User talk:TreasuryTag - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TreasuryTag (talk | contribs) at 16:55, 5 June 2008 (→AN/I linking: Outregous and disruptive user!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:55, 5 June 2008 by TreasuryTag (talk | contribs) (→AN/I linking: Outregous and disruptive user!)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

TreasuryTag is currently, or is going to be, away from Misplaced Pages, between April 20 and June 16, 2008, and may not be able to respond immediately to queries. He may, however, edit a little unless he's using the splendid Wikibreak enforcer.

User talk:TreasuryTag/Talkheader

Just to fix the formatting...

Picture of the day

Lime Photograph credit: Ivar Leidus

Re: 3RR

You actually did go over 3RR:

1st instance: 10:15, June 3, 2008
2nd instance: 15:35, June 3, 2008
3rd instance: 07:16, June 4, 2008
4th instance: 07:32, June 4, 2008

As these all fall within a 24-hour period, it is technically a violation of 3RR. If you think you have exceeded 3RR, your immediate next step should be to self-revert your last edit that you believe put you over 3RR. In this case, i don't think the vio is really that horrible, and I am not planning on reporting it. Of more concern is the tone of your edit summaries, referring to edits as "absurd speculation". While it is fantastic that you take the time to contact everyone whose edits you revert, its always good to remain polite in the edit summaries of the article (and article discussion as well). On a side note, good job on removing a lot of uncited material in the Doctor Who articles. :) - Arcayne () 16:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Noted... ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 17:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Might I trouble you to explain how you do not see the continuity info as synthesis or fancrufty trivia? I am having trouble understanding how my fellow editors in the article (and only in the article, I've consulted with others) aren't seeing it as such. - Arcayne () 19:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not synthesis to comment factually (saying "The Doctor also commented on little shops in the episode X" is fine; saying "The Doctor's shop-comment was a direct reference by the writer to Y" is obviously not), though if it had speculated an intentional link, then it would be taboo. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 19:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this edit. Please reserve {{unref}} for articles without a single reference. There are other tags that are more appropriate for articles that have a link to an academic paper yet do not contain inline citations. ({{citations missing}} for example) However {{unref}} is needed to mark the articles which have nothing whatsoever to support their existence. Already the category is running two years behind, so filling it with articles which already link to references but merely need them reformatted in inline citations is not very helpful.--BirgitteSB 17:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

AN/I linking

My apologies if you presumed I was attempting an end-run. I was not. If you re-read the AN/I complaint I filed, I asked for more opinions on the matter, as well as a closer look at Saturn's rather passive-aggressive behavior (which is corrosive to a friendly, professional editing environment). I stated my viewpoint and shut the heck up, allowing them time to process the examples of synthesis on their own. Had I specified Saturn's snippu aggro, I would have alerted him to the existence of the complaint, as it is indeed courteous to do so. I didn't feel the notice was warranted for the complaint as it was, since only a general problem was outlined, and left to the admins to interpret the question of synthesis. It was suggested I file an RfC - request for comment - which doesn't look at behavioral issues, but rather seves as an informal neutral party that weighs disagreements. In this matter, the issue is whether statements constitute synthesis or not. You feel they don't. I do (and trivial, crufty synthesis, to boot). Of course I will notify the article of its existence once created. As well, I noted that that I will be posting the issue in the NOR noticeboard, to receive some additional feedback. If naught else, the policy regarding synthesis might very well be tightened up to prevent this sort of crufty OR from being introduced in the future. Thanks for your inquiry. - Arcayne () 15:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Might I trouble you to point out where I even mentioned the word "passive -aggressive" on the article discussion page?. I know I mentioned it here, but how is that germane to the article discussion? - Arcayne () 16:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you may not. You accused, on-the-record, Saturn of being passive-aggressive. Since that is untrue, and in your ANI thread discussing whether an RfC was a reasonable option, you mentioned unpleasant behaviour, I feel it is germane. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 16:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, my perception of Saturn's behavior is spot-on, and it is your belief that it is wrong. If you are unable to distinguish between user-talk page discussions and article discussions, i will ask you kindly to not contact me at my page again. Get your facts straight. sport. - Arcayne () 16:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

How dare you? You say it's just my "belief" (interestingly, one shared by everyone except you!!) that Saturn is behaving perfectly well, then you say that your belief (that he is not) is "spot on". Stop bothering me, I don't have time for any more of this crap. As for your comment "you are unable to distinguish between user-talk page discussions and article discussions", there is no difference. Either you consider the behaviour to be passive-aggressive or you don't, it doesn't matter where you post it. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 16:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)