Misplaced Pages

User talk:109.etc

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Miesianiacal (talk | contribs) at 18:29, 3 May 2023 (→Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:29, 3 May 2023 by Miesianiacal (talk | contribs) (→Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Thou has been named

I just gonna ask, if you had created an account. Now I know :) GoodDay (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Misplaced Pages:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Misplaced Pages:

The Misplaced Pages tutorial is a good place to start learning about Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! ― Blaze WolfBlaze Wolf#6545 16:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Blowing winds

Sorry about the "pushing" bit. BTW, that entire discussion has evolved into a capitalise/don't capitalise debate. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Strange that there is a debate. MOS:JOBTITLES is unambiguous. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate that. 109.etc (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

"ChuckTres"

Just to break up the recent doom and gloom on Charles' Charles's talk; the GA review has passed on all but one of the requirements; just waiting for the reviewer to reply and we should be good to go. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Well-well-well! Pleasantly surprised. Or I say pleasantly. Maybe it'll just give comfort to the "it's a GA!! we must presumptively revert all changes on sight!!!" squad. Congratulations on your efforts, you've really done the heavy lifting on getting it in better shape. And boooooy did it seem heavy a lot of the time. 109.etc (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for that 109. The light at the end of the tunnel's certainly visible, but I'm not breathing freely until it's over the line. It wouldn't be out of character for me to cock up the matter of the images; I suspect there's something wrong with the ALTs, or there's too much sandwiching or some such. Anyway, once that hurdle's jumped, I'm taking a break from that article, I'm sick of looking at it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Understandable. I'm rather wearied of it myself, though less from actual editing effort than the hell-is-other-people stuff. Either way, well-deserved, enjoy your rest, and/or change of windmills to tilt at! 109.etc (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Outside opinion has been sought

Input from an uninvolved party has been requested. (This is just a formality of the process.) ₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I see that part of the Kafkawikiprocess has been Kafkawikiprocessed out. Maybe try WP:M or WP:DRN, if you can stand to sustain the agony? 109.etc (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I just fear time is running out and the dispute has been (rather easily) identified as an obstacle on the (very short now) road to GA status. As far as I can tell, as it presently stands, it's you, me, and DeCausa in favour of the/an edit to the "Accession and coronation plans" section, two against, and a whole bunch of indifferents. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

... and closed again. (And with a rather high-handed comment for my money at that, but there we are.) These Wikiprocesspages would make an excellent rugby team, as they're superb at passing the buck! Apologies for the dead-end suggestion. 109.etc (talk) 03:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Surprisingly. Though, the closer seems to have been confused. That's somewhat understandable, given how many different disputes were going on concurrently, all over the talkpage, not always in chronological order... Plus this completely misrepresented the issue. I hope I've clarified things. We could do with a squeeze of lemony-fresh input. You're right that having an RfC on every sentence is ridiculous. And this isn't even something as important as the article opening that we're talking about. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I didn't follow the part about "pending other DR" either. But it sounded like the RfC alone was being rather firmly deemed to be sufficient reason to Somebody Else's Problem Field it. And if that is, then GD's idea of what requires an RfC will keep that going until the death of many of us. (The subject of the article has quite a few years on me, but equally he comes from notorious long-lived stock...)
Frankly I'd have been tempted to take the matter to AN/I, except I'm all the more certain they'd pass the buck. Likely especially with an "involved admin", candidly.
Possibly our best, albeit faint hope is that the flipside to "no deadline to improve the article" is "no panic about 'maintaining' it", either. Who knows.
I'd certainly love to get some fresh input, but I can't blame people for not wanting to get involved. Beyond blaming Misplaced Pages for being systemically dysfunctional when it comes to this sort of thing. 109.etc (talk) 05:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I've been thinking quite a lot over the last few hours, after that last volley with GD last night, that WP:DRN won't so much pass the buck as be unable to do anything because of its very purpose; a mediator can't get blood from a stone any more than we can. Once any mediator is as frustrated by GD's obstructionism as we are, they'll have no option but tell us to take the dispute somewhere else. They can't be judges in debate club.
That's led me to think it might be about time to push the nuclear button and take this to WP:AN/I. It's no longer (if it ever was) an issue of opposing views on the subject of the article or section; it's become (or always was) entirely a problem of behaviour (exacerbated by a couple of misguided--likely because of their total detachment from discussion--people enabling the agitator with reverts) that extends back well beyond the beginning of work on CIII. I feel the involvement of an admin in this is actually a reason to go to AN/I; DrK isn't above the law.
Of course, I don't want to do that; I keep hoping for more editors to just suddenly get involved because all GD seems to relent to is a majority (but, evidently, a strong majoiryt, since he won't respect the present majority favouring the edits to that section). It's just a matter of when to accept that's not going to happen. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Million Award for Charles III

The Million Award
For your contributions to bring Charles III (estimated annual readership: 19,431,778) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Misplaced Pages's readers! Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't have begun the task force without being convinced by your comments here and here that something needed to be done about the article, so you entirely deserve your share of the credit now that the article is at GA. Also, this may give you a bit of a chuckle. Regards, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah, the fine line between being a "disruptive editor" and being the grit in the oyster than leads to someone else polishing up a fine pearl! And yes, I recall that comment well! If you only knew then what you know now... you'd have had even less interest! You're very kind, thank you very much. 109.etc (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Dammit. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Wikiprocess gonna wikiprocess. Just never very efficiently. Nonetheless, you've made huge improvements to it. And in the face of some fairly baseless-seeming "improvements to the article hurt my feels" resistance, at that. 109.etc (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)