but most likely will only respond here, so please keep an eye on this page for my response. I greatly prefer to keep the entire discussion in one place instead of fragmenting it across multiple pages.
Hi Doug, thank you very much, that's greatly appreciated.
The plan is to revitalize the Photography project, and the main thing that's needed is a more flexible template that article editors can use to request a photo. One template already exists, namely Template:Reqphotoin, which puts an entry into Category:Misplaced Pages requested photographs, and allows requests to be categorised by place. But this doesn't allow subject-matter requests to be categorised, nor can a photographer quickly review the list without going to each article, one by one, to see what type of photo is needed. So, it's not that useful for Project members to work from.
To enable other project members easily to keep an eye on requests of interest to them, the template should ideally allow editors to specify:
any special equipment required (close-up/micro lens, telescope, microscope) where applicable
any other requirements (free text field for comments)
I'm afraid I don't know much about how templates work, nor even whether this sort of thing is actually possible. Maybe several templates would be better than one? Or a template that adds lines to a table? The real need is for a project member who has volunteered to do close-ups, for example, to have quick access to a list of all the photo requests that specify close-up. Likewise, by subject category such as nature etc (I'm not sure how we would keep the allowable categories up to date - or whether that would even be necessary - but I'm sure we can sort out something once the basic tempate ideas have been thrashed out. Regards. --MichaelMaggs08:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, let me tell you what seems to be possible, and we'll go from there. While you can have a template that adds a request to an article, and places the article (or it's talk page) in a category, that same template can't add the content to a table or list on another page. So the list/table thing would require the article editor to make a second edit, and I don't think this is the way to go.
If the template merely puts the article in a category, you are fairly limited in the number of qualifying fields—adding too many field will hopeless fragment the categories to the point where they are no longer useful. The alternative is to place the page in several cross-indexed categories (i.e. Category:Articles needing nature pictures and Category:Articles needing pictures from New York). This has issues however of potentially overwhelming an article's legitimate encyclopedic categories with the maintenance categories. One solution here is to use the template on the talk page, so it is the talk page that is categorized.
Ultimately, what would probably serve the project's needs the best is to have a relatively few (or even just one) categories and then convince somebody to create a bot that will periodically collect and coalate the additional information from the pages in the categories. I've never created a bot, and although it's easily within my technical abilities, I'm not volunteering (sorry). I would be happy to do any template work, which could capture all of the relevant information. Probably, a single template with lots of optional parameters would serve the needs best. The bot can always be developed later to provide a single repository of the information for easy scanning.
Yes, thank you. As you say, a multi-parameter template plus a bot sounds the way to go. No idea who can do the bot end of things, but we can worry about that as we go on and hopefully get more users involved. regards. --MichaelMaggs18:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
There are several users that have bots that do similar things (i.e. User:Mathbot comes to mind). The easiest way is to get the developer on one of these bots to make modifications so that it can coalate the photo requests. I don't think this is a big hurdle. You can also make a request at WP:BOTREQ.
So for the template, all I need are your requirements. This pretty much is just a list of the criteria you want as input and how you'd like this both reflected in the output on the page and used by the bot for coalation. Once I have that, the template is pretty straight-forward to create. (BTW, I'll be away tomorrow, so don't expect a speedy response.) —Doug Bell07:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, sorry. I hadn't forgotten, but have been a bit busy with RL for the last few days. I'd like to give it a bit more thought before deciding, but I'll try and get back to you by the weekend. Many thanks for reminding me. --MichaelMaggs22:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Missed an AfD debate
Oops. I missed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tolkien and racism. Do you know of a way that WikiProjects can be notified of AfDs, so that they can clean up articles like that, and also participate in the AfDs? I know we should have it on our watchlists, but if there was a WikiProject banner on the talk page, it would be logical to contact the WikiProject, especially if it is an active one. I know I should be contacting the nominator about that, rather than you as the closing admin, but I would also like to review the content. I seem to remember it was mostly irredeemable OR, but I am about to take proud possession of a copy of this, and I might be able to drum up something. It might be better to work from scratch, but I always like to try and work from existing articles where possible, as this shows how even irredeemable articles can be turned around and sourced and written properly. I'd also keep an eye on the article to guard against certain, shall we say POVs, creeping in. Hopefully Themes in The Lord of the Rings is still around as well, and hasn't been deleted yet... Hope you can help. Thanks. Carcharoth13:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I will provide you a copy of the article to work from if and when you are ready to do something with it. I don't want to provide a copy in user space that's just going to sit around for several months with no activity. There are perhaps some useful quotes, but I would suggest that the article needs to be rewritten from scratch instead of reworked—as I said in the RfA, it needs to discuss the outside views of the subject rather than present them as a point of view. If you are ready to do something with it now, let me know...if you want to wait until your book arrives (probably not a bad idea as you will need another source to reference), I will provide the article when you are ready. Just let me know. —Doug Bell15:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
BTW, I added a note on the WP:AFD page asking people to notify WikiProjects of deletion nominations. Not sure how many people actually read that far into the instructions, but at least you now have something to point at when complaining. :-) —Doug Bell17:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. The book arrived. I'll let you know when I get round to it. You are right that I might take a while... :-) When the time comes, would you be able to provide a copy of the article that I can change by overwriting my version. Partly because, as I said, I want the entire process to be visible (and not just to admins), and also because I'd like to read the article that got deleted so I can satisfy myself that there is either: (a) nothing worth saving; (b) something worth saving; or (c) stuff that needs permanent deletion (probably all three in fact). Carcharoth00:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Touché. I should talk, I've done almost nothing creational in over a month—mostly policy, RfA, MONGO, and playing with my new admin tools. —Doug Bell21:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
nods sagely You're a grown-up now. That's what you're supposed to be doing. Us little kids can still run around having fun. smirk Think I'll go create another article. BTW, have you read my article on deletion for dummies? --Elaragirl21:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Not yet. I looked at it and it's awfully long. Here's the admin version:
See some worthless nonsense or piece of crap? Click the "delete" button.
