Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:20, 17 May 2010

If I left a message on your talk page, please do not post your reply here. Reply on your talk page instead. I will be notified of your response. Click here to start a new discussion. I will reply on this page. If you like, I can post a notification on your talk page when I reply. Simply request it.

This

is beautiful. Just wanted to say. Mackan79 (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that was nice to hear :) It would've been nothing without your original thoughts coming first though. You've been making good additions. Equazcion 01:19, 20 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Move request

• Request at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves as uncontroversial: I made no histmerge, as WP:Parallel versions and all messages in Misplaced Pages talk:Trading card game/Archive 1 were also in Misplaced Pages talk:Trading card game/archive/1 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Understood, thanks :) Equazcion 13:39, 20 Feb 2010 (UTC)

User:Caro 08 cleanup

User:Caro 08/Canada is still sitting around as a result of your laudable but doomed effort to get this editor on track. You are the only author of the page (well, almost), it's kind-of a GFDL vio, and it's cluttering up the what-links-here tables. Do you still want it there or can I nuke it as house-cleaning? Or maybe you want to move it over to her new account, Caro7440 (talk · contribs)? Speaking of which, could you take a look at that account? I skipped the SPI step 'cause it's really quite obvious they're the same, but always nice to have confirmation. Franamax (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You can nuke it, by all means; no reason to keep it around. Based on the name, and the comment at the rollback request page, I'd say they are indeed the same user, so, good block I say :) Equazcion 20:44, 20 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Greetings

I came by to thank you for this. I found a similar bon mot left on your talk and rolled it back. I hope you don't mind me butting in. See ya 'round Tiderolls 03:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for the rollback. You can butt in to undo vandalism anytime :) Equazcion 12:31, 22 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Hi, there is an important email I sent to you this morning. Well important to me. :) Just want to make sure you see it. --CrohnieGal 13:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I know you have trouble getting my eamils so I just want to know if it was received? I really want you to see what I had to say. --CrohnieGal 21:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I got it, I just hadn't figured out how to respond yet. I'll try to do so tonight. Equazcion 21:58, 25 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

What's with the archiving? You know that DMSBel isn't going to let this go. --NeilN 21:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

so, you simply decided to close the discussion unilaterally? not like it was going anywhere, mind you, but there was no need to get pissy about it. --Ludwigs2 21:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone smart decided the discussion @ ejaculation should be archived since it's not getting anywhere, to which DMS responded by carrying on his points at the VP page. In the interest of truly closing the matter I carried the archival over to VP. I agree, there certainly is no reason to get "pissy" about it, Ludwig. Equazcion 21:34, 25 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Hah! sorry, I have a piss-pot life lately, so I claim exemption from the rule (within reason). still, I do hate those presumptuous closures - they are the kind of thing that almost invariably lead to nasty thoughts and comments. doesn't look good at all form any perspective (except maybe that of the closer). --Ludwigs2 21:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. How much you wanna bet this will go up to WP:MEDCOM? --NeilN 21:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It probably should have in the first place - it's not a subject people are inclined to be reasonable about on either side. but it would have been nicer if it went there on the merits rather than because people are getting pissed off at each other. --Ludwigs2 22:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:BEANS, Neil :) Ludwig, things rarely end up in mediation because both sides mutually say "This is a complicated issue and should probably be mediated." It's generally because people are pissed off and deadlocked. As far as the VP proposal goes, I don't think that belongs at mediation -- a policy proposal either has wide support or it doesn't, and this one didn't. The ejaculation page might possibly benefit from some mediation, but I have my doubts there too. Consensus there appears to fall on inclusion of the content, IMO. I acknowledge I haven't looked thoroughly through the discussion there so I could be wrong. Equazcion 22:11, 25 Feb 2010 (UTC)

lol - damn, now I have no idea what to do with this plate of beans on my table. Thanks a bunch, EQ!

