Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:41, 27 July 2006

ED STUFF

Unless it's monumentally important and end of the world level don't contact me about this unless I update this message. I'm sick of it. Have a sunshiney unbiased day!

random romanian comment, kept for lols

(I have no idea what this says or what its about) rootology 20:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Buna,

A inceput un vot pentru stergerea "Wikipediei Moldovenesti", o creatie a unui American, cu origini suspecte in Basarabia si care nu vorbeste limba wikipediei la care pretinde a fi sysop. Il cheama Node ue si pentru a crea impresia ca lumea doreste aceasta wikipedie, a apelat la toti utilizatorii rusi care au venit sa voteze de partea lui desi nu cunosc bine subiectul si li s-a spus ca voteaza pentru supravietuirea alfabetului chirilic. Asa a ajuns ca votul sa fie 31 pentru stergerea Mo wiki, si 42 impotriva stergerii - deci in alte cuvinte pentru pastrarea wikipediei in limba "moldoveneasca". Vino si voteaza aici , ca sa sergem acesta creatura cu miros bolshevic, care insulta toti romanii de pe ambele maluri ale Prutului. Node ue le-a spus rusilor sa traduca mesajul lui in limba rusa si sa-l transmita mai departe. Trimite si tu mesajul acesta la toti utilizatorii romani-unionisti sau romani-moldoveni unionisti pe care-i cunosti pe en.wiki sau ro.wiki. Dapiks 23:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Superman Returns

Good job on the picture. One thing, make sure you always include where you got the picture. I saw on the still that the clip is from A&E, so you have to note that if that is where you got it. Otherwise the autobots (lol, that's a funny name) will come and mark it for deletion. Bignole 15:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, got it. I saw it the first thing when I opened my inbox, literally two minutes after waking up. My brain is still a shriveled up decaffeneited prune, thanks for the catch! rootology 15:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Don't copy and paste what I have written in someone else's talk page to the article talk page...don't do that again. You can keep the link, but you never move my commentary around...next time, simply link to it.--MONGO 19:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I will redo it with a link. Is it allowable to edit/remove comments? rootology 19:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed link

In the ED deletion page, I fixed your GNNA link, changing it to GNAA. hope that was alright. By the way, what MONGO said above is not true, there's nothng wrong with copypasting comments, unless you removed them from the original location. People do it all the time; it's even recommeneded on a guideline to keep conversations in context. Karwynn (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch. And I did not know that was true, thank you. Going to update deletion vote comments with that.rootology 22:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

sorry

Sorry, look at my diff. the last entry was someone blanking 90% of it, so I just went back into the history to the last substantial version. I didn't mean to remove whatever you added, just to restore a massive deletion. SchmuckyTheCat 00:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Hipocrite just nuked the article AGAIN. rootology 00:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

ED

Regarding your edit summary: Reverting MONGO edit. Per AfD do not torch this page. These links been removed MANY times in edit war. Take it to talk page to hash out. Otherwise, vandalism. Follow policy. The AFD boilerplate itself says: You are welcome to edit this article, but please do not blank this article or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress. Also the Guide to deletion says that you can edit the article during an AFD. What policy are you referencing? Guettarda 06:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, calling his edit vandalism appears to be a violation of the policy on personal attacks. Maybe you should review WP:VAND to clarify what constitutes vandalism. Guettarda 06:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The afd one has been referenced all day long--sorry if thats not the right one? MONGO and Hipocrite, despite having an open complaint versus them for bias--see the Talk page--continue to relentless attack everything put into the article despite us all but begging them to discuss the points they disagree with on talk pages. Does their incessent editing without addressing concensus of the editors to discuss before changing not count as vandalism? Other editors have been willing to take it to the talk page or roll back changes when asked, except these two "admins". Can admins freely edit pages without addressing concerns (if repeatedly voiced) on the talk page? rootology 06:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have committed no vandalism. I simply removed links to the wesbite that are used as examples only and are essentially spam...(advertising). They do not comply with reliable sourcing since they are not from a reliable third party source. Calling my edits vandalism is a personal attack...also, in case you are unaware...read the policy on the three revert rule.--MONGO 06:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What "AFD one" are you talking about? And no, good-faith edits cannot be called vandalism. MONGO and others have made the basis for their edits very clear - the fact that information in Misplaced Pages articles needs to be supported by reliable sources. Have a look at the policy pages I have linked to. And please stop calling edits vandalism unless they are indisputably vandalism. A lot of your edit summaries on that page make rather wild accusations. It's a bad idea to violate policy (on personal attacks) while making spurious accusations of policy violations. You should really familiarise yourself with policy before fighting about it (ok, ideally no one should be fighting at all, but that's another story). Remember, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia, it should be written using verifiable secondary sources. We shouldn't be writing things based on primary sources. Do have a look at the pages I have linked to. Guettarda 06:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've read them. MONGO and others repeatedly have taken the content out, more than three times each. I'll tone down the accusatory tone, but request that they do as well in turn--they have been keen all over WP today of calling anyone working on this articles trolls or worse, MONGO actually posted earlier that we should all be perma-banned for doing this. If extreme disagreements about the nature of content for an article exists, is it standard for those to be hashed out by all editors on the talk page? Or should editors simply make changes immediately, even in disputed cases like this? If you look through a lot of the edits it's often semantic disagreements, which Hipocrite (a bit) is occassionally willing to discuss, but MONGO isn't at all. And--*NOT* trying to troll on this, but based on the weirdness of the past day on this article--do admins have to play by the same rules as everyone else? MONGO himself and Hypocrite have violated three revert on this article if I have, more than certainly. Thanks. rootology 07:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Compiling evidence

