| Revision as of 07:46, 18 February 2008 editJack Merridew (talk | contribs)34,837 edits →Semi - Protected← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:58, 19 February 2008 edit undo24.163.104.61 (talk) ←Replaced page with 'i took a big shit on my moms tits.'Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| i took a big shit on my moms tits. | |||
| {{email user}} | |||
| <div style="position: relative; top: 0px; left: 0px;"> | |||
| <div style="position: absolute; right: -5px; top: -9px; display: block;"> | |||
| <div style="width: auto; background-color: #fafafa; margin-top: 3px; border: 1px solid #976684; padding: 0px;"> | |||
| <div style="margin: 0 6px;"> | |||
| <p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1px;"> | |||
| ''Thanks to all who defend this page against vandals'' | |||
| </p> | |||
| </div> | |||
| </div> | |||
| </div> | |||
| {| cellpadding="10" cellspacing="8" style="width: 100%; background-color: #e8dae7; border: 1px solid #976684; vertical-align: top;" | |||
| | style="width: 69%; background-color: #fff4fa; border: 1px solid #976684; border-right-width: 2px; border-bottom-width: 2px; vertical-align: top;" rowspan="2" | | |||
| * ] | |||
| == rv on afd == | |||
| It would have helped if your first revert had been accompanied by a more detailed edit summary, I wouldnt have reverted back to the close. Also I had noticed a lot the reverts and I would have stepped in sooner. ]] 15:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : I agree and will try and do things in proper sequence if something like this occurs again; i.e. better edit summary with link to anything. Thanks, again. --] 15:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Verifiable sources == | |||
| Re your comment on that page. How do you get around the fact that many if not most PhDs are either self-published or remain unpublished but in National Libraries for consultation. Presuming the individual gained his PhD and his thesis is not libellous, why can't it be referred to? Regards, ] (]) 13:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : You mean ? I removed an underscore from a link; i.e. corrected the format. Your question would be better asked at ]. --] 13:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Sincere apologies. I did not look at what you had done carefully and assumed the whole block comment was by you. I have mentioned this subject on ]'s Talk Page. Thanks. Regards, ] (]) 19:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Notability templates == | |||
| Many thanks for your help and support with the appropriate use of cleanup templates (notability, in universe, no footnotes etc.) used on Project Greyhawk articles. I think there will be a long running dispute over their use, and I am grateful for your persistence in this matter.--] (]) 09:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : You're most welcome. As I see it, there are many areas of Misplaced Pages where users are not focused on writing in an encyclopaedic manner; they are here out of fanish-interest and need education about what this site actually is. One of the complaints I see made all over the place is that "we" should add information, not delete it. This is really quite funny as deletion is one of the primary services that ] provide to ]. --] 07:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Is imitation is the highest form of flattery? I note you have a ] attempting to revert your edits. That is pretty cool - you are on your way to becoming a celebrity!.--] (]) 09:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: ], too. --] 09:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: This is really quite entertaining ''it certainly keeps me interested.'' Admins just have to watch for who's reverting me to find those needing blocks and reverts. Did your see ? best way in the world to endorse an AIV request. --] 09:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: With regard to ], note that I don't think you can restore the ] once it has been removed, no matter whether its removal was justified or not.--] (]) 12:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Ya, I know, but I figured it a necessary step. I hadn't gotten to notifying the anon who wrote the article... I've been looking at the prior AfD which seems to have gone amok over issues with Texas. I suggest you try again at some point. --] 13:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Again out of interest, do ''we'' have an idea of what this site actually is? If there's an agreed clear definition, would you mind linking to it? It'd be a very interesting read. --]<font color="black">]</font><font color="green">]</font> 13:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Take your ]. Opinion is a bit divergent. Or try --] 14:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Thanks yet again for restoring instances of unwarranted removal of the notability templates. I note that single purpose IPs are now being set up to remove templates on an article by article basis in order to avoid detection by admins; note also that the number of IP accounts have also been created to disguise these edits.--] (]) 12:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Some of it is, I expect, people directed to here from some off-wiki forum such as ], while a lot of it is one or a very few irate D&D fan/wiki-editors thinking way outside the box. | |||