See something on XfD that nobody wants? Click the "delete" button.
See something on XfD that 2 people argue doesn't satisfy content policies, but 8 out 10 people still WP:ILIKEIT? Click the "delete" button.
I probably shouldn't be asking this, but why do you use a — in your signature? I generally wouldn't have much against it, except that my stupid web browser (sorry for making a personal attack on my web browser ;) keeps changing it accidentally to two dashes (--). Would you rather use something that is all-web-browser compliant?
Oh, and by the way, I think it messed up on Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Crazytales97264 and I tried to replace all the '--'s back to mdashes, but forgot that there were HTML comments ... you get the picture. I'm very sorry about that, but would you mind changing your sig?
The problem is that those chars are used in a lot of articles. And I use it because an em dash is the proper punctuation—it's what the double hyphen is emulating. So whether or not I use it in my signature, your browser is messing up articles, not just talk page signatures. —Doug Bell05:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Resently, you deleted the Chakat article, According to what I've read, articles are sometimes transfered to user pages how is this done, and, is it still possible? I would like to keep the chakat article and improve on it over time. --HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam19:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
This is sometimes done when there is a valid reason. The reason this article was deleted was because the subject is not notable. This means that unless you can demonstrate some reason that was not presented at the AfD, that there should not be an article on this subject. The transfer of articles to user space is for articles that could be improved to be encyclopedic. If you would like to get the information to save on your computer or to transfer to another wiki, I will provide a copy for that purpose, but you can't keep a copy of the deleted article in user space. Let me know if you would like a copy for your personal use or to transwiki. —Doug Bell20:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes it takes a little while for a page that has been recreated to appear after undeletion. The server has to merge the history with the redirect page, but I'm not sure why it takes so long. I've seen it take as long a half an hour for the undeleted page to appear. —Doug Bell21:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Also note that while it's in this limbo state, nobody can see the deleted versions either, so I couldn't just make a copy and email it. You just have to keep checking it to see when the undeletion takes hold. —Doug Bell21:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Doug Bell! I was wondering, provided you had enough time, if you could give me an editor review. I want to improve my editing skills on Misplaced Pages, and hope that your advice would benefit me in doing this. Please give me a critical review ... feel free to say, "Yuser31415 does this really badly", because that's what I need to get better on that point. Thank you for your time!
Sorry for soapboxing here, but I agree with MONGO. I was surprised to see this reaction (a protest departure) from someone (Doug Bell) who had only recently become an admin. My interest is also due to my voting in his RfA. Anyway, I look for level-headed decision-making and calm, rational arguments from my fellow editors, expecially those who are admins. MONGO can still edit the encyclopedia, which to me is the main thing. Being an admin is no big deal. Civility and calmness under pressure is. Carcharoth00:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
An academic, war veteran, and popular writer, C.S. Lewis once explained why he'd chosen to write about otherwise neglected topics (rather than the best-selling fields): that, like a soldier, he had seen where the line was thinnest, and to it he naturally went. Please think upon that.
One of your fellows is temporarily down, hors de combat. Fight the harder until he returns, for he and others need you even more now. – SAJordancontribs00:12, 19 Dec 2006 (UTC).
Okay, from what I just saw, the link to Misplaced Pages:Sandbox/The Or Game disappeared from the Misplaced Pages sandbox. Also, there was no response to my last question on that game - I think things usually went quicker before. Can something be done? Oh, and the link to Word Association is still there. --Addict 2006 03:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
CAT1-X mass deletion
WOW! I just stumbled across the CAT1-X AfD and your efforts in that matter were unbelievable. Well, mass AfD continues to rear its unwieldy head. I created a thread to discuss mass deletions here in hopes of developing a policy, guideline, article, or something so that everyone posting on a mass AfD doesn't dwell on the process and instead focuses on the merits of the articles. Your experience would prove valuable. Please consider posting your thoughts as to what might be included in a mass deletion guideline here. Thanks. -- Jreferee20:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I also add my thanks for wading through that business. I just posted a comment related to it here, weight in if you care to.--Dmz509:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
With regard to this mass deletion, I think the whole thing was improper, given that you seem to have unilaterally declared a "consensus" which was never actually reached in the AfD. But aside from that, how is it that the ZGMF-X42S Destiny Gundam, the title mecha of Gundam SEED Destiny, is deleted while comparatively minor "grunt" mecha like the GAT-01 Strike Dagger and TMF/A-802 BuCUE stay? Redxiv23:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Doug!!! You guys deleted our GameLife show from Misplaced Pages :(
I don't understand. I read the voting page, but why weren't any of us included in this deletion process, or even notified of it? This is horrible!
