Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Eyrian (talk | contribs) at 18:16, 26 August 2007 (→[]: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Bot Notices Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Reptilian humanoids

hello, can you tell me how to support what i had posted on the article about reptilian humanoids? just wondering. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Panaka333 (talk • contribs) 18:08:15, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

A reference to a reliable, independent source giving substantial coverage of the appearance will suffice. --Eyrian 18:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Covenant_of_Thorns_Promo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Covenant_of_Thorns_Promo.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell 21:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop screwing around

With turning Succubus in fiction into a redirect. That trivia will not be accepted back into the article. IPSOS (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As well it shouldn't be. I had no intention of putting it there. --Eyrian 21:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You nominated it for deletion. There was no consensus to delete. You just can't try to make it go away by turning it into a redirect. If you think it should be deleted, nominate it again. IPSOS (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There pretty clearly was a consensus to delete. The closing admin ignored it. After a few weeks of waiting for improvement, I merged the information that deserved merging into the main article. Then you deleted it. --Eyrian 21:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't want any trivia in the main article. When you start any section on it, people start adding to it, which is why I removed it. Please nominate for deletion again. I will vote to delete it. But there was not a consensus to delete, even I can see that in the previous AfD. IPSOS (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

All there is there is a few attacks on my methodology and an RfC that completely failed. There were no substantive arguments concerning the article actually made. But that's neither here nor there. What you want is no more valid than what I want. There is clearly insufficient meaningful cultural impact here to justify a separate article. Therefore, it should be put in the main one. --Eyrian 21:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletionism at "Cheshire Cat in popular culture"

Hi Eyrian,

I see that, despite the AfD resulting in a "no consensus for delete", you made a redirect at Cheshire Cat in popular culture. I understand your point that the article has not yet improved beyond a bare list of appearances, and that you think that it is trivia and should go. However, what's the point of having AfD discussions if you just ignore them and delete the article anyway? Better to ask for a review of the AfD. --Slashme 15:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It gives some incentive for improvement. That never happened. Deletion will come in time. --Eyrian 15:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Further, I am not a "deletionist", and I do not appreciate the label. --Eyrian 15:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for labeling you. I really don't care two figs for the pop culture article, and I'm not even going to re-instate it, but I completely fail to see why you would request an AfD discussion, and then ignore the lack of consensus. If you think the article is junk and blank the page, fine. But wasting everyone's time with a discussion that you're going to ignore if it doesn't go your way is bizarre. --Slashme 15:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I hold out hopes that an AfD, or at least the aftermath, can result in an improved article. It's happened more than once. It didn't happen there. --Eyrian 15:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Changing What Misplaced Pages is not

That's a bit cheeky considering the deletion rampage you're on, isn't it? Artw 15:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not really much of a change; "minute" to "inconsequential" is hardly a deep difference. --Eyrian 15:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Nethertheless now is a really bad time for you to be making such a change, considering the number of disputed edits and open AFDs realted to WP:NOT that you are involved in at the moment. Artw 15:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What AfDs would those be? The main AfD I am pursuing at the moment is all about WP:NOTE. But, yes, you're right. It's all about unsubstantial appearances and vague implications, without any real meaning. --Eyrian 15:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing content

Please stop removing content from my pages the pages on which I have worked recently (rewording - Z.) simply because we are disagreeing in an AfD. You can cite WP:AGF if you wish, but you know as well as I do that this is the reason your attention swung to those articles. You are asking for proven connections of concepts in literature that cites the very topic of the articles. That is absurd, and this looks really bad for an "admin with over 10K edits." ◄Zahakiel► 17:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not what's happening at all. I remove information that is inappropriate, regardless of the source. The things you are insisting on are no different from the wash of inconsequential cultural references that must be rooted out anywhere else. --Eyrian 17:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"Inconsequential" is a matter of your opinion. I understand that you are committed to this agenda, but it's really disrupting a fair slice of Misplaced Pages at this point. ◄Zahakiel► 17:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What is being disrupted? And "inconsequential" is not as subjective as you might think. To be of consequence, something needs to have an affect. While a particular portrayal of a mythological being may be influenced greatly by the perception of that being, the other way around is not nearly so likely. Many portrayals therefore belong on one page, and not another. Does being a character in Heavenly Discourse really affect general perception of Israfel? I certainly don't think so. Feel free to prove otherwise with a source. --Eyrian 17:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

