Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CvyvvZkmSUDowVf (talk | contribs) at 13:53, 27 February 2008 (→User:Timneu22). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Archive box collapsible

vandalism

No vandalism. Your message was unwarranted and you know it. Timneu22 (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you should read up on talk page policy and general wikipedia etiquette. It's totally unwarranted to alter the structure of a page in someone's user space without an extremely good reason. And that doesn't include pursuing a "policy" that you dreamed up and have been trying to promote. andy (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Why did you revert Talk:Rickey Henderson. I am one of the primary "watchers" of that page. It had the correct archiving template. Why did you switch it? Timneu22 (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you already know why. I couldn't see any evidence that you had tried to obtain consensus before making a signficant change that runs counter to a well established practice. Anyone can be a watcher of a page - I keep an eye on several - but it doesn't give you ownership. andy (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What you like

Just switching EVERY PAGE to a template you prefer? Let's have discussion first. Timneu22 (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the pages to their previous structure, in accordance with established WP practice. You made the changes without discussion, I have merely restored the status quo ante. andy (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As stated, some of my revisions make no difference on the page whatsoever. Maybe my edit wasn't necessary, but your reversion is completely pointless. One of these looks more professional, and it makes LITTLE DIFFERENCE to the reader/editor. Your reverts are just stupid:

Archives

Archive 1

Template:Archive box collapsible

Clearly, one of these looks better than the other, and its syntax is easier to use. Timneu22 (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's about time you moderated your language. Do not call me (or anyone else) stupid. Please do not post further messages on my talk page unless they are constructive. andy (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm stating that the process of reverting for the sake of reverting (as you did), is stupid. I did not call YOU stupid. Not everyone hates the new templates, you know. Now, which of the two templates sitting in this discussion look better? Timneu22 (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not edit war over something so trivial. It makes you look bad and it floods watchlists. Brusegadi (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed but I wouldn't characterise it as edit warring. The editor is on a mission to tidy up WP(!) - he came to my attention when he messed around with my talk page and got shirty when I complained. He made many structural changes to user and article talk pages despite requests not to, so I reverted a lot of them as did other editors. He seems to have calmed down now so maybe that's the end of it. Difficult to know whether its best to RBI or simply ignore - I'm an interventionist! andy (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not know the dynamics of it, it just seemed weird... If it gets really bad you can always discuss it at ANI. Invaidng your user space may warrant a warning. Ciao, Brusegadi (talk) 06:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Brusegadi as well, but I take a different approach... there was nothing wrong with the pages as they were after I edited them. There was no reason to bulk-revert. Timneu22 (talk) 11:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me?

Someone calls me an ASS and you leave a "no attacks" message on MY page? Timneu22 (talk) 13:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Harrisonlatour

I agree fully with your frustration with this editor. I have hunted down some of his contributions and removed them, I will continue to do so. I have also laced a final block warning on his talk page. If he continues to edit in the way that he has, I will block him for 24 hours. Dsmdgold (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I do sometimes wonder if it's worth the effort! andy (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I may be a little soft here, but I'm not going to block him, yet. Although, he is not the perfect editor, he is improving. He has started writing in a narrative manner, rather than just dumping raw data into articles. The Exchange National Bank in Tulsa article is sourced, albeit from a pop-history source. I think that his most edits today in the BOK Financial Corporation would be construed as good faith attempts if they came from anyone else. (His edits earlier than today were quite a bit worse.) He is learning some wiki mark-up. He still has some problems with copyright though. This edit is a copyright violation from here. The trul offending paragraph however was editied out by him less than hour later last. I am going to give him one more warning about copyright, and introduce him to the concept of the personal sandbox. Dsmdgold (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. andy (talk) 07:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Alledged copyvio