At what point would we know we are 'popular' enough to be included in Misplaced Pages? GameLife has a lot of press, including a full-page article in EGM a few months ago and in the February 2007 Wired Magazine. We are paid to shoot segments for Mtv Overdrive, which also air on Mtv2... I don't know - this whole thing made me sad! Regardless of what other people may think, we are still a group of people with a REAL show. We have real fans, real reports and a lot of fun doing it. I thought this kind of thing is what the Internet and Misplaced Pages were all about - user created content. Time Magazines Man of the Year agrees!
I'd love to know what needs to be done to secure our show in the Misplaced Pages directory. We have always kept our entry up-to-date and free from incorrect information...so it is heartbreaking to see it has been removed entirely.
Melissa
melissa(-at-)gamelifeshow.com
Wiki User: GameLifeMelissa
Human Interaction Management
Hi Doug
While not wishing to put down your good work or that of other volunteers, I feel I have to write regarding your redirection of "Human Interaction Management" to "Business Process Management"
By merging this subject with Business Process management, the editors of the section have clearly demonstrated a lack of understanding for the subject. I have read the archived discussion and looked at all the "name calling" it contains. So it seems if we are experts in our chosen fields rather than at spending our lives editing entries on Wiki then we are to be dismissed? this hardly seems an appropriate way to ensure that the entries contained are accurate and valuable. For my part I am happy to do my research elsewhere, but for many this is seen a s definitive source. So now they know that the "experts" at Wiki having learned and understood the subject have decreed it is just a part of BPM, well I am sorry, but reading the other experienced and respected inputs on HIM in the debate suggest that it is very much not part of BPM, it is like saying that BPM is part of workflow, or that Six Sigma should be part of ISO9000 or any other Quality System. I am sorry but with this decision Wiki has lost a lot of credibility with me -
Mark McGregor,
non-registered yes, because I should not have to be.
WikiProject Golf
Wikiproject Golf
This is a "newsletter" of sorts. It's designed to let you know whats going on with the WikiProject. Contact me, Grovermj, if there is anything i could improve, or if you would like to write the newsletter yourself, because i'm certainly not skilled and experienced at this. Call it a test run.
Well, it's been a month since the project has started, and 4 new articles have been made by editors in the project. They can be found here.
The template {{Wikiproject Golf}} has been added to a total of 794 articles. We are most probably more than half way there.
Badbilltucker has proposed "Misplaced Pages Week" starting on the 15th of January. Details can be found here.
Hi. I understand your disappointment with last month's ArbCom decision, but it's been several weeks now. There won't be as long a list on this page of people urging you to stay active here as MONGO received, but it's time for you to consider coming back. Regards, Newyorkbrad15:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I would also be interested in seeing you return to editing here. I have moved on and have been very active in the articles I usuaully work on and I need someone like you to do a peer review for me again.--MONGO21:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Messianic religious practice
Doug,
You posted "The result of the debate was closed: move approved and completed. Consensus was fairly clear, surprisingly. —Doug Bell talk 21:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)" when there was no consensus. There was not a single Messianic editor approving or even supporting the move from Messianic Halakha to Messianic religious practice. The ones supporting the move are identifiably non Messianic Jews (from their user pages) and are editors familiar to Messianic editors that bandwagon other censorship of Messianic Judaism articles. How is it consensus when all non Messianic Jewish editors favor a support of renaming Messianic Halakha to the less Jewish "religious practice" and not a single Messianic editor does? Messianic Halakha is the study of how to halakh - or walk out, Torah, and serves as a framework for Messianic Jewish law. I was the only one defending the move yet no one seemed to care about my concerns and simply were accusing "Messianic Halakha" as being neologistic! The repression of the Jewishness of Messianic Judaism is appaling. Messianic Jewish representation is few and far between, but this kind of steamrolling bandwagon effect of the regular bunch of anti Messianic editors has hurt a lot of Messianic Jewish articles from getting truly fair treatment over time. I would ask that you consider reviewing "the consensus" part of your conclusion and consider maybe reverting it back to Messianic Halakha with the decision being "result of debate: no consensus". Thanks. inigmatus18:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad's RfA
Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your having interrupted your wikibreak to do so. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad21:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Doug Bell, your recent edits have made the article 129 KB long. Is it possible to summarize it? Or could the article have transclusion of these tables, just as a thought? Thank you, Shyam11:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I summarized one of the tables in the main article and put the complete table into Poker probability (Omaha)/Making low nuts, although since I also added the complement of that table to the main article, the size only reduced from 129K to 122K. Also, the 304K subpage is for reference purposes mostly. It's only going to be interesting to a small subset of the people interested in the main article. I could break it up into individual pages for each section, but that would really work against the usefulness of the page. Also, the long load time has somewhat to do with the large number of formulas on the pages as much as with the size of the page (perhaps more so, actually). This is because the TeX formula are rendered as PNG files, so each formula is a small image download. Not much to do about that, and removing the formulas would reduce the usefulness of the pages considerably. The only section I could also move to a subpage without breaking the continuity of the main article would be the derivations for the nut boards, but this would only reduce the size by 12K, so I'm inclined to leave it in the main article. —Doug Bell22:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Given that Colbert-spurred vandalism typically recurs and recurs, I thought it best to protect each target. Go ahead and unprotect. DS00:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
