Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:53, 8 January 2008

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 response.

• Click on this link to start a new discussion.

• I will reply on this page.

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.

Oh Captain my captain?

Dude (male/female dude), I just wanted you to know that reading through all the trivia discussion archives I always found your comments to be a shining beacon of intelligence in scroll after scroll of inane nonsense. You inspired me to join this damned trivia debate. Actually, now that I think about it, maybe I should curse you for drawing me into this never ending squabble. Anyway, I hope you come back sooner rather than later. I could use a comrade in all these trivia discussions. Peace. Ozmaweezer (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear.--Father Goose (talk) 08:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

nor will we stop asking until you do come back. DGG (talk) 10:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay okay, fine, I'm back... And I'm male, by the way. Equazcion • argue/improves • 06:36, 12/12/2007

WikiTrivia

I have good quality shared hosting which, unless it becomes loaded with images and gets half a million hits a month, could provide a temporary home for WikiTrivia. Reply on my own userpage and I'll see what I can do. --Johan (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm kinda not in charge of that anymore... but you may be able to find others to collaborate with on that, perhaps via the meta page. Equazcion • argue/improves • 06:36, 12/12/2007

Back

Hey peoples. I had to make an appearance to work on the X-Files movie sequel article now that it began filming, and figured I've been away long enough. I'm not sure in what capacity I'll be returning... specifically I hope to avoid the drama of arguing over policy, for as long as that's possible, and just edit articles from time to time.

Thanks for all the support and kind words and stuff :)

I'm pleased you decided to come back. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 18:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Mitchell report list

Hey. Sorry if I came across as contentious. I was very concerned at the beginning when names were being added to the list in a haphazard fashion. I guess I got a little defensive with all the counter-arguments coming at me. After stepping back, it looks like we have enough editors now to make sure that information from the report is used responsibly. I'll mea culpa on the talk page, too. --Elliskev 22:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Think nothing of it. I've gotten defensive in past too, once or twice... :) Equazcion • argue/improves • 22:06, 12/13/2007

Mitchell report list, 2

Hello, in order to avoid an edit war, I just wanted to discuss the "from a lawyer" stuff. I disagree that it is a relevant thing to put into the summary, because, IIRC from reading the report EVERY written statement from a player was submitted to the committee through the committee. I don't think Rigg's statement is different from any of the others. Regardless it should be all one way or all another (since it applies to a number of other players). I just don't thing a lawyer's involvement is all that special (most of the players who made in-person statements did so with their lawyer present as well). Regardless, I agree with you on reducing the block quotes in the BALCO section and would definately support your POV if that becomes an issue. Also, I'm about to add a ton of content to the Signature Pharmacy sections, so please look through that to see if any corrections need to be made (I'm sure there are). Thanks! - Masonpatriot ([[User talk:Masonpatriot|talk]]) 01:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if all written statements are from the players' lawyers and I'm not even sure how many written statements we've even got summarized in the article. I do know that the report specifically says that the statement came from his lawyer: "By letter, his lawyer stated that Riggs “never tested positive for improper substances.” This is pretty different from most of the responses Mitchell reported. Most responses were in fact not from lawyers, even if lawyers were present during interviews. If the report explicitly makes a distinction like that, I think we should make the same distinction. Equazcion • argue/improves • 01:09, 12/17/2007

a little something

		The Current Events Barnstar
		In my experience, most editors get unreasonably hung up with articles they created. For redirecting Brian McNamee, I award Equazcion with the Current Events Barnstar. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Brew :) Equazcion •✗/C • 23:38, 12/21/2007

Weakness

I can't imagine why you think I am quoting you in some inexact way when cut & paste exists. I am quoting a lot of people, none of them exactly, but the overarching theme is this bad faith vilification of whomever writes rules. You do get that, right? Your tactic here is demanding literal quotes to refuse inference, right? It is clear you are not just stupid.

I think your advice "just throw WP:IAR in their faces!" advice isn't really helpful, unless your goal is to create a battlefield. As for my opinion about WP:IAR, I think that is made clear downthread. However, your rules are wikilawyering, and the serious infraction you accuse me of is non-existent. Feel free to persue WP:DR if you disagree.

