This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Drmies (talk | contribs) at 02:52, 25 May 2013 (→Cat. discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:52, 25 May 2013 by Drmies (talk | contribs) (→Cat. discussion)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Quote of the eraWrit KeeperWait a second, I think you're right.
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
HiLo48
Given that HiLo48 resorted to rhetorical insults, trying to undermine the intelligence of anyone who disagreed with him and his take on the Castro case, the inconsistency of your warnings about personal attacks says a great deal. Hypocrisy abounds. Bravo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.161.195.137 (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- IP 153, I would remind you that you received an only warning from Drmies about making personal attacks about that editor --76.189.109.155 (talk) 10:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Drmies, I filed this report at AN/I. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ha, I think mine is the last name you want to invoke right now in a "civility" case. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Haha, why? You're civil. Anyway, can you please look at the chaos that's going on at 68.50.128.91's talk page. My head is spinning. And immediately after I commented, Bbb23 (who wanted to marry me last night lol), protected the page, apparently solely because I posted. You can read my comment there. IP 68 is obviously very sensitive and, as a result, gets very worked up and says inappropriate things on impulse. But the way this is being handled is only making things much worse. It's like this IP is being attacked from all sides. Look at his talk page history. Anything you can do to calm this thing down would be appreciated. It doesn't take a platoon of admins to beat down on this IP, especially consider his relatively minor offense. I've seen him participating in the RfC at Pump and he seems to be a very nice person when he's not being scolded. That's enough for now. I think you'll agree. Haha. Thanks! --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ha, I think mine is the last name you want to invoke right now in a "civility" case. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Drmies, I filed this report at AN/I. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Now I see that Bbb23 just removed my comment from 68's talk page. Drmies, please, you've got to intervene. That's totally inappropriate. Are they're just completely throwing all the rules out the window? This is getting crazy. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding the appropriateness of the block and duration - the IP is simply continuing his prior disruption that was previously done on the article talk page. It is entirely appropriate to lengthen subsequent blocks for continuation of the same disruption. The fact that he changed from the talk page to the article itself does not dispose of the appropriateness of lengthening blocks. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Barek, I really respect the fact that you are commenting here. But the overkill with IP 68 is remarkable. And the removal of my comment is totally inappropriate. Bbb had no right to remove it. Please restore it. And you will see that I try to be as fair as I can in my thoughts. But an admin censoring me and then protecting the page immediately after I post, solely because of that post (read the edit summary) is completely inappropriate. Again, thanks for coming here, but please let's bring the heat down on all this. It's out of control. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- I can actually see good arguments from both sides on the removal. Unfortunately, it appears to be another gray area in site policy (or, more accurate to say it appears to be a gray area intersection of contradicting policies/guidelines). This is another issue that may be better served via WP:AN, rather than the talk page of individuals. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Barek, I really respect the fact that you are commenting here. But the overkill with IP 68 is remarkable. And the removal of my comment is totally inappropriate. Bbb had no right to remove it. Please restore it. And you will see that I try to be as fair as I can in my thoughts. But an admin censoring me and then protecting the page immediately after I post, solely because of that post (read the edit summary) is completely inappropriate. Again, thanks for coming here, but please let's bring the heat down on all this. It's out of control. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding the appropriateness of the block and duration - the IP is simply continuing his prior disruption that was previously done on the article talk page. It is entirely appropriate to lengthen subsequent blocks for continuation of the same disruption. The fact that he changed from the talk page to the article itself does not dispose of the appropriateness of lengthening blocks. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Now I see that Bbb23 just removed my comment from 68's talk page. Drmies, please, you've got to intervene. That's totally inappropriate. Are they're just completely throwing all the rules out the window? This is getting crazy. