Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:45, 26 June 2009

ACME drama rating

NEEDS MOAR DRAMAHZ!

Hello and welcome to my Talk page!

1. If you start a conversation with me here, I'll usually reply here. I like to keep discussions in one place. So, if I've left a message on your Talk page, it may be best if we continue the discussion there. Of course, if you feel I've forgotten about you, please post a reminder here.
2. Occasionally, I may copy a discussion to what I feel is a more appropriate venue, particularly if I think it would benefit from other editors' input. If I do, I'll leave a link here so everyone can follow the thread.
3. Please start new conversations at the bottom of this page by clicking on the "new section" tab above.
4. I reserve the right to revert any edits to this page that I feel to be truly messed up.
   

Archive 1—Archive 2—Archive 3—Archive 4—Archive 5—Archive (N+1)

Welcome!

Hello, SheffieldSteel, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! 

Xiner (talk, email) 03:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Father Christmas sent me...

Ecoleetage (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Self reverts

Thanks for your input in this matter. I have a question though about two of your recommendations that apparently contradict one another:

• To be clear, should you violate this restriction and edit in areas you are topic-banned from, you will be blocked. - This should not require any further clarification. You might not want to take the advice of User:Abd, who was recently blocked from editing for editing in violation of a ban.
• If you're sure your proposed edit improves Misplaced Pages, you should have no difficulty persuading another editor to make it for you. However, if you're sure that any reasonable editor would agree that your proposed edit improves Misplaced Pages, don't let the rules stop you making it yourself. Just don't revert yourself afterwards.

The first point was crystal clear, however the second opens the door to a potential can of worms. Please can you clarify, as I think you might have undermined the community ban here. Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The second point relates to Ignore all rules, which is where the "worms" factor comes in. If an edit is so self-evidently correct that no reasonable editor would disagree that making it improved Misplaced Pages, then a case can be made that even a banned editor can make the edit. In the case of e.g. reverting BLP violations, I would go so far as to say that any editor, banned or not, should make the edit. Clearly they should not then revert themselves. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 23:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Does this view not differ from the discussion we've just had on the Administrators' noticeboard, where the consensus about Abd was that *any* edit construed a violation of his ban? Also "no reasonable editor" can be an extremely subjective viewpoint in these cases (doesn't everyone believe their own actions are reasonable?). I'm still not seeing the consistent approach here that I feel we should have towards all banned editors. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the consensus that any edit made by a banned editor, to a page they're banned from, construes a violation of their ban. However, it may still be possible to argue that a violation was justified. Of course, other editors may not agree and a block may follow, but in general, the more severe and urgent your edit is, the more likely you are to get support for it. The phrase "no reasonable editor" was an attempt on my part to formulate the sort of test that might be used in this situation. Of course most editors think of themselves as reasonable - the point is what others will think, and not every editor will be good at applying such a test to their own edits. In other words, use at your own risk.

I hope this is clear. It seems so to me, so perhaps I'm not explaining well. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 13:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd bet money that if Abd reverted vandalism on the Cold Fusion article, he'd get slapped with an immediate block. So why should the ground rules be any different for another editor? The consensus around this point on the Administrators' board was black & white, not grey. I don't think we're being fair by treating people that are subject to the same rules in different ways. Furthermore, if something is so obviously wrong with an article, surely no "reasonable editor" would decline a request to fix it? Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me try to be black and white here, then.

1. WP:IAR applies everywhere, like it or not.
2. If you see a BLP violation, remove it immediately.
3. The rules should not be applied differently to different editors.
4. If something is obviously wrong, no reasonable editor would decline a request to fix it. That's why, if you were banned from editing an article, but saw a problem, you'd ask someone to fix it.

Hope this is now clear. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 14:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I stand by my contention that other editors will block Abd immediately if he touched the Cold Fusion aticle on grounds of WP:IAR, yet PJH might get away with it. So I don't expect the treatment to be fair, regardles of what we've discussed here. C'est la vie. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"stupid edits"

