| Revision as of 08:18, 1 September 2007 view sourceVigilancePrime (talk | contribs)7,864 editsm →30=3? I wondered about it...: 'preciate the good faith assumption. Good job editing neutrally for you, BTW! Great job!← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:29, 2 September 2007 view source KillerChihuahua (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users34,578 edits →Armani: +clarify, expand slightlyNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
| == 30=3? I wondered about it... == | == 30=3? I wondered about it... == | ||
| : Jeff, Thank you for realizing that I was only copyediting someone else's erroneous change (on the ] page). I, unfortunately, even though I opened the page (figured someone had to do it and I knew that I could do so with a ] article), I have not kept up on this well lately due to overworking and no television (I love CNN). Anyway, thans for watching that page like a hawk. Misplaced Pages needs more editors like you who can take a potentially explosively-controversial or emotionally-charged article and add to it, fix it, and epand it with accuracy and neutrality. Kudos! ] 08:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC) | : Jeff, Thank you for realizing that I was only copyediting someone else's erroneous change (on the ] page). I, unfortunately, even though I opened the page (figured someone had to do it and I knew that I could do so with a ] article), I have not kept up on this well lately due to overworking and no television (I love CNN). Anyway, thans for watching that page like a hawk. Misplaced Pages needs more editors like you who can take a potentially explosively-controversial or emotionally-charged article and add to it, fix it, and epand it with accuracy and neutrality. Kudos! ] 08:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ==Armani== | |||
| Good thinking on not reverting; when an admin denies speedy, that's pretty much a closed case. Shopping for a less careful admin by edit warring over the tag is not advised. ] is ''Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having e.g. a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion; an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well.'' The Armani article may well be more flattering than you would prefer, but it is not '''blatant''' advertising. There is no brochure-like content; no salestalk. The article does not exist '''exclusively''' to promote a product. It does '''not''' meet speedy criteria. ]<sup>]</sup> 10:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:29, 2 September 2007
oob
Hey Jeff. =) I hope you're up to no good again. I have to take my little breaks too; this place is frustrating, no doubt about it. For a minute I thought the "boo" comment was yet another cheerful evaluation of my admin activities. Let me know if I can smite anyone for you. ;-) ··coelacan 08:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Good to see you around again - and with old colourful userpage as well :-). WjBscribe 18:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's good to see you! :-) But *sniff* you've lost the barnstar I gave you??? I don't see it on your userpage. :-P Cheers mate! Raystorm (¿Sí?) 18:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- *Grin* Tsk tsk, downloading music ilegally? ;-D Raystorm (¿Sí?) 20:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's good to see you! :-) But *sniff* you've lost the barnstar I gave you??? I don't see it on your userpage. :-P Cheers mate! Raystorm (¿Sí?) 18:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Good to see you back on form Jeff. :) Btw, see the gay debate last night? I bet on Obama for President (and I will), but I'd campaign for Kucinich. He's a no-hoper but so sweet... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- *Grin* I'm afraid I don't know him, although I might have heard his music if he was at the Europride. ;-) That was a blast! I will check him out though. And you went to Poland for vacation? :-S I would have thought that wasn't too friendly right now, even if the evil twins are about to be royally kicked out of power... Me, I'm at Switzerland, enjoying the sights, food and fireworks. ;-) Cheers! Raystorm (¿Sí?) 09:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Aherm
Jeff darling, much as I remain willing to shout at IPs that a being rude, please don't delete threads from my talkpage. I only realised the damn thing was missing a few minutes ago. At least if you'd blanked the whole thing I'd have realised stuff was gone... (PS. that's not really an encouragement for you to blank my whole talkpage when you want my attention) WjBscribe 14:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Alleged vandalism on Talk:Larry Craig
Whether or not it was the correct thing to do, I don't think you can call it vandalism, based off the category discussion at the bottom of the page. Ben Hocking 20:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- I can certainly call it vandalism. We are not talking about a category, but a project tag. That's an entirely different matter. Jeffpw 20:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- I acknowledge it is a different matter, but certainly it's possible to believe that even an established editor could think (whether or not it's true) that the same policy applies to project tags. As for me, I have no idea if liability concerns extend to project tags. Ben Hocking 20:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Liability does *not* extend to project tags. And I am under no obligation to assume good faith. It's not a core policy; it's a guideline. Now thanks for your unasked for opinion, which doesn't interest me. This conversation is concluded. Jeffpw 20:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- In any case, adding the project tag isn't because he's gay (which he denies), it's because he was caught trolling for gay sex, which also comes under our purview. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Liability does *not* extend to project tags. And I am under no obligation to assume good faith. It's not a core policy; it's a guideline. Now thanks for your unasked for opinion, which doesn't interest me. This conversation is concluded. Jeffpw 20:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- I acknowledge it is a different matter, but certainly it's possible to believe that even an established editor could think (whether or not it's true) that the same policy applies to project tags. As for me, I have no idea if liability concerns extend to project tags. Ben Hocking 20:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
30=3? I wondered about it...
- Jeff, Thank you for realizing that I was only copyediting someone else's erroneous change (on the McClellan page). I, unfortunately, even though I opened the page (figured someone had to do it and I knew that I could do so with a neutral article), I have not kept up on this well lately due to overworking and no television (I love CNN). Anyway, thans for watching that page like a hawk. Misplaced Pages needs more editors like you who can take a potentially explosively-controversial or emotionally-charged article and add to it, fix it, and epand it with accuracy and neutrality. Kudos! VigilancePrime 08:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Armani
Good thinking on not reverting; when an admin denies speedy, that's pretty much a closed case. Shopping for a less careful admin by edit warring over the tag is not advised. WP:CSD#A11 is Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having e.g. a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion; an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well. The Armani article may well be more flattering than you would prefer, but it is not blatant advertising. There is no brochure-like content; no salestalk. The article does not exist exclusively to promote a product. It does not meet speedy criteria. KillerChihuahua 10:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)