I'm going to go ahead and start compiling against MONGO in case I decide that it's in Misplaced Pages's best interest to file an RfC. You seemed to express interest, so I'm telling you. It'll be in User:Karwynn/Compiling Evidence, feel free to add to it. Karwynn (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Soon as I get a chance I will. Thanks for taking lead, if you want once its done I can file the actual RfC to take fallout heat from his friends. I do feel this pursuit is with merit based and in good faith based on what WP stands for and policies (just will need you to show me how to file later on if our finished thing seems worth while--not sure how!) rootology 16:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica

Thanks for sticking up for the little man. You've gone above and beyond the call of duty. ~ CBGB 17:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm impressed, way to stand up against admins and Wikiveterans throwing their weight around. Karwynn (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks... just believing that everyone's voice should have an equal value. Some people seem to think they're worth more than others. Aside from Jimbo--and only because I think the bylaws give him veto?--everyone really should be on a level playing field or else the whole thing is a farce. rootology 17:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The logic that you folks are using that User:MONGO should have recused himself from admining and editing on the Encyclopædia Dramatica article is equally applicable to those who have editor accounts on Encyclopædia Dramatica and are arguing in the AfD about the article on that site. (→Netscott) 02:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Going to post a really fair idea for compromise given all circumstances so far in play tomorrow. I have a feeling hardliners on both sides will shoot it down rather angrily, but I'd be willing to do it. Need to write it up, will take a while (it's very precise). rootology 07:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You're next-to-last comment here is right on the money. Admin status is only to enforce policy, not to have a bigger say in content disputes. Just another reasonto consider ths RfC. I've come up with all the possible evidence I can at the moment, let me know what you think on that page about whether it would be fitting to file an RfC. Karwynn (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll go over it in the next couple days, time will be short (massive festivals here this weekend). I'm about to drop a ton of more data for you, if you'd like to parse though it. I'm still willing to pull the actual RfC trigger if we deem it worthwhile, to take the likely hate that will come from it. rootology 15:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Tony Sidaway has taken it upon himself to bypass your compiling evidence page deletion process and delete it without consensus. Do you have a copy of the diff link you took that from? If so, could you email it to me? Thanks. Karwynn (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I can find it, email me via my user page and I'll get it back to you when I can find it. rootology 19:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I have strong evidence that suggests you may have productive input on this. Karwynn (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Updated... rootology 19:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Never mind them. Anybody who advocates keeping ED who questions anything is going to be straw-manned and ignored as an ED drama whore. I'm going to recreate the gist of that page with the problem headings cut out, but I can't email you, you don't have it enabled :-( Karwynn (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it's enabled. Just FYI, I'm burned out, I'm going to unwatch a bunch of stuff related to this right now. Email me. rootology 20:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

out

Thanks for coming in and attempting to be a disinterested third party. It's obvious from the start in this drama that any question of the admin party line makes you "the other" and that's where you got lumped (and therefore ignored). Again, just a thanks, I'm sure you are acutely aware of anything else I'd say. SchmuckyTheCat 20:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica

Why are you editing a protected AfD article in violation of policy? rootology 16:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Misplaced Pages's deletion policy.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page.

Feel free to edit the article,

-- Zanimum 16:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There was no excuse for the editing that occurred here... fortunately all of these edit were properly reverted. Rootology, I've appreciated some of the points you've made relative to the existence of the ED article. I don't quite understand why you latched onto it like you did but it is unfortunate that the whole situation degraded into accusations of folks not assuming good faith on both sides. I've learned alot in this AfD that I most certainly will apply in the future when faced with similar issues in a given AfD. The primary lesson that I will retain is to put recusal wording in my AfD logic. Take it easy. (→Netscott) 23:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Hardvice seems to have some difficulty in following logic. Would you kindly remove the now duplicated commentary he's added to the AfD? With your own addition to the AfD just prior to his reverting this content back in ... it's just redundant bloat that makes the bottom of AfD unecessarily "heavy". Also perhaps just surveil his additions... he seems to want to add irrelevant material to the AfD and it just clutters it up. Thanks. (→Netscott) 02:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd already moved your comment to that collapsible section. I guess you didn't look closely enough to see that it's at the top. You might remove your now redundant commentary and mention in your edit summary that it was already there (and that I didn't remove it... I'm surprised you didn't look at the edit summaries... because I clearly marked what I did). Bummer. (→Netscott) 07:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a woman!

