Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:41, 8 November 2007

Archives

Actual Discussions/Comments, etc Bot Notices and What Not

I'm a neat freak. I keep in my inbox scrupulously organized in all of my email programs, and I like to do the same with my talk page. So I regularly and frequently archive items from my talk page when the item under discussion is resolved or closed, hence the archive box over there ->>

If I've removed a warning, bot notice, etc, that means that whatever the problem was should now be solved (i.e. added a missing fair use, fixed broken one, etc). If I remove a conversation, it usually is because I felt it was closed or finished.

When leaving new comments, please remember to put new topics at the bottom, indent replies, and, most important of all, sign your comments! Thanks :)

Recent Inuyasha Edits

Please remember to post in the discussion page when making large edits as you did recently in the Inuyasha article. Following WP:EP policy under the major changes section. Leads to less reverts and confusion. Showers 00:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The WP:EP policy does not require pre-discussion on making edits, particularly clean ups, even large ones. It only says "it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion" if the change may be disagreed with, discourage the original author, or is major. There is nothing controversial about fixing a badly written section. If someone disagrees with the removal of the unsourced, NPOV section, they are welcome to revert and start a discussion on it (not really a major edit, it was one paragraph). It isn't always required to start the discussion first, as per both WP:EL and WP:Be Bold Collectonian 01:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I never said there had to be any pre-disscussion before making any edits. You should post about why you made such edits in the talk page however when they are so large. Regardless of wether someone might disagree with it or not. The talk pages are there to inform (regarding edits)as well as for discussion. WP:EP does not ask for pre-discussion, it asks that you inform. Showers 04:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The edit summary should have been sufficient for that. In general, I don't see a necessity to post a detailed explanation to the talk page unless it is truly a major edit (which I didn't see that as being), a multitude of edits which can't be explained well in the edit summary, or to get pre-feedback on before doing. Collectonian 04:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I consider any edit that is bolded on my watchlist a major edit. Think it does that at around 700 characters. As well as any time you blank a section of an article. Its a subjective thing however. Eye of the beholder and all that. Showers 04:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it is subjective. For an article of that length, to me, it wasn't a major edit. When I hack out a trivia section or the like, I also don't consider it a major edit. However, with some pages, when a complete redesign or a lot of rearranging is done, I have made sure to details it and the rational behind in the talk pages. Its just for me, this wasn't that major, more clean up :) Collectonian 04:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Challenge to Lassie

Sorry, I have created this article, not realising that you had planned to do the same. You are of course welcome to improve and expand it. Thanks. Ref (do) 03:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries :) Glad to know someone else has some interest. I'll move it to my work on section instead. Collectonian 03:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the positive reaction. I mainly decided to create this article due to the redlinks I was encountering in other Atkinson-related articles.

I take your point about requests left on talk pages, but I did previously consult an admin about this kind of note, who suggested some re-wording (which I complied with), but otherwise they thought it was fair comment.

I have changed the article slightly, as the two references contained in the original draft were not formatted for 'reflist' (I've fixed that). Also minor punctuation fix, but mainly restoration of 'External links' as a section, as I believe policy allows these in articles even if empty. Otherwise, I think we concur on all the rest. You have an advantage over me anyway, in that I have never actually seen the film itself! Best wishes. Ref (do) 12:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• grin* Seen it more times than a grown woman should probably admit and rather disappointed that it is still one of the few not to have a DVD release :P No problems on the External Links section. I usually just remove them when they are empty but agreed, empty sections are fine as well. I took the references out more because they aren't needed for a plot summary since the film itself is the source for that :) Collectonian 15:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Boxer dog archival