Also, this "bitch" and "weakness" rhetoric is kinda ugly, and may vector toward incivility, if not on your part then someone else's. Is this really necessary? / edg ☺ ☭ 22:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Dude, this is just playing games. Don't make me call you a troll. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ed, your "quote" was clearly referencing me, not only because you used selective things from what I said, but because otherwise I don't even see what relevance it has -- "And "Rules are made by stupid busybodies motivated by fear, lust for power and " may not be a good reason." -- this had nothing to do with the discussion. I suggested the use of IAR and that was your response. No one said anything about the reasons why policies aren't valid, except you in this quote. The only way it would be (still questionably) relevant is if you were attempting to paraphrase my rant from the section above.

Ed, what's "ugly" is your method of argument. "I will ignore your rules" -- you said this. This is immaturity and it's not the way to debate a point. It doesn't even make any sense. If you're saying you'll ignore the rules then you are conceding to my point. So unless that was your goal, you have achieved nothing. You should try answering people seriously rather than engaging in... this, which I can't even classify. Plus, "I will ignore your rules" was in response to my quoting a rule about not misrepresenting others -- so if you weren't even trying to represent me, as you claim, then why wouldn't you just say that?

I apologize if my "bitch" comment offended you but I sometimes like to insert some humor to liven up the discussion. Next time I will try to be more sensitive to your sensibilities. However, if you'd like such consideration, try to be civil yourself. Otherwise you can't ask me for anything. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:09, 12/21/2007

The "quote" was more inspired by something Fr. Goose had said in the same thread. It was a theme to which you contributed, and the "fear" part was pulled from another comment you made, but I was neither specifically quoting you not intending to represent you. My concern was that an inquiry about the guideline was answered with explanations that the guideline was formulated fundamentally in bad faith. You were more than ready to throw petrol on that flame.

Your tone of angry outrage over comments you disagree with (well, maybe just mine, but seemingly all of mine) is getting tiresome. When this happens, I don't see a reason to be baited (whether that is your intention or not) into long off-topic specifically I-and-thou threads like the bickering lovers everyone can spot us for being. I've made my point, you've made yours, we disagree on all conclusions and even basic terms, no surprise — this need not spin off on recursive tangents.

Telling a user to call someone "bitch" (whether literally or metaphorically) doesn't offend me, but its only a little humorous (this sort of shit having been quite played out in recent pop culture), and it is bad advice to give BrianGriffin-FG (talk · contribs), who already has one block for incivility and sometimes has problems figuring out what he can contribute. I share with you a bad habit (it this is for you a habit) of going for the joke and ignoring its consequences, but I'm trying to cut it out, and would recommend the same for you. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendation. However the joke wasn't so much to demonstrate humor as it was to the put inquirer at ease, which is something I believe in since when I'm the one asking questions I appreciate humor in the responses, just because it makes the environment feel more relaxed.

Yes I get angry at your responses, because I find your responses to be in poor taste. I'll refer you again to this point which you haven't answered yet:

"I will ignore your rules" -- you said this. This is immaturity and it's not the way to debate a point. It doesn't even make any sense. If you're saying you'll ignore the rules then you are conceding to my point. So unless that was your goal, you have achieved nothing. You should try answering people seriously rather than engaging in... this, which I can't even classify. Plus, "I will ignore your rules" was in response to my quoting a rule about not misrepresenting others -- so if you weren't even trying to represent me, as you claim, then why wouldn't you just say that? "

You turned the discussion into a mockery with that infantile comment. It was your doing, not mine. I don't see how you can complain about my "Then you concede" when you made the comment that preceded it. If you're mystified as to how I could only get angry at the things you say, then maybe you should take a closer look at the things you're saying. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:51, 12/21/2007

You made an invidious, wikilawyered accusation. I ignored it. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You didn't say "Your accusation is incorrect." You said "I will ignore your rules". The former would have been appropriate, if it's true that you weren't attempting to represent me. The latter was an irrelevant and infantile jab. What rule were you ignoring? The rule that says I accused you of something? Care to point that one out for me? No, you weren't trying to say you were ignoring my accusation. You were trying to throw IAR back at me, to make some kind of point in an immature way, like kids say "well if you think it's okay to take my toy I'll just take yours". If I'm wrong then please, elaborate on your comment for me, and explain to me why it was relevant, word for word. I'd be interested in hearing this. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:00, 12/22/2007

I guess you don't understand. I said I will ignore your rules, not Misplaced Pages's. I just thought that was really clear, especially since I've explained here (rather than in a tangential thread in WT:TRIVIA) where I disagree with your interpretation of Misplaced Pages's rules. I've also explained here at some length (and with little expectation of benefit for myself, since I knew going in this was going to be one of those long threads), that I wasn't trying to mock or otherwise represent you. (Why would I want to represent you on a Talk page where your presence is nearly constant?) Does this make sense? Is there something I can make clearer?