First, you do not know whether I meant that individual's edit was stupid or my own. To be clear, I DO think it's stupid that I repeatedly have to make the same vandalism revert due to ignorance (or blatant vandalism) of other editors. Further, I've TRIED taking task with an editor who called my edits stupid repeatedly before (landon 1980). The outcome of that discussion was that he was attacking my edits, not me personally. By the way, landon and I have since become much more ammicable and help each other (the entire thing was because he thought I was someone else anyway). Also, I've just reviewed the no personal attacks and the incivility pages, and my comment does not qualify as incivil or as an attack. I'm certainly allowed to be of the opinion that a specific edit is not an intelligent one (which would imply it is a stupid one), and I can express this without insulting the editor... I do realize you're an admin, but to be honest, I don't care. You might abuse your authority by making improper, trumped-up threats, but in the end, that's not beneficial to anyone. Have a wonderful day! Wikiwikikid (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Replied on user's Talk. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, I was referring to my own edit as stupid, not the other editors, due to the fact that I think it's stupid I have to make the same edit over and over again. Wikiwikikid (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I think you missed the point of my last post. If you continue to use comments such as "another... edit" you're likely to antagonise the other editor and possibly provoke more of the same. On the other hand, if you use a summary such as "removing unsourced info" or even "removing personal opinion", you are more likely to be effective in changing the behaviour of good faith editors, and the bad faith editors will also find it less entertaining to see than if you show signs of being annoyed. Don't forget, some people edit here for the "lulz". See also Deny recognition and Revert, Block, Ignore for other approaches to unwanted edits. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 13:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I fully understand your point. I just disagree with your assertion that I was incivil (civility is a highly subjective concept, by the way). "another... edit" is in NO WAY incivil, nor am I inciting the trolls looking for lulz. That comment was not targeting that editor. While I generally agree that I can be more specific in why I'm reverting, I disagree that adding "another... edit" is harmful. In fact, that was mostly a cynical commentary on what I perceive to be your attempt to censor my comments about my OWN edits. I believe that should I have called my own edit stupid again, you'd have escalated the "blocking" threats, even though no WP policy addresses this. Therefore, I did not call my edit stupid this time. Wikiwikikid (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(reduce indent) In my second post to you, linked above, I did not say that your summary was incivil. I am not interested in debating whether your edit summary was within the letter of the law. What I said was that it was unhelpful, and not compatible with a friendly collaborative editing environment. Even if you were to clearly and unambiguously label your revert as stupid, there is still a problem, because your revert would not be necessary if not for the original edit, and it is quite reasonable for any stupidity associated with an edit-revert pair to be associated by implication with one or the other editor. This can offend people and put them on the defensive, which makes discussion and education harder.

Editing collaboratively means not raising unproductive and divisive issues such as stupidity, bad faith, etc. Instead, describe edits that you revert as being in good faith yet uninformed or mistaken in some way - ideally with a link to policy or guideline pages, so that other editors can see what they did wrong.

A minor point: Your cynicism, and your continued talk of blocking threats, is another sign that you didn't read my previous post. You should take more care before deleting messages on your Talk page, because that act is taken as confirmation that you have read them. If you don't take the time to read and understand your Talk page messages, you are doing yourself a disservice. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 14:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

i disagree that it was unhelpful. bottom line. furthermore, i did read your post before i deleted it, therefore, no disservice done! have a wonderful day, buddy! Wikiwikikid (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Advice about British Isles article

Hello.

I need advice about British Isles article. MITH keeps deleting a referenced contribution showing the (c. 135 A.D.) description of Megale Britannia (Great Britain) Insula and Mikra Britannia (Little Britain) Insulae. This establishes the geographic usage of the term Britanniae Insulae (British Isles) many years before December 6, 1921 A.D. (i.e., its political usage).

MITH keeps deleting it ... without explaination. He just deletes it.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Not true. The text has no consensus. You are edit warring despite saying you wouldn't. I have requested page protection in order to protect the page from your disruptive behaviour.MITH 12:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sheffield Steel, I appreciate your comments on the talk page. Can an admin (hint, hint) now take some action on AVDL at WP:AN3, and return the text to its earlier version? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes can you restore the text to before the disruption? Otherwise the disruptive editors may think that their behaviour will get them what they want. ThanksMITH 13:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Rather than block the three main editors involved in the above-mentioned edit war, I've protected the page so you can all take part in a discussion. That should be more productive. Of course, it's up to your folks to make it so. I can't resolve the issue for you. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 13:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to, but keeping the text inserted by the most disruptive editor will only encourage the behaviour the happen again.MITH 13:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sheffield Steel, I think you may have misunderstood the position. The text now protected contains text proposed by AVDL, which he has inserted in contravention of the views of the great majority of editors involved on that page. The unfortunate situation this morning was merely a culmination of a long dispute involving many editors and much, much, discussion, which AVDL has utterly disregarded. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That is often the case when pages are protected due to a content dispute. Let me review the history. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 13:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

And thank you from me! The editors above claimed WP:WRONGVERSION and you've succumbed to their claims. Well done! MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I've just noticed - the claim above relating to "great majority of editors" is a downright lie. Did you spot that? Also, the complaining editors are themselves serial reverters of note. MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of who reverted who and when. This information is a matter of record and I did not act in ignorance of it. I've restored the version that existed before this edit war began, which is in accordance with policy.

If you're worried about whether the right version or the wrong version of an article is protected, you are worrying about the wrong thing. You should be more concerned with finding a way to reach consensus to resolve the conflict, i.e. seeking a compromise. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 17:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello ShieffieldSteel.

I am throwing in the towel on this. No need to re-protect the British Isles article after June 22, 2009. I won't be editing it. Take care eh (btw ... I've been to Kenilworth, it is very nice patch of England. Cheers eh!) ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

A Heads-Up

Howdy.

This is a sincere question. I am not trying to disrupt the Wiki-process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:British_Isles#An_Honest_Question:__How_is_this_related_article_.28British_Isles_naming_dispute.29_not_Original_Research.3F

If you feel that the section is bad for the Wiki-Process then please dump it. If you feel that it is worth addressing, then please do so. Anyways ... I don't want to get blocked over this.