Honestly, I have been studiously avoiding the ejaculation page because I am tired of squabbling with people fruitlessly (I don't mind squabbling fruitfully, mind you, but there has to be some progress for it to be worthwhile). I think the idea itself will eventually need to go to mediation - I really don't think that NOTCENSORED was intended to be carte blanche for any gross image that someone has a hard-on for (and can justify in some trivial way), and I don't think reasoned voices will ever make any headway on that. I'm just trying to decide whether I'm currently up to the task of pushing it. --Ludwigs2 22:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if MEDCOM mediates on policy issues (rather than the contents of specific articles). The list of parties involved in a WP:NOTCENSORED policy dispute would be quite interesting to put together. --NeilN 00:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

interestingly, the policy thing seems to be a bit of a vacuum. medcom deals with user problems on specific pages, which doesn't necessarily expand to policy; Arbcom deals with policy, but won't deal with content issues - where do you go for decisions about content policy? but I don't want to keep cross-talking on EQ's page. unless he expresses an interest in this discussion, let's move it elsewhere. --Ludwigs2 08:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Mediation isn't for policy proposals. With a policy proposal, there needs to be a clear demonstration of wide support. Here we have no wide support demonstrated, just a few parties arguing endlessly over it, which doesn't mean there's any more of a chance it has wide support. Mediation is irrelevant for something like this because it doesn't matter how our argument turns out; the support isn't there either way. Equazcion 15:34, 26 Feb 2010 (UTC)

That's what I meant by an '...Com' vacuum. This is an issue that has (potentially) broad implications for the nature of wikipedia - i.e. is wikipedia as a whole going to give the appearance of being a bit stuffy or a bit skanky? - but everyone is so reactive about the issue that meaningful discussion is largely impossible. I suppose ArbCom would be the better choice, except I suspect that any attempt to present it will get misrepresented as a content dispute and rejected.

well, like I said, I'll consider my options as the goatse thing works itself out. --Ludwigs2 16:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not for Arbcom either. I think they'd reject the case as forum shopping, if you presented them with your policy proposal. If it didn't gain enough support at the venue where it was originally presented, Arbcom isn't going to let you try pushing it through there instead. Equazcion 20:21, 26 Feb 2010 (UTC)

It'd have to be a community-wide RfC like the ongoing BLP matter. Loads of fun! --NeilN 20:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

well, as I said, I'm considering my options. --Ludwigs2 22:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

wallpaper

Hey, you also got that image as a wallpaper! That use is being very popular.  franklin  04:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm just trying it on, might still change it again. Great photo though. Equazcion 04:53, 3 Mar 2010 (UTC)

• You know, the way you used it gave an idea that maybe solves a problem. In your page I can only see a portion of it. Is it because you are using a version of it or is it because there is a way of showing a portion of an image. I'm interested in doing the latter. Having a picture uploaded show only portions of it in different articles without having to upload different files with the different crops. Do you know how to do that?  franklin  17:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• I actually copied this code from someone else's page where I saw it done. It looks like the image is enclosed in a "div" with a "width" specified that's smaller than the image, and "overflow:hidden" specified. It might be possible to create a template that does this, but it would be a complicated process of trial and error with position and dimension parameters to try and get a particular portion of an image to show up without the rest. You could try contacting User:iMatthew for input, as his userpage is where I got the code from. Equazcion 18:04, 3 Mar 2010 (UTC)
• To clarify, I'm not using a custom version of the image. The cropping effect is done with code. Equazcion 18:39, 3 Mar 2010 (UTC)

re: AN/I

Thanks. Some of that has been percolating for a while. Other parts of it just came today. I want to wait for the RfC/U until Lar comments on the identification we submitted and (probably) when the AN/I thread has come to a close. An RfC/U will detail the 25 pages that I mentioned where she suddenly showed an interest. The Kate Winslet appearance was over the top. Appreciate your comments and I have through the whole discussion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Halvorsen brian

You're right. I was trying to be conciliatory and came across as condescending. Sorry about that. Woogee (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem :) Equazcion 01:35, 6 Mar 2010 (UTC)

the filmographies code

Hi. The core bit of bad code is this:

{|class="wikitable" style="font-size: 90%;" border="2" cellpadding="4" background: #f9f9f9;
|- align="center"