I've put an explanation up on Talk:ReplicaNet to show the text is in the public domain so it can't be a copyvio. Fnagaton 00:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that. The original page reference in the article had a copyright notice so I assumed the page was... copyrighted. andy (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Hopefully User talk:Ohnoitsjamie will undelete soon. :) (I have put a comment on the their talk page.) Fnagaton 12:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ed Edmondson Article

I noticed on my Watchlist that you recently reverted User:Harrisonlatour's edits to the Ed Edmondson article. He has responded to your revert by suggesting on the article's Talk page, that the article should be protected from editing, which I think would be completly overblown in this situation. --TommyBoy (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be his current response to any kind of setback, of which he has a truly startling number! The guy has no idea whatever about how WP works and, sadly, seems totally incapable of learning. Frankly I'm getting very tired of reverting him but I can't see what else to do - his edits are rubbish at best and vandalistic at worst. andy (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have contacted an administrator, User:Dsmdgold regarding the situation, because I want to ensure that Harrisonlatour does not succeed in getting the article protected. --TommyBoy (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

See my comment on Dsmdgold's talk page. I'm getting rather bored with this silly person - he's not capable of understanding when people talk nicely or when they shout. andy (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

He does get tiring, but he hasn't done anything quite block worthy today. The fact that the courthouse got named after Edmondson is relevent to the article. I would like for him to learn that you should write summaries rather than text dumps. The text he dumped doesn't seem copyrighted, as it seems to have been a legistalitve resolution. I will warn him about text dumps, again. If he does it again, I'll give him another block. Dsmdgold (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right. His overall level of activity has fallen considerably, which is a blessing, but overall I don't think he'll ever get the point. Meybe he'll just go away. andy (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching him and his only activity since my last warning has been to upload images and put them in articles. These images habe not been completely irrelevent, which is an improvement. However, not surprisngly, he doesn't quite get our copyright policies. I haven't dealt with copyright issues much, so I will let other admins who are better versed in the subject, deal with him on this. Dsmdgold (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Timneu22

I came into a short, rather unpleasant exchange with this user when I complained that he didn't notify me of the Village Pump thread about the archive box templates. I think he didn't like my comment about the unfunny fake new messages bar joke which must have been old in early 2003 or so and is now primarily employed by kids who shouldn't edit Misplaced Pages, to out themselves. However, I have a great sense of humour, and I told him that alongside a comment about his archive banner. Something about that guy just triggered my density sensors, even before I took a closer look. And it turns out I was right. I've advised him not to call me a moron again, but since he has an apparent learning problem, I provided him with a uw-npa2 warning.

When I looked through his recent contribs, I noticed he does that kind of thing rather frequently and that you had warned him about it already which he reverted with this hilarious edit summary. Also, he uses lots of uncivil ALLCAPS commentary etc. So, just in case you cross Timneu22's path again and something like this repeats, please let me know. Behaviour like his is detrimental to the atmosphere in the community. Dorftrottel (warn) 06:28, February 26, 2008

He clearly has a major anger management problem, and is one of those people who thinks that Misplaced Pages can and should be improved and he's the guy to do it. I first notice him when he improved my Talk page(!) I generally try to ignore him and people like him but I do keep an eye on him. andy (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no anger management issues. Get over yourself. Dorftrottel keeps leaving me messages. I just wipe them out. How DARE you leave a message that says "I'm a disruptive wikipedian." Dorftrottel leaves me a bunch of messages, and I don't reply... so how am I disruptive? Your accusations are ridiculous. Timneu22 (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Further, it is Anydjsmith who leaves me messages calling me an ass. I'm not the disruptive one here. Again, your accusations are absurd. Timneu22 (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You know, andy, if you and your puppets like Dorftrottel would just stop leaving me messages, I wouldn't think about any of this stuff. The messages being left for me are inappropriate and disruptive. I don't have any "problems with numerous editors", because I waste my time with crap like that. However, when editors like you and Dorftrottel become obsessed with my talk page, there comes a time when I have to report your nonsense. Stop accusing me. Of everything. You are wrong. Timneu22 (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)