Also, why is my humor an "infantile jab", and yours a social grace? Is this one of those dishes it out, but can't take it situations? / edg ☺ ☭ 00:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

So now you say you weren't ignoring my accusation anymore, but now it's my rules that you were ignoring. I see. Well let me know which of "my rules" you were choosing to ignore, as that might help to clarify things for me.

Why is your humor an infantile jab and mine a social grace? I don't know. You're asking me to tell you why you choose to engage in infantile jabs, and I just don't know. If however you're suggesting that all humor is equal and if I want to call my humor a social grace then I must therefore consider all humor to be a social grace, well, then you're just wrong. There are different kinds of humor. Some can put people at ease and some can do the opposite. If you aren't aware of a difference then I'm sorry but this is beyond the realm of knowledge I'm prepared to impart on others. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:18, 12/22/2007

I thought I had a concise response that stated my disagreement as much as was needed. I suppose my mistake (compromise word, since I don't think it was a mistake, and you think it was much worse) was not following your remark with much longer and more precise response, but I really didn't wish to engage in an off-topic tangent. And considering the objections you have detailed in this conversation, I am at this point still pleased that we didn't. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Your "mistake" (compromise word) was saying something rude that you didn't believe yourself. If you say something like "I will ignore your rules", you can't possibly expect anyone to see this as a polite avoidance of further argument. I didn't create any rule that I expected you to follow. If you wanted to state your disagreement you should have done it accurately, and yes, that would require a longer response. Overly short responses are called "flip remarks", they are seen as offensive, and they often do -- and even, are intended to -- incite further argument. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:42, 12/22/2007

Reply

Thank you for letting me know...i'll just chill for a while, and see if he stops bugging me. I'm a bit of a drama queen and probably blew everything out of proportion. Thanks again! Ctjf83 05:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem :) Equazcion •✗/C • 05:52, 12/22/2007

X-Files 2 TOC

What is the purpose of {{TOCnestright}} at Untitled X-Files Sequel? It's non-standard. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 07:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It makes more efficient use of space on the page. It may be non-standard, but in many cases it is better. There's no policy saying we must use the default TOC. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:25, 12/24/2007

No, but there is overwhelming precedent for film articles to use the default TOC. There's no reason to make this particular article an exception. All film articles with TOC have the white space in between the lead section and the beginning of the body. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 07:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Precedent doesn't mean much. There isn't so much as a guideline that states the default TOC must be used in any article. The reason the default TOC is so widely used is merely because it's automatic. The nested TOC is better in this case. There's no reason to avoid implementing a better method just because something else is usually used. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:35, 12/24/2007

I suppose I shall have to seek a wider consensus for the presentation of TOC in the film article. In the meantime, though, I'll worry about expanding the article's content. Cheers! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 07:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

X-Files 2 cast list

I'm having a difficult time understandign your insistance on using columns for a tiny cast section. It doesn't look better and the whitespace reduced is three lines. It's not statndard to use columns for cast sections and it is more difficult for editors to work with, especially inexperienced ones. Chaz 13:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

See the article talk page. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:11, 12/24/2007

Spoilers discussion

I'm moving our discussion on the Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler page here to clean things up a bit. To answer your last accusation of a CoI, I didn't even post on this discussion until last night, which was long after the initial removal. What you see as emotional involvement is respect for the rules and processes of Misplaced Pages.

