Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:37, 9 October 2007

Welcome to my talk page.

• Please continue a discussion on the page where it was started.

• This means that if I have left a message on your talk page, please DO NOT post a reply here.
• Reply on your talk page instead. I will still be notified of your reply.
  

• Click on this link to start a new discussion.

This is Equazcion's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 15 sections are present.

Merger proposed: Electric helicopter → Helicopter

It has been proposed to merge the content of Electric helicopter into Helicopter. Since you have previously edited one of these articles, I thought you might be interested. You're welcome to participate in the discussion if you like. --B. Wolterding 18:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Jetpack article AfD

I have responded to your comment at my talk page. Cheers, Black Falcon 05:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :-)

I know we agree on a lot of things, but I appreciate the comment you made on Nick1000's talk page!

Incidently, that's the way that I want to remove all trivia sections: incorporate the material, not remove it (unless it's not salvagable)- Ta bu shi da yu 09:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, and yes we are definitely in agreement on that :) Equazcion • argue/contribs • 09:27, 09/15/2007

Trivia guideline

Using the generic guideline tag, instead of the style tag or the content tag, was meant to be a temporary solution to avoid an edit war :P -- Ned Scott 18:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that. I'll go back. Equazcion • argue/contribs • 18:49, 09/17/2007

Talk page indenting

So, I'm curious. Do you feel I should have indented, for instance, my comment in this thread, or is it mostly just my starting a new section that bothers you?--Father Goose 04:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I think that's another place where you should've just indented. Indenting doesn't necessarily mean that you're replying specifically to the last comment. People who are adding their perspective to a general conversation will also indent. When you outdent completely or create a new section, it's like you're excluding yourself from the discussion that's gone on until then. It's like you're starting your own new discussion. Equazcion • argue/contribs • 04:23, 09/18/2007

Hmm, WP:TP#Formatting would suggest that I'm using indents correctly. The purpose of indenting is to signify that you're replying to a specific person's comments, and if you're not doing that, you shouldn't use indents at all. Forcing everyone to add an indent any time they add any new comment just crams everything to the right side of the screen. Nonetheless, I'll cut down on using new section headings.--Father Goose 20:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I guess I disagree with the guideline then. :) Thanks for agreeing to cut down on new section headings though. Equazcion • argue/contribs • 21:00, 09/18/2007

Template:Integrate

Perhaps you could retain its functionality by adding a parameter to template:trivia that allows for a more compact version. Just a thought. Even if you do, though, wait a while first, so people don't revert it out of a salting reflex. It might be more readily embraced if it isn't identified as "a duplicate".--Father Goose 00:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite know how to add parameters yet. But that might be something to discuss in the future, yes. Equazcion • argue/contribs • 00:59, 09/19/2007

archiving on Misplaced Pages talk:Trivia sections

Misplaced Pages talk:Trivia sections is not a user talk page, and will by many visitors be read infrequently or for the first time. Weekly archives are still too much. / edg ☺ ★ 05:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the only time a thread will get archived is if the thread has been inactive for a week and there are at least 10 remaining threads on the talk page. A minimum of 10 threads will always stay on the talk page. Do we really need more than the 10 most recently-active discussions -- especially considering how large these discussions tend to get? Equazcion • argue/contribs • 05:41, 09/19/2007

Sending information away weekly is premature, for the reason stated above. This makes the discussion more difficult for new readers, as well as — uhm, please let me apologize for repeating myself — editors who do not read Talk:Avoid trivia sections as often as the regular posters do.

The setting so if there are only 9 threads the oldest will not be archived does not address this problem. The issue of premature archiving needs to be addressed by the timing of the archive. Many of the threads on that talk pages are short and repetitive; new drive-bys will tend to bump off a recent threads this way. / edg ☺ ★ 05:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not what the setting means. The setting means that there will never be less than 10 threads on the page (unless someone removes them manually). If there are 15 threads, and 10 of them are old, only 5 will be archived. Nothing active in the last 7 days gets archived, and no mater what, the 10 most recently-active threads stay on the page. Never less. You think the people who neglect to even read the guideline will read more than 10 talk page threads? Equazcion • argue/contribs • 06:06, 09/19/2007

I think sensible new visitors will skip over several trivia rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! threads.

I understand what the setting means. I don't think threads should be archived in a week. I think a figure of a few months would be better.