The table declaration is malformed; the background: #f9f9f9; is not in the style attribute and will not be used, and the border, cellspacing, and cellpadding are all taken care of by "wikitable". And the align="center" is not needed as what follows are th-elements and they get centered by the class, too. This whole mess was started by WHL messing up the code when, ironically, she changed it to 95% here. These tables should properly be be ordinary "wikitables" and any "standard" enforced via template a implementation. See also the thread she archived and the further whinging at User talk:Lar#Your note. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Jack. I replied at WHL's talk page. Equazcion 23:07, 6 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Gee, was that so hard to say? The table heading was changed over from the previous style which didn't use wikitable style. All that was necessary was to say that, rather than be told I'm too stupid to understand it. The sizing is used on the preponderance of tables on actor articles. And I do resent being talked down to and disregarded because anyone thinks I'm incapable of understanding and blatantly says so. If you mean "whining" instead of "whinging", my complaints are valid, even if Lar didn't care to deal with it. And we still aren't mentioning that changes he made implemented British date style to an American biography, contrary to WP:ENGVAR. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity I took a look at a few random filmographies, and they all seem to have 90% font size specified: Jon Voight, Steve Martin, Sarah Jessica Parker, Tom Cruise filmography. I'm not saying this is necessarily indicative of the majority of actor articles, but is there any counter-evidence, that the 95% size is the consensus practice? Equazcion 23:18, 6 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Not that I know about. It's the size that WP:ACTOR specifically approved, and was commented on when the table was approved. The table heading was changed to wikitable format when it was brought up and I have never seen anyone comment or complain about it, or use other prior to Jack Merridew's involvement. Consensus was for 90% and 95%, which I inadvertently inserted from some example sent me by someone, was never considered for consensus. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You might be interested in this prior discussion:

• MediaWiki talk:Common.css/Archive 9#Header color in wikitables and the current one at:
• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography

Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Queenofthejews

Someone "new" to Misplaced Pages generally doesn't as their first edit, add themselves to Misplaced Pages:Requests for permissions/Confirmed... HalfShadow 23:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I know. But, WP:AGF and all. Equazcion 23:46, 6 Mar 2010 (UTC)

User:Qpwoeial

Hey, thanks for the comments on my talk page. I feel that Qpwoeial (talk · contribs) is now starting to harass me. For what, I don't know but I have absolutely no knowledge on what to do. I think if you looked at my contributions, you can tell I have no need for protection. I attempt to better baseball articles, and that's all I want to do. I feel that it is unproductive for me to have to deal with this nonsense. Hope you can help. Thanks. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 04:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I can try. How's he harassing you? Are you just referring to what he's saying on your talk page, or is there more? If so link me to the other pages where he's been harassing you. I left a comment on your talk page regarding his concerns. Equazcion 06:13, 7 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Q's comments on Brian's page are over the pale. Woogee (talk) 07:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Harassment is a bit more relentless than the comment or two made there. Let's see how Q reacts to me explanation there before we pull the harassment card. Equazcion 06:57, 7 Mar 2010 (UTC)

I think starting a administrator notice board discussion about me, then editing my user page, and finally coming dangerously close to threatening me on my talk page are some signs of harassment. I also think that I should have been notified that there was a discussion about me by some one. I just happened to stumble upon it. All I want to do is edit. I shouldn't have to deal with any of this, especially if I did nothing wrong. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually you were notified, by me and another editor -- but I later decided to remove the notices and some useless discussion about what should be done with your user page. The consensus seemed to be that no one should ever have bothered you with that stuff so I thought removing most of it would be the way to go; maybe not the best decision I guess. Anyway, as I mentioned above in reply to Woogee, I think we should wait and see if Q continues criticizing you following my explanation to him about usernames. There's really nothing anyone can do in the way of punishing him or preventing him from contacting you right now. If this becomes actual harassment (extended, relentless criticism) then we can take it to WP:ANI. Equazcion 18:43, 7 Mar 2010 (UTC)

ANI

I see no reason to even attempt to tread carefully. Thanks for the notice, but I don't take threats easily. Woogee (talk) 06:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

policy about racism

Hi. Where can I find about Misplaced Pages's policy about racism? I mean, not racism against users but in articles. 99.231.81.164 (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no policy in particular that deals with racism in articles, as far as I'm aware. If you mean presenting a topic with a racially-biased point of view, WP:NPOV would probably cover that by default; though talking about the phenomenon of racism is okay, as long as it's relevant to the topic and verified. Equazcion 11:14, 9 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Aromatherapy

Good edits on that article, it's slowly becoming vaguely readable! :-) My only qibble is that Aromatherapy may be a form of alternative medicine, however 95% of the public's interraction with it is via consumer products. The key thing is that aromatherapy is a non-regulated term which means that anybody is free to their product an aromatherapy product. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd be open to putting that info in in some form, as long as it's sourced; but even then, it really shouldn't be the defining paragraph of the article. We shouldn't be defining things based on a judgment of them. Although many forms of alternative medicine are sold as unregulated products, that's not their defining characteristic. Hope that makes sense. Equazcion 00:40, 12 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Actually, yes it does. The logic is perfectly clear. My point was not so much that aromatherapy is defined by it's lack of regulation but that aromatherapy is really more about the non-regulated products than it is an alternative medicine. It's not a very important point in the grand scheme of things