Hi, the archival was not innapropriate, the talk page was way too long... By seeing your revert it looked like that you think I was trying to hide our conversation, and that was not true, I was trying to find a easier, more productive way to settle the picture matter. Please do not patronize me about NPOV and TALK guidelines, it seems that you don't understand those guidelines. Regards Loudenvier 15:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Selective archiving is inappropriate and violates both guidelines. I'm not patronizing you, I'm informing you. Your method was inappropriate. If you felt it was too long, add an archiver (as I've done). Removing recent conversations does give the appearance that you wanted to hide the recent discussion so people only see your view on things. Collectonian 15:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to substitute the long discussion with a more cleaner version, but as you feel it was inappropriate I've brought the old discussion back. Archiving is a selective process in itself, the guidelines asks for you to be selective and only archive what is really unnecessary or redundant, and bring back old discussions if they are still active or being reactivated. I think the poll is a very democratic way to settle this matter, and I have tried to "educate" people about the use of pictures, I'm not completely opposite with you on that matter, I don't want all those pictures. I just think pictures are a very important aspect of an article, and they make wikipedia better. Loudenvier 16:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Archiving is not so selective that you archive discussions that are very recent. In general, when you manually archive, you only archive older discussions or ones that are completely off topic (like two people chatting about something irrelevant to the article). You don't get to remove the discussions you don't agree with, even if you feel it is "done." In doing so, whether it is your intention or not, you give the appearance that you are hiding the conversation and don't want anyone to know that another editor disagrees with the images.

Please stop reverting before we both violated the 3RR rule. I've posted about the issue to the editor assistance board because I believe both of us are focusing more on our arguments with each other rather than appropriate Misplaced Pages behavior. Can we agree to let a neutral third party look at the talk page issue and decide what, if anything, should be done and both step back for now? Collectonian 16:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

One last thing about the Anzu edits

I decided that I do not mind if the B&W is gone - I still like the other manga color image since the face in the first chapter is drawn differently than the faces in the rest of the series; even the animated series do not have an equivalent. Are you fine with four images, or do you wish to use the remaining three only? :) WhisperToMe 02:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it is still better to just have three, one good one the manga (and there may be something better than what's in the info box) and two for the two anime series. :) Collectonian 02:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Brenda Ann Spencer

Regarding the speedy deletion tag you placed on this article as a copyvio - don't forget to check edit histories before putting up SD tags. The article, which has been around for a long time, was only changed with copyvio content two days ago. A simple revert is what needed to happen in this case. Tijuana Brass 18:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I saw that the talk page mentioned copyvio issues from the same source since 2006 and figured no one had ever fixed it Collectonian 19:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Simone

Hello, Why did you delete all that? The etimology of her name is a valid info, as much as all the trivia info absed on her personala nd real facts. Lulu Margarida 20:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NOT. Misplaced Pages is not a collection of trivia and trivia sections are strongly discouraged against per Misplaced Pages policy. If the information is valid and encyclopedic, it would fit into other sections. That article, however, is grossly unencyclopedic and you should expect other editors to also be cutting out parts that are inappropriate soon. Collectonian 23:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Collectonian, I've left Fred C. a note about this user which you should read. Considering her behavior mimics what led to her being banned from the PT Misplaced Pages and got her an open RfC/U here, I wouldn't be very patient with her actions.--Dali-Llama 05:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, didn't know about her past history. Kinda squicky thinking a woman would make some of the borderline sexually harassing comments she did. I'm trying to avoid going into the WP:Civility problem so mostly I've taken to ignoring and just keeping her from messing with the article. I think C. Fred said he would keep investigating, so I'm hoping it means the admins will keep an eye on her. Thanks for letting them know about that. Collectonian 05:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Just as funny

I refered bed because of yr insomnia, no "sexual" anything whatsoever. Yr reasonings, editions, and understanding is just as funny as this other girl/buy who was editing ~"the myths of december 25th", she sees eleven where there is a two, and 5 is a crap, because it´s not V...Do you speak any foreign language? I´d love to see you spelling/writing in portuguese/german. Wouldn´t that be funny?? I also loved yr guess: unreleased sopa opera´s themes, Miss Bittencourt de Oliveira; you also deleted the story of Começar de novo, which is an icon for Brazilians --it´s like not mentioning "New, YorK, New York" in a Frank Sinatra article. Would you like any other tip/trivia? Do you really see all these broken and urelated paragraphs, this messy, as an enciclopedic article??? Of course not. Lulu Margarida 12:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)