5 to 10
Hi Doug,
I was wondering why the expansion. We picked 5 a while back to keep the size and overhead of the template down since it is used in so many articles and there were none, at the time, that needed more than 5 and it seemed like any that needed more than 5 there was probably something wrong with the design of the article anyway (5 main articles?). -- Stbalbach00:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty there is additional overhead to allocate empty variables (as a programmer, I don't see how that couldn't be the case), or at least CPU cycles to process the template; we looked into this before I don't remember the specifics, but I remember there was a reason we capped it at a reasonable number. It's not much overhead, but then, this template is very common, and why add any extra just for a single article? Plus, we shouldn't encourage 6+ main articles it's just lazy editing, those links should be incorporated into the text (or a nav template). Anyway, many people have looked at this in the past and a common consensus was to have 5 - if you still want to have more, could open it up for a discussion first? -- Stbalbach02:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not a big thing to me. I was just trying to consolidate the work-around to the current limit of 5. If this is going against the consensus as you state above, then change it back. As to the overhead, as a programmer myself, I'd guess you couldn't measure the overhead in a way where you could tell which version of the template was being employed. It's a common fallacy to worry about performance differences that are basically lost in the noise and undetectable—this is not the same thing as saying there is no overhead, just that it isn't an issue. —Doug Bell02:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I can't revert, I'm not an admin. I would prefer to keep it low if for no other reason that it keeps editors from mis-using the template, there should never be more than a couple main articles - otherwise it is just lazy editing. But the performance is an issue too, even a small amount, why do it just for one article. -- Stbalbach16:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Golf Newsletter
The WikiProject Golf Newsletter Issue II - February 2007 If you would like to improve our future newsletters, go to our newsletter page.
News
Well, this newsletter is new. I'm still mucking around with the layout, so if someone feels it could be better, go right ahead and change it. The newsletter page is right here.
An article has been selected for a drive to featured status, Jack Nicklaus. The article is currently rated a B, and is currently a Good Article candidate (thanks to The Giant Puffin). A to-do list has been set up in the talk page, see what you can do, or add a new thing to do which you think you could write well.
I had intended to question why you deleted a link to a completely non commercial link to a page with two semesters of Java Lectures, but seeing that apparently make sport of deleting articles, I know better. That you are trumpeting your "400th deletion" speaks of ego at work.
I have a completely non-commercial website devoted to giving away two semesters of Java lectures. It contains no adword, no links, no banners, nothing but rich content. The utility of this site is validated by its current google page rank of 6/10. If you choose to say any negative comments about the site, I will counter with the google page rank, which cannot be bought. This particular one: http://freejavalectures.googlepages.com is a mirror of the original: http://curmudgeon99.googlepages.com, which does contain my email address in the url and so I created the totally neutral mirror. I include my email address so I can answer questions. If that offends you, I will remove it.
I would be happy to move the content to be hosted on wikipedia but wikipedia only hosts HTML. I spent several years creating these lectures--which animate the execution of Java code (especially in the later lectures)--thereby providing the primary benefit. That's what makes it so popular.
One other Misplaced Pages editor said I could host the material at Misplaced Pages "if I removed it from its current format and rewrote it as HTML"--which is patently ridiculous because it negates the tremendous amount of work that went into creating these and eliminates the simulation of code execution.
Why must Misplaced Pages be limited to static content?
I see from your user page that you style yourself as a "Java Architect" and that, apparently you have taken ownership of the Misplaced Pages Java Programming article.
The content I offered would provide a valuable addition. Can you please explain to me why you deleted it? Can you please explain why I should not just chalk it up to the ego of control?
First, you can start by assuming good faith. That I record various milestones on my user page has nothing to do with my decision regarding the link you added to Java (programming language). You don't need to react to my edit as a personal affront—a simple discussion will do fine. You certainly aren't doing anything to advance your cause by attempting to disparage my motives.
Second, nobody, including me, "owns" any articles here. I've put a fair amount of work into the article, but so have many others. It's not all the way it would be if it was "my" article, and that's fine. I don't have some final say on whether the link goes in the article or not—that's a matter of consensus amoung all the editors of the article.
Third, while I'm fine discussing my reasons here, I suggest that a better place to have this discussion is on the article talk page where you can get other people's views.
The reason behind limiting the links is that this is an encyclopedic article about Java, not some jumping off point for someone looking for Java-related sites. The links on the page are already a bit out-of-control, so there needs to be a good reason why a particular link should be added. This page is a magnet for people wanting to add links to their own Java pages. The fact that you are quoting Google ratings is an indication that you are aware of the value that a link from Misplaced Pages can have to a Web site. —Doug Bell20:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Doug,
My reason for commenting on your "400th deletion" is a habit I have seen around Misplaced Pages. Persons who have admistrator rights remold the articles any way they choose, discarding the work of others in the process.