Also, did you notice that somebody tried to re-add that story about a french guy curing gas-gangrene with lavendar oil. It's such a preposterous story but if we could find a source for that I'd love to re-include along with a reference to what gas-gangrene is (the only known cure is amputation). :-) --Salimfadhley (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. I didn't see that story, but I agree it does sound like it would make an interesting addition. Equazcion 01:25, 12 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Check this out, look at the edit under history. Interesting eh, obviously false but most probably one of the founding myths of aromatherapy. Now if only a WP:R citation can be found. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Equazcion Do you know what child porn is?

Equazcion Do you know what child porn is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GodBlessOurTroops (talk • contribs) 05:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. There's no child porn in the talk page comments you removed. Equazcion 05:54, 14 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Question re:ANI report on Tom Reedy and Nishidani

You suggested my report would be better as a RFC. Is moving it there something I should do now, or so wait for further input. Or does an administrator move it. This is my first ANI filing and it would be my first RFC. Please advise. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 07:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You should move it yourself. There seems to be some agreement that the report doesn't belong at ANI, so eventually someone might take the initiative and move your report(s) off that page, but you can do it yourself. I would start by moving them onto a subpage in your user space, so you can work on making them into an RFC (or RFCs). Equazcion 15:17, 14 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Due to the lengthy discussions already undertaken, and continuing abuse past the wikiquette report, I do not think further discussion will do any good. As an alternative, I greatly shortened my report and refiled it at ANI. Since this involves long-term and escalating abuse, and teaming up of the offending editors, I truly think ANI should take a look at it. It needs a resolution. Thanks for your consideration. Smatprt (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Long-term abuse is exactly what RFC is for, and what ANI is not for. With respect, you say this would be your first ANI report, so you should listen to people who are more experienced with it. You will have a much greater chance of success at RFC. People don't want to read very much at ANI, and you're not likely to get very much participation from uninvolved parties. Equazcion 16:07, 14 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I've been hesitant to start editing for a long, long time, out of fear that Wikipedians were jerks and I would do everything wrong. So I covered my bases all along the way, making comments, waiting a few days for responses, being civil when folks reverted but didn't engage me.... And I still got some backlash. Anyway, it was nice of you to respond to me kindly on the Atkins talk page. I was actually hoping for some interaction, and while I didn't get what I was hoping for, at least one or two of you were helpful. Ok, gushings over. Katiedert (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Glad I could help make your experience at least a little satisfying. Sorry about the drama that ensued; you had the misfortune of stumbling into a rivalry between two editors that has been brewing for a long time. Both editors have actually been put on restriction since then, so they basically aren't allowed to talk to each other anymore. That should hopefully make the Atkins article a little more welcoming in the future. If you need anything feel free to let me know and I'll try to help. Equazcion 00:06, 16 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Re: Quotations

While we're going back and forth over on the Quotations page, I thought I'd drop by here and say:

• (a) While we're disagreeing, I really respect the calibre of your argument and your contributions on Misplaced Pages generally and it's a pleasure to debate with someone like yourself. (That goes for the other contributors on the thread too.)
• (b) So I'm clear, your argument is essentially the ISO view of policy - that guidelines are about formally documenting our current practice, rather than providing a prescriptive set of rules governing practice? I'm coming at it from the other end, that guidelines are effectively Misplaced Pages legislation and as such shouldn't be introduced without a clear rationale detailing their necessity. If you're able to point to documentation showing that your view of the role of guidelines is the Misplaced Pages-preferred one it could very quickly end our disagreement.

Thanks! - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

- Never mind, a quick re-reading of WP:GUIDELINE makes it clear your approach is the preferred one. I'll go amend my position on the quotations discussion accordingly. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where it's stated but the general credo is that policy should be "descriptive, not prescriptive". The merits of that can be debated (it's sometimes pointed out that it's a fallacy, because then you have the question of "what's the purpose in describing...", and the answer invariably ends with prescribing action to someone in some sense...), and are, endlessly, but it's still what we go by, at least for now.