Since you're saying that anyone who disagrees with the original post's namecalling and incivility would automatically have a CoI, please explain who exactly would not have a CoI in this matter, and be neutral enough to remove the comment? Snowfire51 (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Me. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:02, 12/24/2007

By your own terms, if you didn't disagree with the post, then you agreed with it and therefore have a CoI, and therefore by your logic shouldn't be able to chime in on this matter, either. Snowfire51 (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because I didn't disagree with it doesn't mean I agreed with it. I never expressed agreement with it. I never saw the debate and I still have no idea what impropriety the user was referring to. I told him that his post was too inflammatory, which is all I still feel was necessary. The comment didn't break any rules to the point that removing it was warranted. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:08, 12/24/2007

Not vandalism

My edit to Misplaced Pages:Permastub, which you identified as vandalism and reverted, was not. It was a rephrasing of one sentence to make it more concise. Please be more careful with whatever automated or semi-automated tool led to this false positive. NeonMerlin 15:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, my mistake. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:02, 12/25/2007

Re: Yet another coding question

Dumbbell Indemnity

You know, you should have waited until the nominator had a chance to see the review before asking the reviewer to fail it. THe nominator is away for a few days and he would have gladly done as much as he could have to address the concerns. I also would have tried to expand the article as much as I could. -- Scorpion 04:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if my opinion had some undue sway with the reviewer. However this was a pretty poor choice for a GA nom... at the time it didn't even use proper grammar. If I were reviewing an article for GA and determined that the entire thing needed to be rewritten (which is basically what I ended up doing) and expanded on top of that, I would flunk it right off. These weren't small issues that needed fixing, the whole article sucked pretty bad :) No offense if you were a contributor. Anyway. I didn't exactly "ask" him to fail it, but nevertheless I'll be more careful about offering my opinion in the future. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write it, but the article does read much better now. You seem to be a good copyeditor, if you own any of the DVDs, would you be interested in helping out with the WP:SIMPSONS Featured Topic drive? We're currently doing season 9, although season 4 will likely be next. -- Scorpion 01:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't own the DVD's, but I've got "recordings" of most early seasons, by "other means", 9 included. So I don't have the commentaries or deleted scenes but I do have the original broadcasts, so I can help with synopses. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I find it extremely offensive if you claim that my work "sucked really bad". Failing my article without even letting me do anything was a poor choice. I am extremely furious at the moment, and unsure of what to do. I do not feel like nominating my article again, as I waited for a month and a half trying to get the article reviewed, and when it does, I do not even get the chance to fix it before it gets failed. I only hope M3tal will review it again without me having to nominate it again, otherwise, what happened was extremely unfair. I also left some notes regarding as to why this article is a GA article on the talk page of the article. xihix(talk) 21:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't fail "your" article. I made a recommendation on an article's quality (having no idea who contributed to it), which did not include a recommended timespan. The reviewer could have waited but he didn't. The reviewer could have ignored my advice, but he didn't. I'm sorry you took such offense. Sit down and have a cup of tea. It's a Simpsons episode on Misplaced Pages, not a UN summit.