Question: Are you just fighting now? Should I just never say anything to you? Would that be better? / edg ☺ ★ 06:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

A few months? Do you have any idea how large the page would get? I've been doing a manual archive every couple of weeks, and this last time archived 127K. Take a look at Misplaced Pages talk:Trivia sections/Archive 7. No, I'm not "just fighting". I just hate having to wade through miles of conversation that nobody's paid any attention to in the last week to find what I'm looking for. This particular page gets very large very fast and I'm trying to keep it under control, which until now I've done manually. I can just continue to do that if need be. Equazcion • argue/contribs • 15:13, 09/19/2007

Signature

I'm not complaining or asking you to change it, but I would like to point out that your boxes signature (although recognizable) is quite unreadable to me. I would prefer if you would choose a formatting that involved fewer borders. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There's only one box, an outline around the whole thing. I'm not sure how that would keep you from being able to read my signature. Unless the text is too small, but that has nothing to do with the box. Equazcion • argue/contribs • 15:16, 09/19/2007

I actually did come here to request that you change your signature. It looks OK when viewing a page, but it clutters the page when editing. I noticed the size when your 8 character response showed up as 300 due to the size of your sig. Any chance you could cut it down to a line or two instead of four? Thanks! Chaz 20:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand. My signature length was 287 characters, and the usual max employed by Preferences is 255. I've cut mine down to 258. Hope that's sufficient. Cheery-o. Equazcion • argue/contribs • 20:20, 09/19/2007

You could cut it down to 255 by using "border:#009". You could also consider dropping "contribs"; I wonder how many people need that link right at-hand.--Father Goose 20:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems people will never be happy :D i  21:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah tell me about it... Thanks FG, I cut the color code down. Now no one can (technically) complain. Bwahaha. I'll keep the contribs for now, since I'm already below the max characters. Equazcion • argue/contribs • 22:14, 09/19/2007

009, not 099, Equazcion. Unless you like that cyan. It's actually not that bad. Maybe you've already decided to keep it.--Father Goose 00:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't know how you caught that. But actually I'm gonna try the cyan for a while, see how it fits. Equazcion • argue/contribs • 00:52, 09/20/2007

You need a longer user name, I. :-p --Father Goose 00:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Why? i  01:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Because no one can refer to you. "I said this and bla bla". Who knows if I'm referring to me or I (you)? See the problem? Did I say it, or did you (I) say it? Who's on first? Equazcion • argue/contribs • 01:41, 09/20/2007

←That has nothing to do with the length ^_^ . But I regret this name, and am trying to find a suitable replacement, but all of the good ones are taken by people who made two edits in 2003 or some other nonsense like that. i  01:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You need a longer user name so we can restore some order to this godforsaken place. Equazcion has made his sig shorter, you must make your name longer. Everyone must conform. Hut hut.

Oh, and Equation, you've misspelled your name.--Father Goose 02:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Individuality is disorder. Good catch there FG, I should've run it through a spell checker. Oh well. Next time. Equazcion • argue/improves • 06:53, 09/20/2007

This might be off topic, but I was just wondering.. if the limit is 255, then how were you able to bypass the sig limit? -- Ned Scott 07:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

By subst'ing a template. There's a no-transclusion rule for signatures, because it would be a drain on the servers to have to go and grab everyones' signatures every time a talk page is loaded, but subst'ing only grabs the template once, at posting time. Equazcion • argue/improves • 07:42, 09/20/2007

Goodbye

Im retiring, is that still news? --Alien joe 22:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Strike

I saw that you created Hollywood film strike (2008). I've been loading up on headlines about the situation via Google Alerts; let me know if you want me to put them on the talk page. I'd suggest a different article title, though... that one doesn't work. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm totally open to suggestions on the title. I had a hard time coming up with one, and ended up settling. Start a discussion on its talk page if you want to brainstorm it. Yeah, put whatever good info you can up, cause I'm always on the lookout for it, and I don't have quite as detailed a grasp of the situation as I'd like to. And of course feel free to add to the article, it's a fairly slim summation of something that's gonna be pretty gargantuan if it happens. Thanks! Equazcion • argue/improves • 01:40, 09/21/2007

TFD

Saw your merge suggestion on the TFD for Template:Refimprove. I just wrote this for another question but it speaks to your concerns as well. Just FYI.