To the people who read that book? Of course their "perceptions" will be affected! ◄Zahakiel► 17:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously. But things need to be of general importance. You cannot use a work to justify its own significance. --Eyrian 17:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm... you really can't see that you're just imposing your POV on who or what will find these things important. Fine, I won't quibble with you over it, it hasn't helped in the past. ◄Zahakiel► 17:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that, no. Inconsequential details shouldn't be included. Unless something has general consequences, it's not included. It doesn't seem to me that this is that difficult or personal. If Misplaced Pages articles were composed of personally relevant experiences, every article would be almost entirely irrelevant, and the project would collapse under its own weight. Mythological creatures are particularly susceptible to this. Hearing a hundred times they're mentioned in ways largely in accordance with their general perception, without changing that perception at all, serves no-one. --Eyrian 17:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be placing a pretty heavy emphasis on ther information you are removing being "inconsequential", which makes your big song and dance above about your editing WP:NOT to include that word being irrelevant somewhat odd. Artw 18:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Minute means insignificant. Insignificant means minute. Insignificant means inconsequential. The meaning never changed, it just got clearer. --Eyrian 18:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I would read minute as menaing minor details, not having much significance to themselves and not building a case for anything of significance. I would read "inconsequential" as whatever a grumpy editor felt like deleting that day. Artw 18:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, fine, you can read big as small and black as white. The fact is, it's a matter of having an effect. If something has consequences, that's an effect. And it's something you can very easily cite. If, of course, there is actually some consequence. --Eyrian 18:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT

Well in that case I think you should stay away from editing that section as you've clearly mistaken it for a restatement of WP:NOTE or WP:V. Artw 18:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Others there seem to have no problem with it. --Eyrian 18:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I beleive that part 2 of your 2 stage edit has been soundly rejected. I still beleive that part one is in poor form. Artw 19:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I meant my actual changes, not the things I proposed on the talk page. --Eyrian 19:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"Don't revert war"

Your rationale for reverting my change to "extremely minor" was faultly, since you lack consensus on that, and that change was in no war edit waring, and consider your accusation of edit waring to be rather cheeky. So I;ve reverted it. If you wish to edit war feel free to revert it back. Artw 19:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus was fine with inconsequential. Did you not read the talk page? I was preemptively warning you about reverting back, which, of course, you went ahead and did. --Eyrian 19:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Inconsequential was accepted. Your revision was not, and was considerably worse, being subjective. Take it to talk, and see if anyone agrees with you before you change it back. --Eyrian 19:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I will addressd this on the appropriate talk page. Artw 19:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome message

I have revised it and asked two other admins and one bureaucrat for their advice and suggestions on it. I wanted to contribute by adding an new welcome that covers a bunch of topics that I have founded helpful, such as civility, AfDs, sources, not attacking newbies, etc. They have not told me anything negative yet, but I will of course revise it further if they do offer new suggestions. I immediately revised it and posted the revised version on the bureucrat who warned me's talk page after I read his post. I have not used the older version since. Please do not use our disagreement over popular culture articles to encourage you to find any excuse possible to go after me. I am not bringing you up on discussion boards, even though a variety of other users clearly are taking issue with some of your habits here and in other discussions. I appreciate feedback and suggestions, but again, please discuss things with me in a civil manner on talk pages and please assess the whole situation more fairly and accurately. I hope that we can edit together peacefully in the future. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 20:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

None of this excuses your tangential mudslinging. Instead of answering my claims, you indicate that a few users have been upset at me, too. Utterly irrelevant. As satisfying as it is to dredge up unrelated things, it's bad form. I was not, in fact, looking for any excuse to go after you. I was leaving you a message, when I saw secretlondon's warning about what you've been doing. I find absolutely shocking. Further, continuing to welcome users with an unapproved message after you'd already been warned is reckless at best. --Eyrian 20:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, I have a hard time assuming that based on our previous interactions your motivations here are neutral in nature. I replied to Secretlondon immediately after reading his suggestion and revised my message considerably as a result. I did not welcome new users with the same message after reading Secretlondon's suggestion either. I revised it, posted the revision on his page and because he has not criticized it further, I have to assume that it is okay. Since your post, I contacted the admin who adopted me for his input; I have not welcomed anyone new since I contacted Chaser and Durova, and I am awaiting their suggestions. Take care. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 20:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No impact on corsets?