Please stop calling me one! Crazyswordsman 00:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That and the song reference in your talk page after you posted this here really were meant in good humor. My apologies--my brain really did somehow mix up that in the ED talk page. :( rootology 00:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Meh. Don't worry about it. Crazyswordsman 00:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Timeline of Internet conflicts

I don’t know how much help I can be, but I’ll certainly look into it. A few points of interest may already be in Misplaced Pages, the GNAA article is quite informative. ~ CBGB 12:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, feel free to revert any changes that you think that are out of line that I've done, it's your baby and I don't as yet know how you want to mould her ~ CBGB 23:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Insulted?

If you were insulted about being lumped in with trolls and threats at "permabanned" would you sign this if I file it? SchmuckyTheCat 00:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Email me too please. rootology 00:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/MONGO (second RfC), filed. could you sign as certifying the basis? SchmuckyTheCat 15:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

and, are you on lj seattle? SchmuckyTheCat 15:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Re : Encyclopedia Dramatica AfD

Hmmm...Did World War III break out? :P As far as I see though, the formatting seems fine and readable to me. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 07:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh, just about. If you wan to read War & Piece, hit up the zillion talk page sections, sub sections, the related User Talk pages, the insane spamming of AN/I and AN by *both* sides, it reached Jimbo's talk page, there were at least FIVE RfCs in development that I'd heard of (at least one will go through it looks like), about 8-10 people banned for up to two days each, multiple contesting 3rr vios (they didn't even both enforcing any, to be honest--they just made us all cool off, or literally half the people involved would have been banned, etc. Yeah, been an interesting couple days of unneeded AfD fighting for what should have been kept as a content discussion in the talk page of the article... thanks for looking. rootology 07:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Mass AFDs/Prods

Having won your AFD fight, do you really want to go on what looks like a retaliatory spree? It's actually in your interest to have these articles in WP, since it's an argument for keeping ED. Guettarda 20:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm just marking them for tagging on a few--I actually only had two more to do, as I'm trying to demonstrate that the WP:WEB for wikis overall are valid to keep, that's all. I'm posting in the WP:WEB thread shortly that I started for discussion. I really do think the notability standards for Wikis are really, really off. It's got nothing to do with ED... rootology 20:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I see. It still seems to me that this would weaken rather than strengthen your position. I'm not invested one way or the other though. Guettarda 20:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Just trying to get the ball rolling on conversation. The more I read about the guideline, the more I think it's already dated and not right for WP in it's current form... rootology 20:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Guettarda on cutting off your nose to spite your face. Still, I want ED, ES and the rest gone, so I willingly endorsed the prods which were still there and tagged the others for notability. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

RFC

There's the personal attacks by calling people retarded you missed . The evidence has been covered up like a conspiracy, but admins can still view it. Hardvice 19:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

WHAT

Hey, I just wanted to say that this is completely ridiculous and out of line of him, and everyone there knows it, including him. I guarantee he doesn't even believe it himself, and is just hoping uninvolved parties will see it and believe him for his strong language. You deserve a lot of credit for how you've conducted yourself in all this mess. I'd give you a barnstar, but I think they're worthless :-( Don't let him get you down, and Kudos on your outstanding performance. Karwynn (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Barnstars arn't worth the paper they're printed on ~ IICATSII punch the keys 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

YOu've got mail again :-) Karwynn (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? I'm getting fed up with Hipocrite's persistent assertion that you have the final authority on ED's front page article (it's my understanding that you don't even have an account), but I don't want to say anything yet because something this outrageous coming from Hipocrite can't be just pure fabrication. He'd have to be paranoid beyond words. Karwynn (talk) 23:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

HUH??! Where did anyone even say I'm in charge of ED?! rootology 23:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

haha, he keeps saying you should have taken the article off the front page. Not exactly a reasonable expectation of a show of good faith, considering you're not even part of ED. Karwynn (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Er, link? I saw some offhand reference that he had the inside scoop on my running the Internet or something bizarre, but I didn't see where he outright said I should have removed things from ED? Unless he was talking to the others...? rootology 02:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

ED

I think you're making some good arguments and it's a pity more people (particularly admins) aren't listening. If we can have an article on every goddamn pokemon ever made, there's absolutely zero reason why there can't be a solid, encyclopedic piece written about Encyclopedia Dramatica. I chimed in on the DRV but I fear it's too little, too late. My two cents, for what they're worth. FCYTravis 02:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)