Having been deeply involved in the discussion on {{unreferenced}} and having significant conversations about Misplaced Pages:Unreferenced articles I can tell you that the rationale for including external links (that offer some support for the article, and WP:AGF generally leads to assuming they are supportive) as a reference for the sake of changing to {{refimprove}} is the distinction between "Any" and "Adequately". An article that does not have ANY references, violates most core content policies on Misplaced Pages. While an article that is not ADEQUATELY referenced just needs improvement. So we work hardest to address the {{unreferenced}} first. For some some time while the discussion was ongoing about "Any" and "Adequately" the {{unreferenced}} was used for both as the language kept changing. Now we have final resolution and thousands of articles that are miss tagged.

There are a number of conversation and conclusion on Template talk:Unreferenced

Thanks for your thoughts Jeepday (talk) 03:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Signature

Thank you for using a less bold signature than what you had used before. The dotted lines and non-bolded text are, to me, a welcome change to the in-your-face sig you had before. Guroadrunner 10:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone finally approves!!!! — i  19:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it's about time :) No problem Guroad, I'm glad my sig seems friendlier now. Equazcion • argue/improves • 02:45, 09/23/2007

Flag of Jewish Autonomous Oblast

Hello Equazcion, thank you for your recent comments and edits on Talk:Flag of Jewish Autonomous Oblast. I just wanted to share with you my response on the talk page... "As the present article states, the subject has both regional and religious significance. Also, here are a few other articles for Russian Oblast and regional flags. These are listed in Category:Flags of Russia."

• Flag of Kaliningrad Oblast
• Flag of Tuva
• Flag of North Ossetia-Alania
• Flag of Ingushetia

Thanks and take care. Culturalrevival 15:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Avoid trivia proposal shutting down

No one seems to think Misplaced Pages:Avoid trivia was useful in its current form, so I'm retiring it as an unneeded distraction. At least now I know. Reverting to the old redirect to WP:TRIVIA. / edg ☺ ★ 01:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay. In all seriousness you might want to drop by WP:ROC -- it's somewhat along the lines of what you were trying to do. Equazcion • argue/improves • 01:21, 09/24/2007

I've seen it. It's not very useful and doesn't solve anything. I don't think my ideas fit into the Goose's vision, so I don't see myself as being all that helpful. For what it's worth, I made a few suggestions for a previous version of that document; I think the word "scope" is retained, but nothing else worked for him. If he wants to cannibalize any of my attempt, that's great.

Thanks for your help in this. Meant to say that before. / edg ☺ ★ 02:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I continue to be totally open to criticism of ROC. Any comment along the lines of "this is wrong " or "this is ineffective " I can respond to, and might even agree with. Back when I reverted your near-complete rewrite of what had been at Misplaced Pages:Relevance, I wasn't rejecting all your ideas -- it's just that they were fairly rudimentary, having been put together in the space of a day. You swore off all involvement with the proposal after that, so it's no surprise it doesn't reflect your ideas.

I agree with Equazcion that a "relevance" guideline (i.e., WP:ROC) could probably address many of the concerns you are raising here. It'd have to be limited to things we can all agree on -- but even those things are likely to be an improvement over the current situation. There is plenty of material even inclusionists would regard as irrelevant -- can we try to work on a common standard for that?--Father Goose 05:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The first thing we would have to agree on would be restoring Misplaced Pages is not a collection of trivia to WP:NOT. / edg ☺ ★ 14:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how that follows. Is this supposed to be a bargaining tactic? Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:01, 09/24/2007

Not follows, preceeds. Not a bargaining tactic because it is understood in advance that it will not be considered. / edg ☺ ★ 15:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that the off-chance that we'd be willing to agree to restore NOT#TRIVIA is the only way you'd consider working on WP:ROC. So it is a bargaining tactic, just not one you're confident will work. I'd say you're correct about the latter part. Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:13, 09/24/2007

My opposition to NOT#TRIVIA is totally unconnected to ROC; the focus of WP:NOT is "none of this material is permitted", and that's not true of trivia. But I certainly do advocate a "relevance" guideline as the right means to identify and get rid of irrelevant material in articles. Since we share at least some goals, I don't understand why we can't make progress on them.--Father Goose 21:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Contractions