Can you explain what exactly did you had in mind by saying "it is being removed because it has no impact on corsets"? What impact should section in article have on the subject of the article? I will not revert it (yet) in order to avoid 3RR violation, so I'm asking you here. --83.131.23.167 21:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, listing times that corsets have appeared is just pointless trivia. Misplaced Pages is WP:NOT a trivia collection. --Eyrian 21:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Then why do countless Misplaced Pages articles have list of appearances of subject of the article in popular culture? --83.131.23.167 21:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Because they sometimes get missed, just like nonnotable articles and vandalism sometimes get missed. I remove them when I can. Please see Misplaced Pages:Do you ever go fishing?. --Eyrian 21:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting story. But I wonder, how did you stumble on this article, because I can't find any earlier edits made by you in this article.

Also, does this means that when I find article containing "In popular culture" or similar section I can just tell it to you to delete it, or even I can mercilessly delete entire such section regardless of it's size? --83.131.23.167 21:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching the corset article since January, see the talk page. And, yes, I generally remove such sections, or at least trim them down to what's verifiably important (which is usually nothing). Feel free to report them here. --Eyrian 13:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a habit of Eyrian's, based on this section and others above. See Talk:Nuclear weapons in popular culture as well for another current example. Rather than delete trivia sections outright, why not assume good faith, and try to improve the article by incorporating the trivia, according to WP:Trivia? Yes, it's easier to destroy, but the article's are generally stronger with the trivia, where they can be used by other editors, rather than just destroying what has already been written. Dstumme 21:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I get that a lot. In short, these facts cannot be integrated. Doing so would constitute original research. See User:Eyrian/IPC#The number of entries in the list proves notability in popular culture. --Eyrian 22:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Eyrian, are you quite sure that this isn't just a failure of your own imagination? I'd never be so positive something "cannot" be integrated or cannot be shown relevant. The consistence with which you try to remove such information from articles and try to remove articles that contain it indicate that you are trying to remove a whole class of material regardless of its merit. Enough with the crusading. I'll believe your reasonability when this when you finally start admitting in AfDs when material is in fact sourced adequately, istead of saying it never can be. (Not hat this particular section of this particular article has been done well, yet. DGG (talk) 23:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've done that. Remember Plato's Republic in popular culture. There were actual changes made, and they were fine. I recognize good changes, and I've retracted some AfDs. Not all. --Eyrian 23:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• This happened with Thermal lance also. Anthony Appleyard 08:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion about conflict with Roi

I left a message here for which you are one of the intended recipients. I guess ANI would be more neutral ground, but I'm trying to contain the drama. Move it to my talk page or ANI if you prefer. It's just a suggestion, but I'd appreciate your serious consideration of it. Thanks.--Chaser - T 01:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:WAF

Who cares about your silly little guidelines? Please see WP:NOT#Bureaucracy. Please explain how in-universe information is a bad thing.--71.107.174.221 19:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

So, it's not a bureaucracy, so you ca ignore any kind of rule and make the encyclopedia look how you want it to? I'm afraid not. The problems are right there in WP:WAF#The problem with in-universe perspective. For example, such a perspective is "inaccurate and misleading, gives undue weight to unimportant information and invites unverifiable original research."--Eyrian 19:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks Like You Got Yourself...

...an IP hopper. I can take care of that sort of nonsense and protect your page for a day or two if you like. Its up to you.¤~Persian Poet Gal 21:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine. Thanks. --Eyrian 21:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Taken care of! Leave me a message if you ever need further assistance.¤~Persian Poet Gal 21:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_review_requested. As ElminsterAumar (talk · contribs) appeared to be a harassment-only account, I have blocked it. Is he someone you have encountered before in a previous incarnation? --B 07:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm pretty sure he's the 71.107.xxx.xxx block of IPs from the history of Elminster Aumar, and this AfD. --Eyrian 07:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That's nice of him to make a name that tells you where you know him from. ;) --B 07:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Technomancer

Is where you need to go to develop consensus for your reversions. Please contribute to the discussion there rather than unilaterally edit the page. Mister.Manticore 18:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

As opposed to precisely what you're doing? Apologies, but uncited material gets removed. --Eyrian 18:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)