I think you should re-nominate this and get a different reviewer. The one you got didn't seem to know the general practices of GA. You might even be able to get away with replacing the nomination you already made and putting it on hold, with another reviewer's name in place, if you can find someone impartial to handle that. Just a suggestion. Good luck. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that you've taken personal offense here, but Equazcion was just doing what editors are supposed to do, he was giving his opinion on something in an attempt to reach consensus. I'm sure nothing personal was intended by it, but quality control is something that every editor should make a priority. Keep working on it, and those kinds of articles and honors will come. Take care! Snowfire51 (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Come on, you've been here long enough to know that comments like "I understand everyone is in tears over this article" aren't appropriate. -- Scorpion 23:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Saying things like I "asked" the reviewer to fail even though I didn't isn't appropriate either, but I tried not to complain about it. Occasionally we all say some things that aren't entirely necessary. We're not robots and we deal with it. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned of the talk page of the article, I do not feel like nominating the article again. I did so before, waited a month and a half, and I didn't even get a chance to fix anything when the review was given. I looked at your comments, and other than the copy edits, they were not necessary. You unintentionally persuaded the reviewer in a negative way, and now my article has failed. I'll contact some of my other Wikipedian friends who know the GA system well, and see if I can put the article back to where it was without having it put all the way at the bottom, as if it was a newly submitted article again. xihix(talk) 23:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"Unintentionally" being the key word. As for the other comments: I state my opinions. I have not, and will not, keep my mouth shut just in case someone may take offense. Taking offense so easily from the mere critiquing of an article you worked on doesn't fit with the way things work here. I wish you luck with the GA. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are you all blaming Equazcion? He brought up good points and i agreed. At least have the decency to call me an asshole on my talk page rather than behind my back on each other's talk pages. M3tal H3ad (talk) 10:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's calling you an asshole. You happened to not know about the 7-day grace period, but it was an honest mistake and it's been rectified. Everything is fine now. At this point people are just making a big deal out of nothing (which is not so far from what they were doing originally). Let's all just consider this settled and move on :) Equazcion •✗/C • 10:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh they did, just not on this page :) M3tal H3ad (talk) 13:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh, ignore 'em. Some people take themselves and their "work" too seriously. It's not even worth worrying about. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:36, 30 Dec 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I see that you are ridiculing me in some way. As Scorpion said before, you should know that comments like that are not necessary. Please stop now. xihix(talk) 19:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not ridiculing anyone. I'm telling Metal Head that if people are insulting him then he should ignore it. If you're one of the people insulting him then that is unfortunate, but not my problem. I suggest you take my talk page off your watchlist if the things I'm saying bother you this much. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:29, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for the tweak on Misplaced Pages:Service awards. Nicely done! :) Kingturtle (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem :) Equazcion •✗/C • 01:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

LauraWA11

Howdy, I saw your report on WP:AIV. Since there has been no activity for several hours, I removed the report with no action. If further problems of a similar nature arise, WP:AN/I would be a good place to bring it. AIV does not really foster the sort of discussion which is necessary. Thanks and keep up the great work. --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, will do. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:33, 2 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Friedrich Kellner

I appreciate your repeating the message on my talk page. I went ahead and posted the information about the YouTube video on my user page. I also embedded the video itself on my Geocities Friedrich Kellner website. I think that is about all I can do with that video. When the diary is displayed next November at the United Nations, and the documentary film is shown there as well, I will seriously consider retiring from my labors at trying to bring the diary to the attention of the public-- which I have been at since 1968. I guess there's not too much one can do anyway to top the United Nations. And I sure am tired. Thanks again. Scott Rskellner (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Revert?

What was your reason for this revert? - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like that was my mistake, I apologize. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:56, 2 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Mistakes happen. Thanks for stating that. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem :) Equazcion •✗/C • 05:01, 2 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Talk page

Ah, its probably pointless to keep reverting it. I've requested protection and somebody will do it soon enough. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably. Still fun though. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:04, 3 Jan 2008 (UTC)

LOL, yes it is a bit entertaining. You can revert to my reversion with the tag, thats what will happen when it is protected; at least usually. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

....Game over! - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Good game :) Equazcion •✗/C • 05:06, 3 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Ball Lightning

i'm sorry about that revert of your edits I clicked the 'rollback' button without meaning to, thanks Harland1 (/_c) 12:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That's alright, no problem :) Equazcion •✗/C • 12:38, 2 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Fair Warning

Look out, that banned user tonight created a couple of other sockpuppets before he got banned. So far, they're quiet but I tagged them just in case. Good luck! Snowfire51 (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know that, thanks for the warning :) Equazcion •✗/C • 05:09, 3 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Half Barnstar
		For your quick, and effective work dealing with sockpuppets of LaruaWA11. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, thanks! Equazcion •✗/C • 05:28, 3 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Haha...thanks. I did flip the star over though, since you've got the left side already. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha... good call :) Equazcion •✗/C • 05:32, 3 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Results from the checkuser

This may not be appropriate, but it is sure funny. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I know... I may not be administrator material, but sometimes it's more fun that way. To be honest though, it wasn't meant as a taunt. It was more to see what the reaction would be, because despite what checkuser says, that user's history seems to be rather productive and their behavior unlike the puppeteer. I was just hoping to either get a confirmation or denial. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:45, 5 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Re:Protection

No definite time. The full protection should force editors to discuss, and generally when the matter has been resolved, a request for unprotection can easily be filed at WP:RFPP. Regards, PeaceNT (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I see... Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:32, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC)

good job

		The Original Barnstar
		Wonderful work over at the article, Ball lightning! Keep up the work! -- penubag  00:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) Equazcion •✗/C • 05:45, 5 Jan 2008 (UTC)

You're invited!

