Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:13, 21 August 2007

Archives: 1/2/2007 - 5/5/2007 | 5/5/2007 - 6/18/2007 | 6/19/2007 - 7/23/2007 | 7/24/2007 - present

talk page and history, please?

Dear Krimpet, thanks once again for the Zeitgeist the Movie article. I would like to also receive the edit history and the talk page. Are you willing to provide them? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Owwwww!!!

My retinas! ;) - Alison ☺ 18:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Aww, is it really that bad? =P I wanted to go for a pink/yellow look like my signature, but I'll admit I'm not the best when it comes to color coordination and such -- if you can think of any better colors, feel free to change them =) --Krimpet 19:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait... your signature is pinky yellow? I'm seeing orange and burgundy... *rubs eyes frantically* ~ Riana ⁂ 19:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry Riana, you don't need to see the optometrist =) I darkened the colors a while back, making them orange-and-burgandyish, after people told me the yellow, in particular, was hard to read on their screens. Now, to satisfy my sudden unexplained craving for cake... --Krimpet 20:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Naww - it's not the worst :) Check out Battenberg cake, BTW - Alison ☺ 19:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Anna Svidersky

Your protection of this article seems a little premature. It's not exactly a sustained war. What led you to it? It's not on WP:RPP or your talk page. Tyrenius 03:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I came across the controversy through browsing recent changes. The sheer amount of back-and-forth reversions from multiple editors over the last couple days -- including some admins who should know better -- indicates to me that all involved need to slow down and discuss this on the talk page. --Krimpet 03:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Tyrenius 03:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a revert-war to me. Good call on the prot., I'd say. It was going nowhere & needed to be defused - Alison ☺ 03:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

CH2 script

... is awesome & I'm hooked on it already. Only one thing, though. It leaks code from the line below;

document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
             + 'http://commons.wikimedia.org/search/?title=User:Krimpet/CH2.js' 
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');

... when I'm doing an edit or when I've just done one, the doc.write often spills it into the text, be it on the edittext or in the page display. See this one. I'm thinking that the above line should be conditional somehow but haven't the js or system knowledge to fix it myself. Anyways - dere ya go ;) - Alison ☺ 18:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

PatPeter

Hello. Would you mind commenting on the unblock request by PatPeter (talk · contribs) on their talk page? Thanks, Sandstein 20:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Blink

Template:Deprecation notice --MZMcBride 22:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Opened another Lolcode DRV

Hi, I put Lolcode up for DRV again, as it has had significant media and geek culture coverage since then. Since you closed the AFD, I figured you would probably be interested in the second DRV. It doesn't have anything to do with your closure, just with the article having become notable since then. Thanks --Lucid 07:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time out to write an articulate and informative DRV -- given the sources that you provided, I'm satisfied that it now meets notability and verifiability requirements. I have supported restoring the article. =) --Krimpet 04:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Block

Hi Krimpet. I wanted to say, I do understand your reasons for the block, but I obviously didn't think it was the correct thing to do (even if it had been another editor you'd blocked, and not me). I appreciate your fairly rapid unblocking; thank you. Also, I'd like to apologise for threatening you with an RFC in my initial unblock statement. I'm definitely not going to do that; it would be unfair, as was threatening you with it in the first place. Sorry.

I might see if I can find out how to request my block log be cleaned by a developer, if you are happy for this to be done. I was quite proud of it. Is this the case? Neil ム 20:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what the procedure for contacting the developers to clean your block log is, though I know it has been done for users in the past. You may cite this diff to the developers when you contact them, to confirm: I endorse removing the block from your block log, as I only blocked you as a preventative rather than punitive measure, and now that things have been worked out, a permanent black mark on your otherwise clean block log seems overly harsh and unnecessary. Good luck! --Krimpet 21:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I created a DRV to make sure there were no reliable sources

An editor has asked for a deletion review of PAGE_NAME. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Eyu100 22:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 11

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 11	18 August 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: State and national updates Project news Cleanup system revamped Assessment Deletion debates Stubs renamed New York Featured member IRC channel goes global From the editors Minnesota bridge collapses One year after SRNC: A reflection
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot 21:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Your warning on Commons

Krimpet, might I ask where you were asked to threaten me with a block learned about the dispute on Commons? Elonka warned me on her user subpage here, and I see no message here or there from her to you.Proabivouac 07:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Elonka did not "ask me to threaten you with a block on Commons"; I was simply doing my usual job as a Commons admin, and accusing both Elonka and I like that is completely out of line. I saw that you were repeatedly removing content on Commons that was under the project's scope, and as I noticed after a little investigation that it appeared to be part of a dispute on the English Misplaced Pages, I gave you a firm but good-faith warning. As I said on your Commons talk page, please leave this content dispute on the English Misplaced Pages. Commons is only an image repository. --Krimpet 08:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't level any accusation, but asked you a question. (I see why you thought my question accusatory and have amended it accordingly.)

Elonka brought a dispute from Talk:Kaaba onto Commons to begin with (see the discussion for how she suggests bowdlerizing the image as a compromise) and then brought the resulting Commons dispute back onto Misplaced Pages here.

So, again, how did you learn of this dispute?Proabivouac 09:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Elonka requested a third-party opinion on #wikimedia-commons, the public IRC channel where I, like many Commons users and admins, regularly idle (and all users, including yourself, are encouraged to join), for a quick, informal clarification of whether the Muhammad image was allowed per Commons policies or not. Since I wasn't busy at the time, I looked into it, and confirmed for her that it was indeed within Commons's project scope. After I gave her the answer she was looking for, she left IRC, and that was the end of her involvement.

After looking into it, I had the suspicion that something wasn't quite right about this dispute, and wanted to defuse it if possible before it got out of hand, so I decided to dig deeper. I quickly looked over both your and Elonka's contributions, both on Commons and here, and I noticed that this seemed to be part of a prior, very large dispute here on the English Misplaced Pages, and worse, that you clearly appeared to be wikistalking Elonka. It is for these reasons that I decided to give you a mildly stern warning -- I wanted to make it clear that disrupting Commons as part of an existing dispute from the English Misplaced Pages would not be tolerated.

Despite the many allegations that you have been leveling against Elonka, I, and that other random administrator who commented on your talk page, there is not an IRC cabal conspiring against you. Yes, I did initially find out about this dispute while answering Elonka's question on IRC. However, had I discovered your actions through Special:Recentchanges, the administrators' noticeboards, or anywhere else, I would have come to the same conclusion, and issued the same warning; your contributions alone are what I based my warning on. Elonka did not even mention you in the conversation, nor did she even assert that she was correct in the dispute -- she was simply asking for informal help in clarifying Commons policies regarding the image in question. It is your wholly unacceptable conduct -- wikistalking, veiled personal attacks, and serial assumptions of bad faith -- that has been attracting administrative attention on its own. --Krimpet 10:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)