Who are you to define the purpose of Misplaced Pages? The rules that govern the usage of Misplaced Pages are determined by the users, much in the way that a dictionary does not define what words mean but, rather, it reflects the way words are used. People who use Misplaced Pages consider it a resource: something that helps them to get information on a topic. My website is nothing if not a resource.
I cite the google page rank only for one reason. Misplaced Pages, by the way, does not forbid commercial sites if they are deemed to have a value. Although my site is NOT a commercial site, my citing of the Google Page rank was done solely to satisfy the requirement that I prove its utility and value. Is Sun not a commercial company? It has links everywhere on that page.
I started off addressing the issue of your 400th Deletion because I know in advance the futility of fighting an Administrator whose criteria for inclusion are not met. I've seen it before. Every area has its king and if you don't satisfy that king, your content submission is out. When I first came up with my free java lectures site about a year ago, another king bumped it off the wikipedia site because he said "it was not deemed valuable enough." Well, an interval of time later, Google's PageRank validates the value and utility of this site. Now, as I try to re-introduce this content again to the people who would use it--a new self styled king of this subject matter area has a new reason to reject it.
Doug, why do you think people use Misplaced Pages? They want information on the topic. I fail to see how your rejection of my link--it's a link for pete's sake--is justified. There is no commerical content, no profit, no keyword ads, nothing at all. I see from the history that you only recently have ejected several links. What gives you the right? The community has accepted those links. Such an ego you exhibit in thinking that it's up to you and you alone to eject the work of others and cleanse the site of their contributions.
I know you will reject this point but a content submitter is forced in a situation like this to believe it is nothing more than an exercise of the discretion of the King of the Article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Curmudgeon99 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
Oh geez, thanks for the chuckle. You should really read what you've written.
OK, first, you are jumping to all sorts of conclusions about me based on apparently no or very little actual information. I could make some assumptions regarding you and your motivations, but I assume good faith (you really ought to read this page) and am open to discussion. But you don't seem too interested in discussing merits—you seem more interested in trying to tell me who I am, although you have no idea.
So let me try and point this conversation in a more productive direction. Why don't you tell me why your set of online slides that it looks like you developed for a class you teach is so central to the Java programming language, above all the other material on Java on the Web, that it is the site that should be linked too? I mean, put it in the context of the other links in the article (not that I have reviewed or "approved" all the links—I actually am not even one of the people that removes the majority of the link spam from the article.) Instead of going on about me (especially since it has only served to demonstrate that you have no idea about me so far), how about you engage in an honest discussion on the article? Try me.
It might interest you to know (probably not) that I've taught all of the material on your site and more at the university level (at UCSD) and have developed all of my own course work including slides and interactive applets and applications for teaching and illustrating Java. So I can at least claim a basis for evaluating your material. —Doug Bell00:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Just relating my experiences with Cool Cat. Some of it is undoubtably from the shock of seeing one of the people here who I think would be one of the worst people to have as an admin being nominated. —Doug Bell08:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for participating in my recent RfA. Even though it was ultimately successful (at 54-13-11), I value all of the feedback and have already benefited from the community's suggestions. Hope to see you around. - Gilliam22:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
FAAFA
I appreciate the note you left, but his talk page is littered with politely worded requests to desist in his behavior. I am not sure what the escalation is as there has been no progressive punishment even given his blcok history as NBGPWS (talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log). RfC is next? ArbComm? I realize it may appear overly aggressive to report such attacks but his history leaves no slack as it is clear his behavior continues. --Tbeatty07:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
If he persist, blocking is probably next, although you are free to persue an RfC. I think an RfC is needed before resorting to ArbCom. But rather than assuming the worst, why not let this proceed? You now have an uninvolved third party (me) in the loop. Let's just see where it goes from here. —Doug Bell07:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Curmudgeon99 (talk·contribs) has contacted me (through e-mail) about his talk page, after I declined to delete it. I notice you reverted his/her blanking of it, however, since there seem not to be any more issues with this user, this seems a viable alternative to deletion. Would you mind if I were to blank it? Thanks, Prodego21:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really OK with that, but I'm not going to pursue this any further if you decide to. What is his reason for wanting it deleted?