Anyway, thanks for the compliments :) ...and for amending your position. The best collaborators are the ones who are actually open to the possibility of changing their opinions, which is rare. Equazcion 02:08, 17 Mar 2010 (UTC)

I just feel that editors need recognition when they work hard.

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I award you this for all the good work you have done to help the project and its volunteers. --CrohnieGal 17:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated :) Equazcion 17:22, 17 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Where do you draw the line

Since you think it's ok for an encyclopaedia to have large numbers of players nationalities listed incorrectly , would you be happy to ignore it if it was their squad number, position, age, height , sexual preference, martial status? Why is it ok for an encyclopaedia to wrong on one set of facts and not an other? Maybe you just don't believe in WP:V and would be happy to make up every fact about a player ? Gnevin (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

"Ok" is a complicated word. It's not as simple as "ok" and "not ok". While I'm not necessarily thrilled that there's possibly inaccurate information in the encyclopedia, there's a sliding scale of what kinds of problems warrant which measure of response. You're suggesting sending out a bot to plaster {{unref}}-type tags on a lot of articles just because the little flags next to players' names could be unsourced. I can't justify that response to the given problem, and from my experience here I really doubt that proposal is going to gain consensus. Sorry. Equazcion 15:18, 20 Mar 2010 (UTC)

No I'm not I'd suggest you read the suggestion again . The suggestion is too change Fs start to show a unref template if no reference is provided Gnevin (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Redirecting Talk pages

Hi. Would you explain why you redirected Talk:Coke mini? Redirecting the Talk page of a merged article isn't in either WP:Merging or Help:Merging. I had added {{Copied}}, and {{merged-to}} would also be appropriate. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 06:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The policy and help pages are bit vague on this. My understanding is that talk pages of merged articles are generally redirected to the new article's talk page. This is done for the same reason that the article page itself is redirected -- so that if anyone seeks out the old name, they're redirected to the now-relevant talk page on the topic. When articles are moved, their talk pages become redirects then too, if that gives us any clue (since merges are a similar action to moves). Anyway I copied the pertinent discussion to the new talk page, so I don't see the need to maintain the old talk page, and would see it as only serving to confuse people. Equazcion 07:17, 21 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Redirecting the Talk page is not uncommon, but I disagree that it is general practice. If there is nothing meaningful about the article redirect (e.g. move), it's fine to redirect the Talk page also. Mergers are not the same as moves. A merger creates an attribution dependency that should be recorded with the appropriate tags. How will someone navigate to Talk:Coke mini and be confused? I think that anyone reading it would have gotten there deliberately. Flatscan (talk) 05:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Having two talk pages for discussion of the same content is what might be confusing, and I don't see any need for it. The tag on the destination talk page is enough to address attribution. Equazcion 05:12, 22 Mar 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like either of us is convincing the other, so I'll try one last time.

1. There is meaningful information regarding the redirect itself: attribution and {{oldafdfull}} with a link to WP:Articles for deletion/Coke mini.
2. Accidentally navigating to Talk:Coke mini is unlikely. The user must type it directly into the search box, backtrack the article redirect, or follow one of the few direct links (Special:WhatLinksHere/Talk:Coke mini).
3. If information about the redirect was not desired, the merge destination's Talk page is only two links away.

I would like to restore/add the tags I mentioned. Flatscan (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The afd discussion can be found through the merge tag on the destination page, along with the redirect and attribution. It sounds to me like you're recognizing the general practice but trying to change it, and I really think you should start a discussion at WP:VPP or WP:VPR for that rather than just doing it and attempting to convince one person at a time. If people generally agree with you in a centralized discussion then maybe the practice can change, but I believe things are the way they are for good reason, and I think consensus for change should be demonstrated first. Equazcion 10:17, 23 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Another discussion with outside input is a good idea. I'll leave a note here if/when I start one. Thanks for your time. Flatscan (talk) 05:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Toolbar

Hi Equazcion. I have been using your Misplaced Pages toolbar for a few weeks now and I was wondering why you ended development on it? —Mike Allen 18:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The coding for Firefox addons seems sort of convoluted to me, so even the simple features of the current version were a real uphill battle to get working. Also, my last revision got blocked at Mozilla pending my fixing a bug present under Linux, and I know next to nothing about Linux nor do I even have any Linux machines to test with, so dealing with that would be more trouble for me. I've been waiting for some more experienced developer to take an interest (I once had a section at WP:WPTB where they were welcomes to "sign on" to help out), but I never got any bites.