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure which removal you're talking about... my comment or the endless things IP 68 removed. Haha. But there's absolutely nothing that allows Bbb to remove my comment. Especially when it's civil, fair, on-point, and tries to calm things down. Again, please restore it and unprotect the page. And I suggest you ask Ymblanter to stay out of this. He was clearly involved before he blocked 68; I mean they reverted each other in an article right before the block, for goodness sakes. How much clearer can "involved" be than that? ;) So the block coming from him is so blatantly inappropriate, that it's going to take an admin with integrity to simply tell him that he shouldn't have had any involvement in the block. And I see that he also has blocked 68's talk page access. Ymblanter is all worked up, and his one edit summary on 68's talk page clearly shows it. Again, thank you for commenting here but please be the hero in this and do the right thing(s). --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- I can see your point about the block by Ymblanter being procedurally inappropriate; but that does not clear 68.50.128.91 of his disruptive behavior, and given the IPs ongoing disruptions to force BLP violating content into the article, I would have done a longer block had I seen the behavior before Ymblanter placed the block. So, if you really want to be procedurally accurate, we could ask Ymblanter to remove his block so I can instead place a longer one - but, I don't think the exercise is worth the effort. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- 76, I love you like a brother (I think), but I'm not going to wade into yet another mess, especially one involving a whole bunch of talk page comments and reverts and what not. I don't know what 68 is up, but it's attracting a lot of attention; if three (or more) admins are already involved then I would only hope in vain to do anything useful. If a block was made incorrectly there are places to address it, and that talk page is probably not the right one. I have great faith in Bbb, I love him like a son, and I will give him the benefit of the doubt; if he erred, then Barek (who's already there, and whom I love like a distant cousin) can judge that well enough, I suppose. Ymblanter, I don't know if you're watching--I love you like my neighbor, and if that block was involved that was not good thing. Still, there are levels of involvement, and if a block is warranted the community has a tendency to overlook a certain measure of involvement. Sorry, but that's the extent to which I will get involved. There's way too much heat in this place, or maybe it's just my street which is on fire; I trust it's not Rome that's burning while I'm fiddling. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Just for reference, I still think WP:AN is the best place to take up the dispute with the revert by Bbb. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's a lot of love, Drmies.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- 76, I love you like a brother (I think), but I'm not going to wade into yet another mess, especially one involving a whole bunch of talk page comments and reverts and what not. I don't know what 68 is up, but it's attracting a lot of attention; if three (or more) admins are already involved then I would only hope in vain to do anything useful. If a block was made incorrectly there are places to address it, and that talk page is probably not the right one. I have great faith in Bbb, I love him like a son, and I will give him the benefit of the doubt; if he erred, then Barek (who's already there, and whom I love like a distant cousin) can judge that well enough, I suppose. Ymblanter, I don't know if you're watching--I love you like my neighbor, and if that block was involved that was not good thing. Still, there are levels of involvement, and if a block is warranted the community has a tendency to overlook a certain measure of involvement. Sorry, but that's the extent to which I will get involved. There's way too much heat in this place, or maybe it's just my street which is on fire; I trust it's not Rome that's burning while I'm fiddling. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- I can see your point about the block by Ymblanter being procedurally inappropriate; but that does not clear 68.50.128.91 of his disruptive behavior, and given the IPs ongoing disruptions to force BLP violating content into the article, I would have done a longer block had I seen the behavior before Ymblanter placed the block. So, if you really want to be procedurally accurate, we could ask Ymblanter to remove his block so I can instead place a longer one - but, I don't think the exercise is worth the effort. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure which removal you're talking about... my comment or the endless things IP 68 removed. Haha. But there's absolutely nothing that allows Bbb to remove my comment. Especially when it's civil, fair, on-point, and tries to calm things down. Again, please restore it and unprotect the page. And I suggest you ask Ymblanter to stay out of this. He was clearly involved before he blocked 68; I mean they reverted each other in an article right before the block, for goodness sakes. How much clearer can "involved" be than that? ;) So the block coming from him is so blatantly inappropriate, that it's going to take an admin with integrity to simply tell him that he shouldn't have had any involvement in the block. And I see that he also has blocked 68's talk page access. Ymblanter is all worked up, and his one edit summary on 68's talk page clearly shows it. Again, thank you for commenting here but please be the hero in this and do the right thing(s). --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Thanks, Barek. As I'm sure you know from my prior comments, I fully realize that 68 has done some inappropriate things. But that's not the issue. And I'm not aware of any continuing/recent BLP violations. If I'm wrong, please show me the diffs. The only thing I saw he did was to add a simple tag to an article, like in this edit You keep saying he's done all these terrible things that warrant a two-week block but no one has shown any diffs at all to support it. I saw him revert twice over that silly tag in one article. And Ymblanter was one of the editors who reverted it. What else did 68 