Curmudgeon99 came to my talk page not assuming good faith; made statements that some (but not I) could consider personal attacks; repeatedly removed his comments from my page, putting my comments out of context; repeatedly responds to my good faith efforts to discuss the matter he brought to my talk page, despite his behavior, by blanking his talk page. On top of that, there are exchanges with other editors on the page, so they might have an opinion on it as well. —Doug Bell21:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I wanted your view, since there is not a policy specifically addressing talk page blanking, and they should, like user pages, be largely (but not fully) under the control of the user who they belong to. In fact the removal of warnings from talk page is controversial, but not actually prohibited, and suggestions to disallow this have failed to reach a clear consensus. I understand your concern about the message you received, and I certainly see how it could be interpreted a personal attack, and that the user leaving it should receive a warning. However, since Curmudgeon has now received your messages, I think that he should be free to remove them, do you not agree? Prodego23:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I already left a constructive comment with a link to the page on how to archive his talk page—that's my recommendation if he wants to remove the comments. You didn't answer my question regarding his reasons for wanting the page deleted. However, like I said above, it doesn't have my blessing but I'm not going to stand in the way. —Doug Bell23:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I honestly do not know why he wants the messages removed, perhaps he feels having warnings on his talk page will be a stigma to him. However the reasons for removing the messages should not really matter, so much as that he does want them removed. As long as the user wants the message removed, and understands the message, then I see no reason he can't remove them. You will have to ask him if you are interested in the reasons. Thanks for your response, based on this information, I personally would not feel comfortable removing the messages, but I will inform the user that he is able to if he wishes. Is this acceptable to you? Prodego23:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I just figured since he sent you an email he must have provided his reasoning, but perhaps not. Go ahead and tell him what you want. Just trying to help him become a better Wikipedian, but maybe that's not what he's interested in. —Doug Bell23:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps not, but I hope this experience is one that will allow him to see the way that users are expected to act, and that he will be able to learn from this mistake. He has expressed regret about leaving you that message in the e-mails to me, perhaps he just wants to put the whole incident behind him. Thanks for your understanding, Prodego23:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages reward program
Hello Doug Bell,
I wanted to ask you if you thought that a reward program on Misplaced Pages would be a good idea. The basics of the reward program are simple. First, editors of articles get points for editing and creating and revising articles, or whatever, and by getting involved in Misplaced Pages, the user is awarded a certain number of points determined by some logic system. So every once in awhile, maybe every week points of all wikipedia users are collected and users are rewarded with a rank. The highest user with most WikiPoints get a rank of King or President or Lord or Big Man or Head of State or Emperor anything basically, and the next person in line is the Vice president or Secretary or whatever. Instead of logging into a basic logging in system you can log into your detailed account showing your rank, medals, awards, honors. Like for instance, someone can be awarded the Medal of Literacy, to a determined user who really has turned the pages. Or the Medal of Distinction, it can be endless. You can have like a little Medal next to your name, pretty soon it can get all colorful and decorated. It puts a character into Misplaced Pages. The Social Project of Misplaced Pages could be the WikiKingdom, "Log into the WikiKingdom to see everyones stats, records, awards, bla bla bla. It really is endless. Tell me what you think. About adding a social aspect to this. I know it could take awhile to develop, but as we all know wikipedia is always going to get better with time. And this ranking system, as done with Yahoo! Answers, could also be incorporated into wikipedia. You could even do elections and impeachments, bla bla, kind of like WikiWars, bla bla. Please consider this project. Thanks.
I'm not sure why you ended up here with this proposal as your fifth edit. It makes me wonder what other accounts you've used to edit Misplaced Pages—it would be nice if you would tell me to give some context to your proposal.
I'm not sure if you've followed any of my participation in social Wiki projects, but if you had, you might know that I tend towards a conservative view point on these. I think there is already a bit more emphasis on feel-good social distractions here than is ideal, although I grant that they are important to other people. I just don't like when they become the focus.
However, your proposal is not strictly a social project. It is more of a system of recognition for users tied to participation in the project, and as such, might have merit. The main problem I would see with such a system is that the current "ranking" system at Misplaced Pages, edit counts, already causes there to be a disproportionate focus on edit counts as opposed to contributions. That's largely in part because contributions are hard to quantify, while edit counts are easy. A more elaborate system of recognizing user's participation in various areas of Misplaced Pages could definitely have some value. I think I would tend to downplay handing out titles, probably prefering to just have rankings such as number of vandal edits reverted, number of new articles created (with some threshold on how big it is before it is an article), etc.
It's an interesting idea...and this is from someone coming from a skeptical viewpoint on social programs.