So I guess the short answer is I got lazy :) Maybe I'll take another look at it again sometime, but I don't have any plans to as of now.Equazcion 18:55, 22 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, I've had no problems with it in Firefox 3.6. :) —Mike Allen 01:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Community Ban?

I guess, as an alleged "harbinger of negativity and disruption" I won't make a comment there again. I missed all of this, having just got on WP today for the first time in days. I don't know how a community-banned user can continue launching personal attacks on a page owned by the project; doesn't seem right to me... Doc9871 (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not gonna be the one to make that call. Those probably are personal attacks, but I'll wait for someone else to notice it. You can notify User:SarekOfVulcan if you want, as he's the admin who's been dealing with her mostly. Equazcion 22:28, 22 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's over (for a year). My comments to SRQ were never designed to get her to "freak out" as she and others like to characterize what were attempts at rational conversation; I kind of resent it too. While the many names and judgments were hurled at me often, I never reciprocated. Rather, I've always tried to stick to the issues, as is clearly evidenced in this lengthy discussion. If attempting to reason with an editor on WP issues is wrong, then color me very wrong. Cheers, Equazcion Doc9871 (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think most of us resented most of her characterizations. I'm not gonna claim I never reciprocated... I'm no angel. But I tried. Anyhoo, it's over now, time to move on. Equazcion 19:50, 23 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Beans

Lol: http://tlt.fandm.edu/2010/03/24/wikipedia-pushes-for-users-to-add-videos-wired-campus-the-chronicle-of-higher-education/ –xeno 20:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

rm

I figured instead of filling up his page with that crap we’d let some other people get in on the fun. —Wiki Wikardo 04:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks

I'd like to close this; if there is a reply from someone else to what I just posted, please do not answer it. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Equazcion 00:09, 5 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Stefano Borgonovo

Hi there EQUAZCION, VASCO here,

Thank you very much for your help and assistance in this article.

From Portugal, keep up the good work,

VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem :) Equazcion 03:01, 15 Apr 2010 (UTC)

ANI

I may have just edit conflicted with you, I hope I didn't cut out any of your comment. SGGH 17:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you didn't cut anything out. Equazcion 18:02, 23 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Thank u very much for the courtesy

flowery obscuration, love it. being linked with cults, wonderful. and my dear wikipedian-collegiates wonder why I rarely enter into conversation with such bland stupidity, all of them, those MOANING, have justly had their egos branded by the Hummingbird, this is true. as for not having a Teacher, that is not the intention of what I wrote and taken out of context. I have had innumerable teachers and still do, i have a root Guru in body, but that said my principal guru resides in my heartmind in secret aspect and I no longer need a teacher in the way that it was being presented to me is mandatory. It amazes me that a fervent, unaware, bigot has the floor in an Administrator thread, frightening really that these people are my peers, well nonduality is peerless and I have no fear. thanx for the headzup it was appreciated.
B9 hummingbird hovering 02:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:B9 hummingbird hovering. Equazcion 17:55, 30 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Noted. You are the first editor for quite some time that I have encountered on Misplaced Pages that is good-natured. I am not eccentric, I am a straight shooter. I am really focused on theology but I'm not preachy. Most of the dross that the editors were talking about in regards to me is misattribution, misdirection and untrue. It amazes me that a person can escalate a matter to the Administrators' noticeboard when they have no editing history of providing any cited inclusion upon Misplaced Pages. It amazes me that Mitsube lies out of spite and removes appropriate, reputable cited content from articles that I have qualitatively improved. I am perplexed. B9 hummingbird hovering 20:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Village pump thread, forgotten?

Hi Equazcion,

Thank you for supporting the suggestion for improvement to the logo and/or tag line ("...that anyone can edit"). This is just to remind you that the thread still exists and that someone asked if we want to draft a proposal. As nobody has replied I'm afraid you forgot about it. It's at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28development%29#Users_who_don.27t_know_what_Wikipedia_is_are_being_misled