Best wishes ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 05:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

A Heads-Up (part 2)

Hello ShieffieldSteel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:British_Isles#Island_of_Great_Britain_and_Island_of_Ireland_need_to_be_used.

Here is what I intend to edit if the British Isles article becomes un-locked. I just wanted you to know eh. Take care and best wishes ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 02:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello ShieffieldSteel. I have made the follow edit,

The British Isles are an island archipelogo off the northwest coast of continental Europe that include the Island of Great Britain and the Island of Ireland, and numerous smaller adjacent islands.

The usage of the long-form name of the Island of Great Britain, and the Island of Island are correct, and in accordance with the Oxford Style Manual (2003) Style guide. I have reverted my edit twice today, and I will not go for 3rd Revert today (as per respecting 3-Revert Rule). Ghmyrtle and MITH have collectively combined to revert it more than 3-times ... but them is the breaks eh (an effective Cabal). That is how-things-are at ole Misplaced Pages (I know-the-ropes!). Take care, and best wishes ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi I think British Isles needs to be protected again. After Armchair's editing without consensus on a volatile page, other editors who seem to like the disruption such as User:MidnightBlueMan continue to make revert to back the edit despite the obvious lack of consensus or even discussion on the page. I think it may be time for full protection!MITH 16:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Please read the notice I've left at the Talk page. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 17:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of DreamHost

An article that you have been involved in editing, DreamHost, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/DreamHost_(2nd_nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Judas278 (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Already posted; thanks. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 17:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama fly swatting incident

Hi. I understand why you did that edit to Barack Obama fly swatting incident, and you explained your edit very well in the comment section. However, this particular article was intentionally written with a separate section for every tiny detail. Would you be willing to revert your edit? Grundle2600 (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Short answer: Not without a better reason.
• Long answer: If the article is intended to be a joke, or has been written to make or to prove a certain point, you should make that clear on its talk page, and arguably at its AfD. If it is meant to be a serious article, then you will have to accept that other editors will edit it, it will have to conform to the Manual of Style, and you'll have to provide arguments in favour of any particular format you think it should have. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• OK. Thank you for your response. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

British Isles reversions

Just thought you should know. TharkunColl has just reverted a reversion on the British Isles page. Due to your guidelines on the talk page this constitutes a block. I'd do it myself, but they're your guidelines and didn't know what kind of length you where considering. Canterbury Tail talk 17:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I just caught myself in time responding! Would you restore the stable version? I think the insertion was a follow up on the mess with ArmChair and his Greek/Roman map. --Snowded 18:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

After blocking this editor, I am not about to revert their change just yet - particularly since several editors clearly have views on the subject. I'd like to see a discussion before anyone changes that again, even if the only consensus possible is to restore the pre-edit-war version. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 18:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Deal and done --Snowded 18:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've also blocked Footyfanatic3000 for reverting that same edit. With a view to further preventing this in future, I've added an edit notice to British Isles. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a bit harsh, he was just returning it to the position it would have been in if your rule had been followed. Might encourage an IP to get him/her self banned just to get a position locked in. Looks like its been sorted now with the citation etc. however which is good news so hopefully the sanction is having an effect as people realise you are serious in its application. Maybe give him the same option as Tharky? --Snowded 20:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Just seen that you had already done that - thanks and apologies for bothering your talk page. --Snowded 20:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my incomplete post. I should have said that both users are now unblocked, having agreed to abide by the restriction. I took some care to word the block log entires fairly, and hopefully neither user comes out of this looking bad.

I don't believe that any editor will attempt to game the system to "lock in" their preferred content. If they are in a tiny minority, a discussion will easily establish consensus to overturn their edit, and they will have been blocked for nothing; if their edit has overwhelming support then it ought to be easy to get consensus for it, and again it's not worth getting blocked over; for all situations in between, i.e. where consensus isn't obvious, a compromise ought to be sought. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Archiving ANI threads

Can you please stop archiving ANI threads so quickly, as you did with the CoM thread . The most recent comments were barely an hour old, and discussion was not restricted to the validity of the expired original block. MickMacNee (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this was a problem. I really did think that a closure might be the best way to prevent further needless drama. If you wish to continue to discuss the issue there, I suggest starting a new thread as suggested by the discussion top notice. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 13:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia request for comment

Since you have in the past taken part in related discussions, this comes as a notification that the Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've responded on three of them; I'll think a bit more about 2 & 4. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 14:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

With regard to your endorsement of the main article naming, I wondered if you were aware of the requirement in ] that things should be termed by "the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources"? "Republic of Macedonia" is neither the common English language name nor is it (by a very long way) the predominant term in reliable sources, the vast majority of which use simply "Macedonia" (per ). It would be helpful if you could consider this point, and if you continue to favour the option you supported, if you could explain why you believe NPOV should be set aside in this instance. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)