do?? I see absolutely nothing, except participating very productively in an RfC discussion. Please Barek, I not only think you should ask Ymblanter to revert his blcok, I think you need to be honest with him and let him know that he should not have done been involved in that block in any way because he was clearly involved. And, for the third time, please restore my comment and unprotect the talk page. That's clearly improper and, respectfully, you know it. Policy without question allows me to post that comment and does not allow anyone to remove it, except 68. (Well, not while his TP access is revoked lol.) As far as blocking him for a longer period, or even long at all, it is unjustified without providing any diffs to show specifically which edits warranted it. If I saw any edits like that, I would be the first one to say it. And I'd tell 68 myself that he was wrong. I've done it before. ;) But all I see are the two reverts of that tag at Rob Bell (Virginia politician). Big deal. A low-key admin like Yunshui would have just talked to 68 calmly, especially knowing how sensitive 68 is, and explained why reverting that tag was wrong and asked him nicely not to do it again or else he'd need to block him. Just because an editor acts immaturely doesn't mean several admins treat him like shit, and like he's worthless. I see not one admin involved in this showing any kindness whatsoever; trying to open a door to getting him back on track productively. That is the biggest shame in all this. But again, you can be the hero in this. If you choose to be. Thanks again. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Love you too, Drmies, but a brother would help a brother. Haha. I am not asking for anything unreasonable. And, honestly, I don't even know why I'm defending 68. I just feel bad for him because I know how hurt he gets by criticism and I've seen how pleasant he is in various discussions (when he's not under the gun haha). If one of you wanted to do the best thing, you could've offered to mentor him, or at least hook him up with a mentor. Being ganged up on (not meant pejoratively) by several admins at the same time is an awful thing to watch. And I can imagine how he felt being blocked by the same guy he just traded reverts with. I know when you guys take off your admin uniforms, you are really fun, cool people. But some of you get really tough when your warning and sanctioning people on here. Perhaps it's hard for you to see or understand because you're in the power circle. Well, I'm not. I'm on the outside, impartially looking in. I honestly believe that a few admins here totally forget that there's a real live human being on the other end of your computer screen. Someone who has feelings and is just begging to be understood and treated with a little friendliness and respect. Even if 68 is a pain in the ass sometimes, big deal. Be the great admins you are and find a good way to stay above it, while getting him to do things the right way. If he thinks you give a shit about him at all, he'll respond positively. Enough, you get it. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Btw Drmies, this thread was actually supposed to be about HiLo's admirer, 153.161.195.137. Anyway, check out this ever-so-cordial response I got at the AN/I I filed on your behalf (while you were dreaming about bacon explosions). See, I try to make your life easier and this is what I get. ;) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
RFC/U
I get the feeling that a couple of these need starting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 14:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- I concur. Basalisk ⁄berate 14:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Commencing countdown, engines on? - Sitush (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Two are very obvious. I don't care about the snarking on my talk page, but it has gotten to the point that every discussion anywhere is subject to disruption, editorializing and derailment by individuals that are desperately seeking attention and apparently, martyrdom. As RFC/U is a necessary step in dispute resolution, I see no other choice. Drama is unavoidable regardless of what is done, so it is better to channel that into a process custom made for it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 15:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- You know I hate civility blocks, but some people just push it too much. And yes, there's derailment, and the enabling/goading on thereof by some others. I restored DanielTom's TPA after a very polite and friendly message and then saw a complete turnaround. I don't know what's happening on that talk page right now and I don't care; I expect a note from the boss any day (that's a metaphor--two metaphors). Drmies (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've noticed the same thing, email doesn't match talk page. I hate it, but the train has left the station for a couple of people here, it is just a matter of time. I'm tired of wasting my time with this, and the two of them have successfully located the limits of my tolerance. It is my opinion that both have well exceeded the threshold for WP:DE, not in a singular incident, but in everything they do. By their own admission and acts, they don't want to be here and hate this place. Everything they do seems to focus on spreading this misery so they don't have to hate alone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 16:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Dennis, I'm a certified asshole, that is well known. I've never seen your limits get tested. You're the nicest guy I know (well, on Misplaced Pages--my real-life friend Rob, who is a seven-foot tall carpenter, is maybe the nicest one in the world). I'm not going to start something, I've done enough damage already for the time being, but I am interested to see what you think should be done. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm pondering it. I'm not mad at anyone (I save anger for the real world, stuff that matters) but the actions of both of them have gotten to where it is interfering with helping people that have no relation to them, it is hurting other editors, and it is drama mongering. I think I've been as patient as I can be, but have reluctantly come to the conclusion that Misplaced Pages is better without either of them. This isn't something I say lightly, nor a conclusion that I jumped to without a great deal of consideration. I have tried very hard to not come to this conclusion, but it is what it is. I'm not sure if someone needs to make a proposal at WP:AN or try RFC/U. RFC only works if the editor is simply misguided but still has the best interests of the project at heart, but I'm running out of good faith and beginning to conclude that they are disrupting purely for the sake of disrupting. One has flatly stated " I reject this place with its dumbed-down double-standards and abusive environment & culture" so I'm not sure I can make a stronger case for WP:HERE than he has himself. Why would someone stick around a place like he describes, except to disrupt it? Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 17:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think the problem here is that over a fairly long period, the editing of both of these parties (just as an example, I believe there are others) is detrimental to a collegial editing atmosphere. Of particular concern is the fact that a lot of these editors don't really seem to do anything else other than perpetuate this vitriol (which is, to his credit, not a criticism which could be levelled at IHTS). Dennis - your point about derailment is spot on; I can think of a recent RfA where this debate spilled over and we all know RfA is contentious enough without becoming a platform for the anti-admin brigade. The thing is, these editors apparently enjoy the sensation of being engaged in what they feel is a battle between two homogenous groups and so I can't see how anything is going to change without some form of escalated dispute resolution. Basalisk ⁄berate 18:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm pondering it. I'm not mad at anyone (I save anger for the real world, stuff that matters) but the actions of both of them have gotten to where it is interfering with helping people that have no relation to them, it is hurting other editors, and it is drama mongering. I think I've been as patient as I can be, but have reluctantly come to the conclusion that Misplaced Pages is better without either of them. This isn't something I say lightly, nor a conclusion that I jumped to without a great deal of consideration. I have tried very hard to not come to this conclusion, but it is what it is. I'm not sure if someone needs to make a proposal at WP:AN or try RFC/U. RFC only works if the editor is simply misguided but still has the best interests of the project at heart, but I'm running out of good faith and beginning to conclude that they are disrupting purely for the sake of disrupting. One has flatly stated " I reject this place with its dumbed-down double-standards and abusive environment & culture" so I'm not sure I can make a stronger case for WP:HERE than he has himself. Why would someone stick around a place like he describes, except to disrupt it? Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 17:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Dennis, I'm a certified asshole, that is well known. I've never seen your limits get tested. You're the nicest guy I know (well, on Misplaced Pages--my real-life friend Rob, who is a seven-foot tall carpenter, is maybe the nicest one in the world). I'm not going to start something, I've done enough damage already for the time being, but I am interested to see what you think should be done. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've noticed the same thing, email doesn't match talk page. I hate it, but the train has left the station for a couple of people here, it is just a matter of time. I'm tired of wasting my time with this, and the two of them have successfully located the limits of my tolerance. It is my opinion that both have well exceeded the threshold for WP:DE, not in a singular incident, but in everything they do. By their own admission and acts, they don't want to be here and hate this place. Everything they do seems to focus on spreading this misery so they don't have to hate alone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 16:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- You know I hate civility blocks, but some people just push it too much. And yes, there's derailment, and the enabling/goading on thereof by some others. I restored DanielTom's TPA after a very polite and friendly message and then saw a complete turnaround. I don't know what's happening on that talk page right now and I don't care; I expect a note from the boss any day (that's a metaphor--two metaphors). Drmies (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Two are very obvious. I don't care about the snarking on my talk page, but it has gotten to the point that every discussion anywhere is subject to disruption, editorializing and derailment by individuals that are desperately seeking attention and apparently, martyrdom. As RFC/U is a necessary step in dispute resolution, I see no other choice. Drama is unavoidable regardless of what is done, so it is better to channel that into a process custom made for it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 15:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Commencing countdown, engines on? - Sitush (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Not that this makes any of the above invalid, and it's not as