This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ched (talk | contribs) at 00:37, 25 March 2015 (→Laurence Olivier: re to Gerda). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:37, 25 March 2015 by Ched (talk | contribs) (→Laurence Olivier: re to Gerda)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
 | I am not constantly or consistently on wiki at any given time. I may be able to spend 10 hours a day editing; or I may be away for extended periods of time. The reasons aren't important to wiki, but the point is that if you don't get a response here in short order - please feel free to look elsewhere. It has never been my intent to ignore anyone, and it never will be. If I don't respond in a reasonable time frame, feel free to ping me again, or drop me an email. (which I get on my phone). |
IJS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xx3nTsFJEQE
— Ched : ? 09:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh yea, forgot to mention
The pings on AN for Kirby D didn't work. It's not a reliable gizmo Misplaced Pages:Notifications#Known_bugs NE Ent 20:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- OK - thanks for letting me know. I'll try to remember that in the future. — Ched : ? 21:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
MarkBernstein is ANI again
For again, linking on his talk page and discussing links. The links discuss me off wikipedia. Gamaliel, ever protective doesn't believe it's a violation. May I comment there? --DHeyward (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi DHeyward. I'm not able to be on-wiki much at all right now so I will just say this. What I posted at AE was not a final or conclusive statement, so there's nothing in anything I have said that would forbid it. I didn't close or log anything. I would likely suggest avoiding it if you can, but if it's aimed directly at you, I can understand you wanting to defend yourself as well. For my part, I just don't know if you may or not. I'm sorry I can't be much more help. — Ched : ? 14:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm operating under the assumption it's in effect and I need permission from an uninvolved adminstrator. I'm asking for persmission to comment, not judgement as to whether it's allowed without permission. --DHeyward (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- OK - yes - you have my permission. — Ched : ? 16:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
TfD
lolololol — Huntster (t @ c) 03:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- :-) — Ched : ? 03:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
It is the people I miss (not the project)
Indeed, "heh!" LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- A simple acknowledgement, years ago, by Less, kept me "in the WP game." Let me thank you now. It is wonderful to "see" you.. Buster Seven Talk 11:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- Damned good to see you still about and looking in Mark. I certainly miss your sage voice about the place. I hope life is treating you well, and that you and your family are all doing well as well. (did I just "go to the 'well' one too many times there?). Hey there Buster. — Ched : ? 13:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- I shall not reference the herb joke again, remembering how it confused you last time... LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- LOL - they were good days. Sad to say, but I become confused even more easily now than I did then. :) — Ched : ? 11:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- I shall not reference the herb joke again, remembering how it confused you last time... LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
SEO bump by linking website from wikipedia
FYI, my understanding is that we fixed or at least heavily mitigated that SEO bump back in 2007, by switching the software to serve all external links on Misplaced Pages with the nofollow attribute, so Google stopped assigning any added page rank to pages linked from here. The change was made against a bunch of SEO pressure and in fact we get a lot less link spam now than we did back then. There may be other reasons to not let a link into a talk page, but directly creating page rank for the target site isn't a big factor any more. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- Well with over 200 variables in Google's algorithms and their penchant for secrecy, it's certainly more complex than I can follow. But alas, I gave up the web-design business more than 10 years ago, so it's no surprise that there are many things that I'm blissfully unaware of. I suppose this is a reference to a post on WP:AE, but given the atmosphere and participants there - I doubt I'll be returning any time soon. Feel free to fix any of my mistakes on said page, I shan't be offended in the least. And thank you for the update; I see now that several folks have confirmed my various suspicions with their merry hi-jinx. Amazing what now passes for acceptable behavior about the project. Best for my BP that I avoid any further involvement. Thanks again for the info 50. HAGD. — Ched : ? 12:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Bonny Hicks Edit
Thanks for the "thank you"! Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Laurence Olivier
I had no idea this would take on such epic proportions. I am exhausted, but I will try to respond. I am deliberately not commenting on the Oliver talk page because it is a FA, and I think it best to not inflame things. Several things I want to cover:
- For those who would say my edit was a "revert", you are mistaken. I saw a debate via edits and edit summaries regarding the hidden text, and I did not "revert" to any version, I removed it entirely.
I removed it for several reasons: 1. It violates both WP:OWN and WP:HIDDEN. 2. The context of the hidden text was a pure and unadulterated lie fabrication. I looked at the talk page, the archives, and the FA page. Never was there any consensus established one way or the other regarding iBoxes. The hidden text was purely meant to intimidate others - and the all CAPS part of it was extremely puerile.
- The faux-thread on the talk page was an attempt to establish an alibi after the fact.
- Section two.
I have not read through all posts and pages, but I am dumbfounded that the vicious attacks on Dreadstar went without blocks. I do understand that Admins. must have a thick skin, but that was beyond the pale. I do understand, respect, and even admire Harry's efforts to contain the situation, so I won't belabor the issue; other than to say "admin abuse" ... uhh yea. Oh, one more thing - If I ever, and I mean EVER see such behavior again, I WILL block immediately. (If someone wants to ping the offending parties, I have no objections. And I did see at least one warning from HJ, unfortunately classified as "rubish bin")
- Section three
I haven't saved "diffs" yet, but I recall Harry mentioning Arbcom, and I fully agree with that. Two things however, ...
- I strongly disagree that it should be an "infobox" case, but rather a "case/OWN"
- I would ask that the case be delayed until sometime past late April. One reason being that Arbcom has recently taken a "2 case issue" which will consume a great deal of attention. The second reason being that I would prefer to participate in said case, but am unable to be consistently on wiki at this time.
All that said, I'll drop talk page notices since "ping" seems to be unreliable. — Ched : ? 23:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'd prefer there not be an arbitration case at all. Far too much energy has been expended on this already, an it seems such a trivial thing to get so worked up about. It would be lovely if the warring parties could just sit down and discuss the merits or lack thereof of an infobox for any given article rather than edit-warring over hidden text. The issue may yet land back in ArbCom's court, as it's clear that the original case did little to resolve the Infobox Wars, but if both sides would just take a more constructive approach it needn't. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- This isn't even part of the "infobox wars"; to my knowledge, the two users who attempted to insert an infobox haven't got a clue about the controversy. The article's been infobox-less since Dec, and nobody tried to add one till today. To all appearances, it was two isolated incidents. Take who to Arb for what, exactly? Alakzi (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The context of the hidden text was a pure and unadulterated lie. I looked at the talk page, the archives, and the FA page. ...
Well, I've been harping on about how there's not been any consensus for quite some time, but nobody's cared to back me up. Alakzi (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)- (ec) I am not permitted to appear on that page, but backed up, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Harry, I would love to see your vision come to pass, honestly I would. But it's really not about infoboxes - it's about walled gardens and ownership of articles. Actually, I think there was some good from the 2013 case ... I see many folks now working together in that respect. The problem is a few individuals who don't understand the concept of collaboration. I am more than willing to "go with the flow" ... but disruption is not a good thing. IJS — Ched : ? 00:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- re to Alakzi: Much of what you've said I have taken into consideration. I'm trying to step back and look at a larger picture than the one article. You are very astute, and I appreciate your input - thank you. — Ched : ? 00:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: .. you are not restricted here in any fashion. You may speak your mind. — Ched : ? 00:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)