Best regards, Xnquist (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't really forget about it, I've just been too lazy to craft a proposal. I might soon, but anyone else is welcome to give it a go. Equazcion 17:54, 30 Apr 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like me to give it a go, I don't have any experience with making such formal proposals. Is there a tutorial or guidelines for that? If so, I might try it. Thanks. Xnquist (talk) 07:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Before WP:Village pump (development) came along a month ago, all you could do when you had an idea was present it at WP:Village pump (proposals) directly; no one expects any kind of special format or anything. There's no tutorial, and no trick to it really. You just try to present the idea at WP:Village pump (proposals) clearly and concisely, while providing a convincing argument for why it would be an improvement. Check out the other proposal discussions on that page to see what they look like. Equazcion 13:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, as I really don't have any experience with this, I've come to the conclusion that it'll be better to let you do it. Hopefully, you will find time for this soon. Thanks again. Xnquist (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, just FYI, a proposal has been posted at: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#Improve_the_WP_tagline Xnquist 13:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've commented. Equazcion 14:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Harassment policy

Your ANI comments in the Turian thread indicated a partial misunderstanding of WP:HARASS policy.

It is long-established that posting to people's talk pages after they have requested you to stop is harassment, under the policy. Doing so in context of other abusive behavior contributes to justification to block.

It's not OK. Admins will enforce it if/when we become aware of it being violated. Notifications of noticeboard postings and admin warnings are exceptions to that - "doing business" as it were - but personal comments aren't ok after being told to stop.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Even if that were in the policy, my ANI comment would not necessarily indicate any misunderstanding. However I've read through WP:HARASS, and don't see what you've described there anyway.

Giving commands to your opponent in a conflict just isn't effective. When tempers have already flared, genuinely stopping the argument is likely not your top priority; instead you're trying to get in more shots and goad your opponent, which is exactly what a command to "stop posting on my talk page" should be viewed as. Being familiar with conflict, Malleus was fully aware of this.

I could nevertheless understand if one or both parties were too far into it at that point to be thinking at all, but in that case the discussion should've just been forcefully closed, maybe accompanied by trouts and warnings for both sides. Blocking only one party, just because they didn't heed a "don't post here anymore" comment in the depths of a conflict like that, is a superficial response to the last event without considering the whole. Both parties were being equally bullheaded.

People who want to be seen as having attempted to discontinue an exchange need to have made a genuine effort. They need to stop fighting themselves, not make faux attempts that actually encourage the opposite. Equazcion 08:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

More complete list of image deletions

I do not know where the discussion is continuing, so here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:PleaseStand/Sandbox2&oldid=360978677 PleaseStand 22:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Are these still just Jimbo's deletions or does this include all those with the "out of project scope" and "porn site" (Black Falcon's suggestion) in their summaries? Equazcion 22:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is the regex I used: /com:ps|scope|porn|cleanup/i Is that good enough? I did not look specifically for Jimbo's deletions this time, but I did retrieve the last 1000 contribs versus the last 500 since more images had been deleted since I generated the first list. PleaseStand 22:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good enough to me. I posted this at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(proposals)#Examples_of_deleted_works, in case you want to add anything there. Thanks. Equazcion 22:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

ChipsFrigginDubbo (talk)

Hi there. This user has made a single post (so far) on the BMW 3 series , however given the nature of the post - vandalism - and their slightly suspect name, I thought I'd pass it onto an adminstrator. a_man_alone (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator :) but no harm done. Even if I were, all anyone can really do is wait and watch til they act again. That is, unless the username is a violation, but I'm not really even picking up on what's suspicious about it. Equazcion 20:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I kind of assumed you were an admin as you frequent the Admin noticeboard. Chips Dubbo is a character from Halo - although I can only glean that from Google, as I've never played it, but friggin is considered profanity by most people - although the severity is up for debate. Administrator or not, I wasn't expecting an immediate ban, just awareness. a_man_alone (talk) 07:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair point

I did think that the paragraphs starting "in all cases" probably refered to both situations in the previous paragraph but meant "when blocking use a neutral summary". I think was wrong, however, and your revert of my revert was probably correct. We'll find out if KnightLago makes any more changes, I guess... --Jubilee♫clipman 23:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, in the less clear-cut cases the arbitration committee would handle the potential block, so there's no need to detail how the block should go in that situation. In general though, if you see an error like that, it's probably better to attempt to correct it rather than reverting the entire thing wholesale; or if you don't have a clear idea of how to go about that, maybe bring it up on the talk page. Equazcion 00:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Wholesale reverting is rather extreme, I grant you, especially when the reverted edit is particularly complex for one reason or another. Talking is always better! --Jubilee♫clipman 00:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The Game

