Misplaced Pages

User talk:Gigs/Archive 6: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:Gigs Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:54, 3 February 2010 editGigs (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers15,455 edits →Butter's Bottom Bitch (again): reply← Previous edit Revision as of 11:53, 3 February 2010 edit undoWikiuserNI (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers8,043 edits →Butter's Bottom Bitch (again): CommentNext edit →
Line 87: Line 87:
] <sup>]</sup> 00:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC) ] <sup>]</sup> 00:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
:I left him a note about templating experienced users on his talk, and a message on the article talk about the material. ] (]) 02:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC) :I left him a note about templating experienced users on his talk, and a message on the article talk about the material. ] (]) 02:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
::Gigs, thanks for contacting me about this matter.
::What I found condescending about the situation is this. The above was discussed on the talk page of the article, but as Peter discussed, he also reverted. Poor form.
::A third opinion was provided, that was completed ignored. It was suggested that drawing opinions from primary sources (as Peter did) was not the best way forward, and that removing material was done in cases where a user genuinely beleives it hurts the article to add it (as I do).
::There was no consensus or compromise as Peter puts it above. Simply that unverified material was added to an article and it was challeneged.
::If Peter wishes to work towards a solution here, we need to see that he wants more than just to put this material in and that other concerns are unimportant. I have quoted policy, explained my reasoning, offered discussion, read the third opinion and still Peter simply reverts. ] (]) 11:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:53, 3 February 2010

To contact me, write here. I will reply on this page.
Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1


Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Pokémon/Bulbasaur

Whether you did it backwards or not depends on what you are trying to do. What are you trying to do?—Kww(talk) 22:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The history we need to preserve is on the Wikiproject version, I wanted to get it put back under the redirect to preserve merged material attribution for material that's been merged into the redirect's target. Gigs (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
But why did you restore such a faulty article to article space? It was moved to project space by consensus, and there has been no noticeable improvement.—Kww(talk) 22:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I see the redirect has been restored. I'm still not sure why you think this was necessary: now we have a cloned history, and you've made it easier for people to restore the article against consensus.—Kww(talk) 22:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
We are required to do this per WP:MAD... since material from it was merged, we must preserve the history. Our licenses require attribution. Gigs (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 25 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Some Questions

Hello, I see that some users can create sub-pages from their user pages, so how can I do that? Thanks. DATABASE-owenhwlo (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation

British Royalty
Click here to
automatically
add this project
to your
watchlist 		Hi Gigs/Archive 6, I would like to invite you and anyone watching who shares an interest in moving forward constructively to a discussion about Biographies of Living People

New editors' lack of understanding of Misplaced Pages processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing.

These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people.

Please help us:

>> User:Ikip/Discussion about creation of possible Wikiproject:New Users and BLPs <<

Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC) (refactored) Ikip 02:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks a million for taking the time to comment at the biography of living persons. I think Misplaced Pages:Mistagged BLP cleanup is a good idea. Ikip 21:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Septemberboy009/Ayush Goyal

Hi, Gigs. Because you participated in Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Septemberboy009/Blades (band), you may be interested in Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Septemberboy009/Ayush Goyal. Cunard (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Editing policy

I'm saddened that you misinterpreted my motives here, I was not intending to be disruptive and sincerely believe that this policy page no longer has any useful function. From my reading of the MfD guidance I thought that such nominations were sometimes acceptable. I've edited this guidance to make it clear that this is not the case diff. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I wish you had given such a reasoned and interesting answer in the MfD. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The BLP SNAFU? I'm staying out of it, too much to do to spend a week wading through those reams of text. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 1 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Butter's Bottom Bitch (again)

I tried to follow what I believe was agreed on as a compromise on Talk:Butters' Bottom Bitch, but merely get reverted and get these type of messages on my talkpage (which I find somewhat condescending). Could you have another look at the discussion?

Peter 00:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I left him a note about templating experienced users on his talk, and a message on the article talk about the material. Gigs (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Gigs, thanks for contacting me about this matter.
What I found condescending about the situation is this. The above was discussed on the talk page of the article, but as Peter discussed, he also reverted. Poor form.
A third opinion was provided, that was completed ignored. It was suggested that drawing opinions from primary sources (as Peter did) was not the best way forward, and that removing material was done in cases where a user genuinely beleives it hurts the article to add it (as I do).
There was no consensus or compromise as Peter puts it above. Simply that unverified material was added to an article and it was challeneged.
If Peter wishes to work towards a solution here, we need to see that he wants more than just to put this material in and that other concerns are unimportant. I have quoted policy, explained my reasoning, offered discussion, read the third opinion and still Peter simply reverts. Alastairward (talk) 11:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
User talk:Gigs/Archive 6: Difference between revisions Add topic