Yep, lots of entertainment value because the constructive, mostly positive criticism feels good. Reading some of the posts on that forum is also entertaining, though for slightly different reasons. But hey, I'm used to that by now. They don't like me very much at Misplaced Pages Review :) Cheers, Moreschi09:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, it wouldn't have been half as fun without my opposers. I wonder if it would have been twice as fun with twice as many opposers? Probably not, it would have pushed the numbers too close to the line for comfort. Anyway, look forward to you joining the admin ranks. —Doug Bell09:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
With crossed fingers touching wood, I will hopefully enjoy that as well. Y'know, I've got to wait until the 13th for this to be over. Talk about increasing the suspense. Then again, the whole RFA shebang really isn't such a big deal. Cheers, Moreschi
Yes, I considered that. I do try to think of others. But, quite frankly, I thought that at that time the RFA had zero chance of passing, and I still do. The pile-on had begun, and IMO it was best just to leave for another day. Cheers, Moreschi19:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, just making sure. So will using {{subst:test3|http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tragic_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=106385414}} automatically add the diff to the warning now? ShadowHalo21:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Almost. You need to use {{subst:test3|diff=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tragic_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=106385414}}
Riana's RfA
Hi there, the support vote was a joke. I know that I have to wait for her to accept and for the page to be listed at RfA, and even though I like her personally, I still think that it's my responsibility to read her answers and to more thoroughly review her contributions before choosing how to vote. Thanks for responding. --Kyoko07:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
It's kinda daunting... as in, if I reach 100, I have to be just that good :) I'm trying not to keep an eye on it too much, but then I'm scared someone will ask me something incredibly soul-searching and I won't see it, so I'm kinda fidgety right now. riana_dzasta11:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment on Everyking's RfA
Please note an RfA is not a vote, but a discussion, so I'm entitled to "badger" as you put it. I have harassed nobody at all, and as it is Proto has still not explained why he wouldn't ever trust him again. Please don't tell me to stop doing things I am allowed to do. --Majorly(o rly?)16:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I did not tell you what to do, I asked. Please be civil as you have asked others. In a discussion, someone can say "I don't think that's a good idea." That opinion can be judged for its value based on the reputation and experience of the person making it. That is a contribution to the discussion, not a vote. They can choose to elaborate on why it's not a good idea, and that adds further to the discussion, but the statement itself is still part of the discussion, not a vote. Nobody is required to add anymore to the discussion than they choose, and for you to make disparaging remarks about another person's contribution to the discussion, when the sole basis of your complaint is simply that they did not contribute enough, is badgering and at best impolite and at worst incivil. —Doug Bell18:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
"Please stop" is telling me what to do. I don't really know where I wasn't civil, but to call my comments badgering is incivil. It's a discussion, so I can comment where I like and as much as I like. In this case, Proto put Absolutely not. That is what I call impolite – not only is it degrading to the candidate, it helps the discussion no further. Why absolutely not? What has the candidate done to deserve such a strong two word !vote? Same with your comment – simply putting oppose means nothing in a discussion. What you've done is voted. A sensible bureaucrat would normally ignore votes. --Majorly(o rly?)18:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
"Stop" is telling you what to do, "Please stop" is asking. English 101. The bureaucrat is free to weigh anyone's comments as they see fit. The same goes with support. I don't see you querying Terence Ong about his reasons for supporting, and a bureaucrat may well decide to discount his contribution as well. —Doug Bell18:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
It is general etiquette to provide a reason for opposing – the candidate should be "innocent until proven guilty". And support traditionally means they agree with the nomination. That's why I don't question Terence, and anyway, I often support without comment myself. --Majorly(o rly?)18:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I have participated on at least 100 RfAs and this is only the first (or maybe second, not positive) time I've left an oppose without stating my reasons. I will leave it to the bureaucrat to decide whether to take my comment in light of my past reasoning or to discount it. I prefer not to get into my reasons, but I have them. I think Proto's response to your request was quite clear, and nearly identical to Radiant's immediately preceeding oppose, which you seem to have no issue with. It was your followup response that I found to be badgering and bordering on incivility, not your initial request for clarification, especially since with his response to your request, Proto's reasons are as well stated as many other opposers. —Doug Bell18:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Radiant! at least stated why he opposes; Proto didn't. He did indeed explain vaguely after I asked; it was the edit summary (as I said) that bothered me: "constructive and polite response to patronising". If he had simply put "reply" or whatever I would have taken the issue no further, but he obviously has a problem with clarifying himself, if he finds it patronising. --Majorly(o rly?)18:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I ended up following the whole thing between you and Sarah and Riana and Spawn, and I thought I would say that you might have worded things a little better and perhaps gotten a better response from Spawn Man. I've left my own message on his talk page, and I hope he takes it to heart. --Kyoko09:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
No doubt, but I'm tired of his antics. While that's probably the most uncivil thing I've said here at Misplaced Pages, it's also accurate and nowhere near as uncivil as his comments have been. At this point I'm not going to tiptoe around his tantrums anymore. —Doug Bell09:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I understand why you made the comments, and I chose to write something on his page because I was pretty offended by what I see as an abuse of Riana's talk page, especially when she has worries in real life. I hope you agree with what I wrote on Spawn Man's talk pagee. I'm concerned about him, that he might be acting this way out of problems in RL, but that's not something I can or should fix for him. I hope things get better for everyone, including Spawn. --Kyoko09:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
"Sordid" is precisely the right adjective. Glad you enjoyed that: if the whole thing wasn't at such an inappropriate time it would be so funny I'd be rolling around on the floor in tears of laughter, but as it is it just isn't amusing. I've seen a few things that have angered me at Misplaced Pages, but nothing so revolted me as that. Criminy. What a wikidrama to wake up to in the morning...Cheers, Moreschi10:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and BTW you may like to check the history of Jimbo's talk. Feel free to revert me if you like, maybe that should be allowed to stand. Then again, maybe not. Cheers, Moreschi10:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I might revert back to Spawn's version - I understand the motive behind it, but hell, everyone else seems to use Jimbo's talk as a sounding board. It'd be disrespectful to Spawn to not let him have his say. I don't mind if Jimbo wishes to step in, either (although I doubt he would, in a hundred million years). riana_dzasta11:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea if this is the proper way to communicate right now, but I'll give it a shot.