What is going on is that the same editor switches IPs and continues to make edits using sources that are not reliable or like the hollywoodreporter, requires membership to access the page. The editor knows all of this from past discussions and continues to insert changes that aren't adequately and reliably sourced. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I am editing but not switching my IP address. I saw your comment on edits I made to The Game. I explained here, http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:The_Game_(U.S._TV_series)#5.2F14_changes_i_made_to_article , my edits. I went thru the older versions and built from them.Is there a page on wikipedia directions saying what are and arent reliable sources? The hollywood reported does not need memberhsip. Thanks. 69.138.165.244 (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Here are the sources I see the IP added:

• http://www.multichannel.com/article/451489-_Game_On_For_BET.php?rssid=20527
• http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/10/14/worrying-wednesday-dawn-ostroff-im-worried/30496
• http://www.bvbuzz.com/2010/04/19/coby-bell-the-game-returning
• http://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/the-game-revived-13585/
• http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/television/news/e3ib6c66237fa7a658de95d6d0c60e30b80

I'm able to access all of them without membership, and they seem relatively reliable to me. What specifically are your concerns with these, WHL? Equazcion 19:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I will report the IP for violating WP:3RR, after having been directly warned not to edit it again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You're guilty of the same violation, WHL, and I will be sure to note that in the report you make. I'm sorry you're so unwilling to discuss this. Equazcion 20:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look into it deeper. Oh, and I only reverted 3 times on that page. There was one a couple days before the three, but I stopped before I violated 3RR. I double and triple checked that I didn't go over 3. This has been a royal pain on that page for some time, but it is mostly from IPs and hard to track down to make SPI reports. I have to think that past history made the editor be so aggressive. I appreciate the apology. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for telling me about the report. I did reply there. About this : My support of this anonymous user is starting to waiver. They seem to be switching IPs very rapidly, and also seem intent on restoring their exact version, which includes grammar, spelling, and other style errors. Equazcion (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC) ... why is your support waivering,I am not swithcing ips. Where are the grammar, spelling, and other style errors. errors 69.138.165.244 (talk) 00:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. I see you integrated my edits. Thanks for that. That is all I wanted all this time. We all are here to contribute. I see my error in my titling. Could you make a few corrections for me. <1>In the curent verision it says Mara Brock Akil will return. This is not correct. The source supports this. Mara is working for ABC, Coby Bell is not back FT, he is a recurring character . Below is the correct information for the 'cancel and revival' section

Cancellation and revival
As The CW moved to make its schedule free of half-hour comedies, series creator Mara Brock Akil attempted to convince the network to air the series as an hour-long, single-camera series like the other shows on CW. On May 20, 2009, Entertainment Weekly announced that the series was officially cancelled.

On March 15th, 2010 AOL Black Voices reported that cable channel BET struck a deal with The Game's parent company Paramount to develop new episodes of series . Production moves from California to Atlanta, and will begin in May; with new episodes to air in the Fall. Actor Coby Bell will be only a recurring character since he has joined the California based cable USA network show Burn Notice.

On April 15th, 2010, BET announced the renewal of "The Game" at its April upfronts. Series creator and executive producer Mara Brock Akil now works for ABC 's Cougar Town as consulting producer so she will not be involved with the show; however she will get executive producer credit. Her husband Salim Akil will take over as showrunner .
Thank You. 69.138.165.244 (talk) 02:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

An amazing learning curve: the previous detailed post from an IP who didn't know what a "diff" was less than an hour ago. Ever seen "The Thing"? Doc9871 (talk) 02:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

What is your problem You and that other editor need to check your attitudes. Your brain didnt think hmm I guess she read the link Goodness 69.138.165.244 (talk) 03:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Nellie, Andreeva (2009-08-23). "BET may get into 'The Game'". hollywoodreporter.com. Retrieved 2009-09-10.
2. Ausiello, Michael. "Fall TV cheat sheet: What's in? What's out?". ausiellofiles.ew.com. Retrieved 2009-08-01.
3. Murray, Jawn. "The Game Sitcom's Return On BET". aolblackvoices.com. Retrieved 2009-03-15.
4. http://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/the-game-revived-13585/
5. http://www.bvbuzz.com/2010/04/19/coby-bell-the-game-returning/
6. http://www.multichannel.com/article/451489-_Game_On_For_BET.php?rssid=20527
7. Andreeva, Nellie (2010-04-04). "BET nears deal to resurrect 'The Game'". hollywoodreporter.com. Retrieved 5 April 2010.