Thank you for letting me know. I am using AWB for the most part, and don't purposely remove them from quotes or links...but I'm not perfect, and may improperly change a few. I will be more careful in the future to carefully look at all the changes! Ctjf83 21:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

archiving

I shall have to do it more frequently manually, but I like to keep the current stuff around. I am experimenting with subject archives. Thanks for the offer, however! DGG (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, could use some help in this regard! --Orange Mike 14:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you sure could :) I set your talk page to archive discussions that have been inactive for 30 days, with an exception to keep at least 15 discussions on the page at all times. I also set up the archive index. The first archive and index should get created automatically within the next 24 hours. If you want any of those settings changed, let me know. Equazcion • argue/improves • 14:21, 10/2/2007

¡Muy muchas gracias! But... User talk:Orangemike/Archive1 already exists and isn't in the index. Can anything be done about that? --Orange Mike 14:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I fixed that by moving the archive to the standard naming convention, with a space before the number. So just so you know, since an archive already exists, when the automatic archiving takes place, that archive will be added to. When that archive reaches 200k (which may even happen today because of the length of your talk page) a new one will get created automatically (Archive 2), and be added to until IT reaches 200k, and so on. Equazcion • argue/improves • 14:30, 10/2/2007

Oh and you're welcome :) Equazcion • argue/improves • 14:31, 10/2/2007

Circumcision should remain manually archived

Hello. If you look at Talk:Circumcision and its history you will see that I have been manually archiving it for a very long time (31 archives). It is not suitable for automatic archiving due to the nature of the debates on the page. Please do not add any archive bots to it in the future. Thank you. -- Avi 01:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Also it was not appropriate for you to remove the controversy tag without discussion as part of that edit. The way, the truth, and the light 01:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the nature of the debate should have to do with autoarchiving, but if you like doing it manually that's fine. The bot settings shouldn't be removed by a simple undo though, because you're also undoing other things, like cleanup and indexer bot settings. In the future, if you don't like a bot and don't know how to remove it other than undoing the edit, please just ask the person who added it to kindly remove it. PS I didn't remove any controversy tags. Equazcion • argue/improves • 01:22, 10/3/2007

You're right, you didn't remove any tags. Sorry, I was just confused looking at the diffs; I didn't mean to accuse you of doing it on purpose anyway. The way, the truth, and the light 01:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That's alright, no problem. Equazcion • argue/improves • 01:41, 10/3/2007

Template:AutoArchivingNotice

Sorry about that. I was hoping I would be able to coerce these messageboxes into appearing correctly while using only <div>s instead of tables, so that we didn't have to keep using {{!}}s everywhere. But it looks like I can't. It should be aligned properly now – – Gurch 14:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It might be a good idea though to test major redesigns of widely-used templates using your sandbox first. Otherwise you could piss a lot of people off :) Equazcion • argue/improves • 14:44, 10/3/2007

Thanks!

Haha, apparently I've been approved for VP for over a week, and never noticed...thanks for letting me know! Ctjf83 19:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem :) Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:14, 10/4/2007

Argue!

Argue... Argue... Argue... Argue... Argue... Argue... Argue......

(sorry about spamming your talk page. I was looking for something to do and caught sight of you signature. -Icewedge 01:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC) )

That's okay, I sometimes spam it myself for fun. Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:51, 10/6/2007

Question

Hey, you seem to know a bit about Wiki, can you tell me how to fix the users boxes on my profile. They are not lined up at all at the top, and need to be straight across...(I can't do anything straight!) LOL, anyway, let me know if you can help. Thanks! Ctjf83 04:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You can do that using a "wiki table". You make those like this:

{| something on line #1| next thing on line #1| yet another thing on line #1

|-

| something on line #2| next thing on line #2

|}

It may seem a bit daunting at first. I can start you off by editing your user page directly if you want. Just let me know. Equazcion • argue/improves • 05:07, 10/6/2007

Actually, I just looked at your user page and it looks like the boxes are aligned pretty straight right now. What exactly do you want to change? Equazcion • argue/improves • 05:10, 10/6/2007

I've aligned your user boxes with a table. Let me know if that's what you had in mind. Equazcion • argue/improves • 05:16, 10/6/2007

Yes, that was very good, I just made it 3 on a row, instead of 4, but thank you very much for showing me! You're awesome!! Ctjf83 05:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem, glad I could help :) Equazcion • argue/improves • 05:24, 10/6/2007

Re: boggled

copied from User talk:East718:

Okay... I just spent the past hour hacking your user page, and the only thing I can't figure out is how you managed to get the text to orient backwards even when editing the page. If you feel like letting me in on this, I am really, really curious how you did it. Email me if you don't want to publicize it. Thanks!