Today, February 10th I logged on to my userpage and discovered it has been deleted by you. My userpage. It told about myself, it told of my wikipedia expierence, and you deleted it. At first during the deletion many claimed I wasn't an active member of Misplaced Pages.. that assumption was quickly verified. Following which the claim was it was used for "advertising", that point quickly stumbled upon my defense. Then it was it didn't have enough content about my Misplaced Pages expierences, I added a section. Though it was small I admit, but it was there. Did you delete my userpage for personal reasons? Because quite frankly, I'm stumped right now. A year ago I created the original Wranglers_04 section in Misplaced Pages's main space, a moderator kindly moved it to my userpage, a year later its gone. My personal userpage, who of which the average Misplaced Pages user (and probably the above average at that) would have never seen in the first place.
Doug, honest to God, tell me what was wrong with it. Try not to use some B.S excuse (yes, I said b.s, that stands for bull sh*t), and talk to me. My effort, my work into that page is gone like a snap, unsaved. This is demoralizing. I've never "spammed" wikipedia, I've never been abusive, sure I guess my use of words in the deletion debate could have been better but that's out of a burst of passion and pride to my work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wranglers 04 (talk • contribs).
First, this is a fine venue for communicating regarding your deleted user page.
The reason why this page was deleted is that it does not conform with what is allowed on user pages. User pages are not for creating or keeping articles that have themselves already been determined not appropriate for inclusion here. User pages are not personal pages for people to put any content they'd like on. As the closing administrator for the deletion discussion, it was my job to read the arguments on the talk page, evaluate the basis of those arguments, and then determine what the consensus of the discussion was in relation to Misplaced Pages policies.
While I can understand your frustration with people just posting shortcuts to policy pages like WP:USER, if you are interested in understanding what is allowed and why people think that your page does not meet that criteria, I really suggest that you do read the "link to a B.S site".
Firstly, why should I take the heat of what userpages are and what they aren't? Was the moderator who moved my material there incorrect? It outrages me to hear it was "inappropriate".. I'd love for you to talk to the moderator who moved my material and discuss the manner, because clearly I guess I'm out of it and it was very "wrong" for me to do this. I've seen several other userpages here at wikipedia who of which do not include the criteria you included.
So because I said "link to a B.S site", my userpage is not credible. Unbelievable.
Secondly, you are incorrect on your assesment of my editing. If you look at the Austin Wranglers wikipedia page you will see I have added over 10 paragraphs concerning the team, feversishly updating whenever a move is made. On top of this, I have added on to CJ Miles' wiki, along with contribting to Westwood High School of Austin, Texas. In addition I have made several others on other respective sites. I am extremely dissapointed in your lack of research which leads me to ponder what other mistakes you have made.
You aren't (or shouldn't be) taking the heat for the page. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be deleted, but given that another administrator moved it there, nobody should be "giving you heat". I understand that some of the comments on the MfD (the deletion discussion) were either abrupt, or assigning motives to you that may not have been accurate. Please don't take any of that personally.
Your "B.S." comment had no bearing on the decision. The only point I was making about that comment was that it indicated that you weren't availing yourself of the explanations people were trying to offer. It would help your cause to become familiar with the policies.
My assessment of your editing is based on the contributions by Wranglers 04 (talk·contribs) and 71.173.50.35 (talk·contribs). If you've edited anonymously under other IP addresses, I would have no way of knowing that.
Doug, I'm not a spammer, I'm not a hater. I don't feel like going in circles over this whole ordeal.. I will agree to add thick and thorough details over my Misplaced Pages usage and edits I have made over the past, plus I will continue to edit under Wranglers_04. If possible I would like to have my original content below it if possible.
I've seen how other users here set up their pages-- some with the buttons representing their interests and such.
We're not haters either. As I said above, even if you were a prolific contributor, the page would be inappropriate. It is not written as a breif list of your interests, but rather as an encyclopedic article. Further, although I don't quite understand its significance, the discussion of your business interest is also against policy. Misplaced Pages user pages are not to be used for any commercial interests or advertising. Including a mention of your message board id on your user page if fine. Including a lengthy article written in the third person chronicaling your history of message board participation is not. People are allowed to include a short bio, but aren't allowed to include their resumé. User pages are not for promotion, advertisement or social networking. The purpose is to support your activities writing an encyclopedia here. People are allowed some measure of leeway with this policy, but your page was outside the boundaries of this leeway. The fact that no record of your participation in the encyclopedia was evident further cuts the slack allowed to zero.
The decision to delete the page was not mine, although had I offered an opinion in the matter, it would have been to delete the page. The decision was based on Misplaced Pages policies and the consensus of the editors who chose to participate in the discussion. I can't see much on the page that would be allowed. If you want a copy to move to another site off Misplaced Pages I will be happy to provide the deleted content to you—just ask. —Doug Bell05:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Inasmuch as I've undertaken on one or two occasions to quibble with an administrative action of yours, I imagine that I ought to offer my compliments on your close of the instant MfD; I'd intended to suggest such a resolution myself (prima facie evidence, of course, of its wisdom) but think, more importantly, that you accurately appreciated for what general action a consenus lay, notwithstanding that no single editor appeared to have explicitly endorsed such specific action. For your fine exercise of good judgment, you receive the treasued good on ya! . Cheers, Joe07:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