...to the next New York City Meetup!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday January 13th, Columbia University area Last: 11/3/2007 This box: view • talk • edit

In the morning, there are exciting plans for a behind-the-scenes guided tour of the American Museum of Natural History.

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues (see the last meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Non-administrator_rollback

I think this thing of ours is being percived by conserned editors as being shoved down their throughts and raillroaded for approval without abiding by checks and balances. I know you are doing this with WP:NPOV and WP:AGF in mind but other editors who have voted support may have an alternative agenda to get this past ASAP and WP:ABF towards the consesus building process. The way it is heading now it in violation of WP:NPOV, Misplaced Pages:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion, and shows WP:COI on the part of the editors who have created the WP:Article. So unless you can do something really quick this article will be a Roadkill through WP:CSD. Maybe you should unarchive the discussion page and archive the voting page. That is the best advise I can give you. We need Misplaced Pages:Consensus. Good luck, Igor Berger (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no chance for a speedy delete of this page. I don't mean any offense but I think you need to read some of those pages you keep linking to. Start with WP:CSD. Also see WP:IAR. If enough people agree to handle a decision a certain way, it doesn't matter if it goes against policy. There are hundreds of editors behind this poll, and many of them are administrators. The page might not cause any changes, but it is certainly not in any danger of being deleted, I can assure you. I appreciate your concern though. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:45, 5 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I asked User:Durova to look into this User_talk:Durova#Misplaced Pages:Non-administrator_rollback. This needs some guideness. Igor Berger (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Good luck with that. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:01, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Going nowhere

Hello, I have noticed that you have been very active in this discussion. As I observe it, people come, they say support, they list some reasons which have already been addressed, and leave. Others, say oppose, list some reasons which have either already been addressed, or at least already mentioned, and leave. The single edit nature of this is hurting our ability to reach consensus, as I see it. Now I see, by way of the poll, that most users either support, or oppose because of minor reasons. There have been a few separate proposals, but few have seen much attention, as most editors do not really discuss, but merely vote. Also, I have yet to see a proposal which truly reflects the consensus of those who voted. Rather, they seem to reflect a small number of opinions, which more people would oppose than the original proposal. I noticed that you mentioned that a new proposal should be written, and I agree. I think that the poll should end, most of the discussion archived (and possibly the "new proposals" as well), and each bit of discussion should be reviewed for consensus-finding purposes, and the whole thing should be rewritten. Sounds like a lot of work, doesn't it? Unfortunately, I can not see this moving forward any other way. I also think that such a change might be too bold, even for WP:BOLD, but I'm not sure. Any comments?--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 22:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and have already started doing something along those lines, see Misplaced Pages:Non-administrator rollback/Creating a new proposal. This is linked to in the lead of Misplaced Pages:Non-administrator rollback.Equazcion •✗/C • 04:05, 8 Jan 2008 (UTC)

User:Equazcion/Edit conflict bug

Ok, reformatted it, once you get a consensus, you can just file whatevers on the proposal page thats agreed to as a bug report. If you don't have an account with Bugzilla (and don't want to be bothered opening one), I'll do it. MBisanz 01:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I responded to your comment on the talk page. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:19, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Editors' Toolbar

For the record I ran this back when it was current and didn't find it very usefuul.Geni 13:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Are there any particular reasons you can specify? Because I could see it being very useful. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:01, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

It was big and by the time I used it I knew all the markup code already.Geni 14:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise you might want to try User:Cacycle/wikEd. Or see wikipedia:tools.Geni 14:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I was mistaken as to what this is. I was looking for a toolbar with links to the current page's discussion page, and edit link, what links here, things like that, so that users wouldn't have to scroll around the page looking for such links. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:04, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Ah that does not I think exist.Geni 14:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I struck out my comments at WP:VPR, so hopefully people will comment on it now. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:17, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Non-Administrator Rollback

I think I voted after the vote was closed, looking at it again. Should I remove it or leave it in place? I only went there in the first place because of the notice on the watch list. - ‡Pelican eats pigeon‡ message _{contributions} 19:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)