I changed my mind, don't tell me yet, I think I'm close. Equazcion • argue/improves • 09:25, 10/6/2007

Ok, I'm pretty sure it's a control character for bidirectional text, but I don't know how you entered it. It wasn't entered as an HTML entity, because it not only confuses the wiki, but it also confuses Firefox's "view source" window (source code immediately after the character actually displays backwards in the source window!). It's completely invisible to everything. I can enter my own control character manually as an HTML entity, but it displays when editing the page again, and doesn't confuse the textarea; whereas yours doesn't display anywhere. I can copy and paste the chunk of text to reproduce the effect, but I can't figure out how to create it from scratch. PLEASE clue me in, it takes a lot to intrigue me these days. Thanks. Equazcion • argue/improves • 10:18, 10/6/2007

Haha, I'll let you in on the secret. It's the Unicode left-right override character, 0x2020D. You can represent it in HTML with ‮. Have fun! east.718 at 17:45, October 6, 2007

But I tried that, see User:Equazcion/Sandbox4. It works, but it doesn't quite do what happens on your page. In my sandbox page, you can edit the page and see the HTML code and see the ‮. It doesn't affect the editing at all. When editing your page, the edit box is affected, and the character code is invisible, even when viewing the source code in Firefox -- and like I said, it even messes up the view source window, making some code display backwards! How come that doesn't happen in my sandbox page? Equazcion • argue/improves • 18:44, 10/6/2007

PS, You got rid of the box around your signature. I'm not too happy about that. We boxed-signature people get a lot of guff and need to stick together. Bring back the box, fight the power :) Equazcion • argue/improves • 18:52, 10/6/2007

You typed in &8238; directly; I copied the invisible LRO character it creates and pasted it directly into the edit window. As for the box, if you're gonna put me in a kimura... east.718 at 05:06, October 7, 2007

Ahhhh, I see... thanks. And that's some stylin' box you got there, keep it up :) Equazcion • argue/improves • 10:55, 10/7/2007

"Limited accommodation for popularity,"

Why not develop that into an essay? I seems a very good way of wording it. (Btw, you say you are in NYC. Were you at the last meetup in August? DGG (talk) 09:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. An essay's not a bad idea, I might give that a try.

I do live in NYC but I wasn't at the meetup. As much as I enjoy Misplaced Pages, it's more of a side-hobby-distraction, and not something for which I would attend an event. I'm also not too keen on mixing cyberspace with realspace; I think it would be a creepy letdown to meet people in real life after having only known them online for so long. I'd rather continue to know them just as I imagine them. Equazcion • argue/improves • 11:28, 10/7/2007

I fully understand, but I found them on the whole rather friendlier and more interesting than I had imagined based on the limited style of interaction here. And about half the people were less-than-regulars. DGG (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Improper use of rollback

You are not rolling back vandalism, you are restoring large swaths of unsourced trivia to the detriment of each and every article you touch. Please stop. Burntsauce 16:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

See discussions at Misplaced Pages talk:Trivia sections and on your talk page. The consensus is that your edits are disruptive and my rollbacks are supported. Participate in the discussion before you continue to remove these sections again. Thanks. Equazcion • argue/improves • 17:00, 10/9/2007

While I don't necessarily agree with Burntsauce's mass removal of trivia sections, it has generally been agreed on Misplaced Pages talk:Trivia sections that it was not vandalism. Please don't refer to it as such in your edit summaries as it only enflames the situation. Thanks. Chaz 17:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm only referring to it as vandalism because it's hard to roll back all these edits with any other rollback function. The vandalism rollback can be accomplished with a single step. I want to make it clear that I don't necessarily consider these edits vandalism -- it would just be very difficult to roll everything back using another function. Equazcion • argue/improves • 17:08, 10/9/2007

I believe the rollback was absolutely appropriate, and the characterization of the changes being rolled back as "vandalism" was certainly plausible. I don't think it's generally agreed that "vandalism" is the wrong thing to call Burtsauce's large-scale contentious edits. Wikidemo 17:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): You improperly used rollback, but I feel you were acting in good-faith. Please do not use mass rollback like that again. Request handled by: Nishkid64 (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe the rollback is proper, and I endorse it. There is no good way other than a rollback to get rid of a large-scale improper edit. The block totally pollutes the issue. Which editor made it? Wikidemo 17:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I was blocked by Alkivar, but I don't think he realized what was going on at the time. It would have been nice to be able to email an admin though; despite the instructions for blocked users, I didn't seem to be able to email Alkivar about the block. Thank you for the support by the way, Wikidemo. Equazcion • argue/improves • 17:52, 10/9/2007