who should say on topic, but when the nebulous "we" remove people's talk page on personal attack grounds because they said an admin needs to be desysopped, I find it difficult to pin the blame entirely on them. Granted, I'm still not familiar with the entirety of these editors' histories, so maybe I don't have much of a right to talk about this. But I honestly don't care how unsubstantiated or inflammatory it's meant to be: I think that that's something that anyone and everyone should be able to say freely. I mean, it's not like their statement itself will get someone desysopped; it takes a lot of work to actually do that. (Okay, I could see it being an actionable problem if they keep harping on it constantly without actually showing any effort to make it happen, per WP:SHITORGETOFFTHEPOT. But for this narrow instance, that doesn't seem to be the case.) It has a very unsavory appearance of stifling criticism otherwise, and I think many will agree that admins are already accountability-challenged to begin with. The reason that I'm (marginally) participating in the discussion over DanielTom's block without being fully-briefed on the entire history is that I feel that blocks like his are acute, not chronic, remedies, and they need to be used in response to acute, not chronic, problems, which shouldn't require an intense study of edit histories to understand. It just seems to me that this is an acute block without all that serious of an acute problem. Actions like removing talk page access make a little more sense if you look at the overall history there, but I don't think the overall history is the right thing to be basing unilateral actions like that on; it needs to be in response to an immediate problem. Maybe that's naive of me, I don't know.
- I guess the TL;DR summary here is that I think we're interpreting "personal attacks", "prevent disruption" and "admin discretion" too broadly here, and that if we want to address a long-term pattern of behavior, the way to do that is through community processes like AN or RFC/U, not through isolated blocks. For whatever my opinion is worth. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- I actually agree that admin should have large enough shoulders to tolerate more than would be expected from the average new editor. It takes thick skin. And I wouldn't have reverted that comment, just as I didn't revert out the comment that was clearly in violation of the talk page block when it was done by proxy. For an abusive admin, I'm pretty tolerant of protest. They can both call me an ass all day long, it doesn't affect me. (I've seen all the hidden and reverted mocking comments from them both "vomiting" over my comments in areas unrelated to them, meh.) What does affect me is when I'm trying to help someone in an area that has zero to do with them and they try to turn the conversation into an essay on why admin are teh sux. It derails the process and turns what could be a couple of paragraphs into a long drama fest. To me, this is clearly disruptive behavior designed to undermine my ability to help someone. It doesn't even have anything to do with me being an admin, as I'm not using the admin bit. On my talk page, I'm free to just revert it out, but doing so elsewhere is more problematic. I love a good skeptic, they keep you on your toes, but this is cynicism taken to the point of disruption solely because they think every admin is too involved to block them. It seems obvious that the purpose is solely to disrupt the normal and necessary functions here, and their comments have made it clear they hate everything about Misplaced Pages. Do we need people here who are obviously trying to undermine Misplaced Pages? Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 18:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Your turn now, Dennis, to suck it up... Drmies (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- The comments about me? It really doesn't bother me. It is just venting. My self-esteem is not based on anything anyone says here, it just isn't that hard to overlook. Interfering when I'm trying to help someone is bothersome, but not mere words. I've been called worse. They always have the option of seeking sanctions against me if the really believe all that. I sincerely doubt they do, it is more likely just baiting. Meh. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I just cracked open a Mason jar full of apple pie flavored moonshine. No, they don't sell it in stores, but living in NC has its advantages. Just took my first swig, and it tastes something between mom's apple pie and sake, oddly enough. Wife is coming home, got Netflix cued up and wings in the oven. I was planning to work on the Sunbeam article, but that got cancelled due to drama. Think I will go drink some pie and watch a movie for the evening. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- You still eat pie after 20 years? Good for you--Clitoris Awareness Week wasn't wasted on you. Also, I love moonshine, though I'd forgo the apple pie. I made margaritas for us and some friends: it's pooltime, and vacation has started today (for them, not for me--I'm working all summer). Me and my buddy Jim are drinking old-fashioneds, since the girls are done. The Sunbeam will still be there tomorrow; Kitsch might not be, from the alarm I heard earlier. Drmies (talk) 23:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Your turn now, Dennis, to suck it up... Drmies (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- I actually agree that admin should have large enough shoulders to tolerate more than would be expected from the average new editor. It takes thick skin. And I wouldn't have reverted that comment, just as I didn't revert out the comment that was clearly in violation of the talk page block when it was done by proxy. For an abusive admin, I'm pretty tolerant of