What makes you think Alikvar wasn't aware? At the time he blocked you he had already reverted a number of people's attempts to restore pop culture sections and then edit-protected a couple pages to preserve his reversions, called people "idiots" for restoring them, deleted several warnings / complaints on his talk page, and been brought up on AN/I over this. I am pretty close to lobbying for him to be de-sysopped over that. For an admin to block someone he/she is in a content dispute with, is about as straightforward a case there is of abusing admin privileges. Wikidemo 17:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If what you're saying is true then I'd support your lobby to have him de-opped (I don't know how to start something like that so please proceed if you know how). It certainly was not appropriate for him to block someone that he himself is in a content dispute with -- especially indefinitely!! Equazcion • argue/improves • 18:05, 10/9/2007

I've mentioned it on the AN/I page under Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_incivility. I don't know what they do to handle admins who do this, but whatever it is, I've let them know.Wikidemo 18:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that and voiced my support there. Thanks. Equazcion • argue/improves • 18:28, 10/9/2007

Wow! User:Neil, one of the admins involved in supporting the mass deletions, just blocked me without warning, though to his credit he unblocked me shortly thereafter. Things are getting kind of crazy. Wikidemo 19:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Using rollback and ignoring WP:V

This is not acceptable. You were just blocked for it, and got let off. Do not do it again. Neil ム 19:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The same goes for you. And the default version will be that which does not violate WP:V. This is not a content dispute. Neil ム 19:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Do whatever you want, admin man. I'm done. Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:11, 10/9/2007

WP:TRIVIA

If "no one's disagreeing with me", why on earth did you revert the edit? Perhaps you need to start at the beginning. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing to Misplaced Pages, and Misplaced Pages:Be bold!. There's no need to revert edits if everyone agrees. Neil ム 19:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say everyone agrees. I said no one is disagreeing. Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:29, 10/9/2007

Semantics. Neil ム 19:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:34, 10/9/2007

Also, rather than revert because something is being discussed, have a good reason to revert someone's changes, please, if there has been no disagreement and much agreement. Right now it kinda looks like you're being stubborn (). Another useful page for you to read could be WP:OWN. Neil ム 19:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You're being pretty stubborn yourself. I really can't believe you're an admin. If you had any interest at all in resolving this objectively rather than imposing your viewpoint you would be acting very differently. I'm trying to keep things peaceful, and you're talking down to me and continuing revert wars. Thanks man. Stellar example of a cool head in the face of conflict. Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:45, 10/9/2007

There's no conflict. Neil ム 19:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:53, 10/9/2007

Please stop reverting. This is not a change in the guideline. All information must adhere to Misplaced Pages policies such as WP:V and WP:OR. That is not up for debate. Exactly what do you disagree with? Chaz 19:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding. But asking nicely doesn't seem to accomplish much now does it. Well then go ahead, please do what you like. Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:45, 10/9/2007

I just can't see how it's in any way a controversial addition. It's just a reminder that Misplaced Pages policy applies to trivia. In a perfect world, it wouldn't be necessary to have to include such a reminder, but it's become apparent that it is. Chaz 19:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, that's great, please go add it again then and stop bothering me. Equazcion • argue/improves • 20:03, 10/9/2007

Regarding reversions made on October 9 2007 to Misplaced Pages:Trivia sections

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I know about 3RR, I wasn't planning on violating it. Thanks :) Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:51, 10/9/2007

Please do not perform blocks of users over this issue. I believe User:Equazcion's actions have been good faith and exemplary. There have been some problematic blocks already, and some edit warring done by admins. This may be headed for arbitration. Wikidemo 19:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikidemo, 3RR policy will be enforced if Equazcion makes another revert. There are no exceptions. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to make another revert. It's okay, 3RR is an important policy. I should hope I wouldn't get blocked unless I actually do violate it though, which I have no plans to do. Thanks for the support nonetheless, Wikidemo, I do appreciate it. Equazcion • argue/improves • 20:02, 10/9/2007

Misplaced Pages:Requests for Arbitration

Dear Equazcion, you have been listed as a party in an arbitration request. Please click here for the request. Regards, nat 21:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)