protest. They can both call me an ass all day long, it doesn't affect me. (I've seen all the hidden and reverted mocking comments from them both "vomiting" over my comments in areas unrelated to them, meh.) What does affect me is when I'm trying to help someone in an area that has zero to do with them and they try to turn the conversation into an essay on why admin are teh sux. It derails the process and turns what could be a couple of paragraphs into a long drama fest. To me, this is clearly disruptive behavior designed to undermine my ability to help someone. It doesn't even have anything to do with me being an admin, as I'm not using the admin bit. On my talk page, I'm free to just revert it out, but doing so elsewhere is more problematic. I love a good skeptic, they keep you on your toes, but this is cynicism taken to the point of disruption solely because they think every admin is too involved to block them. It seems obvious that the purpose is solely to disrupt the normal and necessary functions here, and their comments have made it clear they hate everything about Misplaced Pages. Do we need people here who are obviously trying to undermine Misplaced Pages? Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 18:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'd largely have to concur with most of the comments above. --Rschen7754 19:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Does that mean you're joining Dennis for dinner and a movie?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sigh ... seems that every year at this time these things happen. And every year it gets a bit worse. School lets out for the summer, and young people with the best of intentions try to right great wrongs. As hard as I try to not become that "get off my lawn" guy - it gets old and tiring. Ya know, there are some admins around this joint that I think need to rethink their approach - but here's the thing: We end up with these kids that have time on their hands who want to change the world. The one thing is with Misplaced Pages though ... all admins. were at one time new users. New users were NEVER admins. WE understand what they think because we've been there - but they can not know what experienced editors go through because they HAVEN'T been there. Yes - there is a divide between admins and non-admins ... I don't know how to fix that. I don't know folks .. I just don't know. — Ched : ? 02:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's because the basic wiki model is hosed and wiki was not handled properly from day one See this PumpkinSky talk 02:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Jordaanlied
 | On 24 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jordaanlied, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Jordaanlied, a genre of sentimental songs celebrating the Amsterdam neighborhood the Jordaan, was popularized by a cabaret artist from Utrecht, a composer from Rotterdam, and a singer from England? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jordaanlied. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
(Once featured article)..
Nobody is interested in Bad Taste any more?
Slow decline of once featured article.
Until nothing is left. only a vast amount of book titles on the literature list and a few lines. Warrington (talk) 12:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- My dear Warrington, after dinner is over and everyone's teeth are brushed and the guests have gone home, I will have a look at this article and see what's going on. Also, we're having salmon--I would kill for some sik, or however it's spelled. Thanks for the note. Drmies (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Did you see the FA reassessment? Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Kitsch/archive1. That was seven years ago, pertaining to this version which indeed isn't an FA based on references (lack thereof) alone. When the article was promoted, in 2004, FA standards were quite different, I suppose. To bring this up to anything will require a lot of work, for starters with bibliography and footnotes. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm reading a book
This came out a couple years ago, was introduced to me by my niece, but I think of you every time I watch it. He has several surreal and exceptional videos. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ha, that was funny. I Facebooked it and got a like within seconds from a fellow former English student. Thanks! I'm reading a book, pig! Drmies (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Glad to help. Another one of my favorites is the Movie trailer for every Oscar-winning movie ever. Probably seen it 50 times. I do enjoy the surreal, and this is an exercise in cliche. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 02:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Cat. discussion
This page fills up quickly. I don't know what became of that list article with which you'd intended to replace the rape victims category, or if you still have any interest in the topic, but that discussion was closed as no consensus. I've not added any more antique members since it opened, but will now perhaps, though that would probably just lead to a second nomination. davidiad { t } 02:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- List of rape victims from history and mythology. Note how incredibly incomplete it is, and note the parameter in the opening paragraph, to do away with BLP concerns. The category still exists, yes, and I haven't done any work on the list since then. BTW, at some point there was some discussion somewhere about history vs. mythology, I think; for our purposes (historical importance and meaning) it doesn't matter, of course, whether a character/god/sacrifice/victim/author "really" existed or not. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)