| ::::: I've been meaning to ask you your thoughts on removing dubious reviews, such on ]… --] 13:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I have been having (onsided) discussions regarding poor sourcing and dubious references in relation to this and other articles (], ] ], ] and ] - see also the AfD), and I have had just about every puerile arguement put to me about notability you can think of, mainly along the lines that if a citation is not taken direct from the publishers of D&D, then it "must" comply with ]. My advice to you is don't even bother arguing or getting into an edit war: go straight to RFC. Take the about turn that occured in a recent ]. Once you subject POV pushing to wider review, the bullies fade away very quickly. --] (]) 14:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Hey jack... == | |||
| ...can you create a doppleganger account called User:Jack Merridou? I'll be using that account to create a checkuser log for him and his IPs, so we can have its other IPs blocked. ]]]<font color="red">]</font> 23:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : He seems to have gotten there first. I'm all for hobbling this character, but I don't see how my creating a new account will help. email me and he'll not have a chance to snag whatever name gets used. Thanks. --] 06:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : I have created ] and endorsed that it is me from this account. All should be clear enough from the user/talk pages and their histories. What's next? --] 06:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == I responded to you on my ] == | |||
| I wasn't sure if you had looked back there or not. Not that it matters much. Happy editing. ] <small>]</small> 05:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Recent Vandalism == | |||
| Hi! | |||
| It looks like your talk page is undergoing a lot of multiple IP vandalism. I think you might want to request ] from anon users for a brief period. ] (]) 17:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : looks like its already been done... ] (]) 17:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: It happens a lot; thanks for helping to deal with it. --] 07:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: np :-) ] (]) 12:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == City of Bones == | |||
| I have to say that you all should be careful pushing this one. You put it up for AFD, they responded by improving the article. Is it likely to be trouble later? Sure it is. Is it deletable right now? Probably not. You would build more brownie points for good faith by recognizing the improvements and withdrawing the nomination. If it immediately falls to hell, renominate, and you can point at the collapse as justification.] (]) 16:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : I thought about your suggestion and after reviewing the article and discussion, agree. I have withdrawn it and will wait and see. Thanks. --] 15:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Not meaning to be your PR manager or anything, but I would put a message on its talk page explaining the withdrawal and your reasoning, not just on the AFD.] (]) 16:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Reverts? == | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| Why are you reverting me? --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 10:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Because you are being disruptive. --] 10:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Take it to an/i. --] 10:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Thefiercedeity == | |||
| Who's the sockmaster for the purpose of blocking? It'll have probably been blocked by the time of this posting, but anyway. Best regards, ]] 12:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : take your pick: ]. --] 12:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Blocked indefinitely. I suppose it was quite apparent. Thank you. ]] 12:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Thanks. There have been many anons using this edit summary and they've all been blocked for vandalism or at least reverted. | |||
| :: ''All I know is that I'm on a quest to find the reason a giant tree isn't giving off heat like it's support to.'' | |||
| : --] 12:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Bells == | |||
| Hi, thanks for letting me know - have sorted it now. ''']''' <small>''']'''</small> 15:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| What do you think is the best course of action for these? ] 18:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Off-hand, I would say it's a good place to start finding unencyclopaedic, ah, "pages". I'm going to see what's putting stuff here; some template, I expect. --] 11:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: It is being added along with clean-up tags by ]; see: for an example. I expect he has copy-paste text snippets at hand and this is a system for him to keep track of what he has tagged. I've copied tagging-text a few times, so I may have added a few of these myself (yup, ). The name of the cat would appear to reflect the view that such shite is unencyclopaedic. These pages need to either be clean-up or put-down. --] 11:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Gavin didn't start this, though; see: . --] 11:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Centralized TV Episode Discussion == | |||
| Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a few) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here . --] (]) 18:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == signatures == | |||
| I was thinking on updating my signature to something like this: | |||
| <div style="font:bold 12px Arial;display:inline;border:#330000 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px; background: #C0C0C0">] • ] • ]</div> | |||
| Would that be too "colourful"? ] • ] • ] 16:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : It's not the color that is the issue, it is the box. Signatures should not attempt to stand-out above others on a page. This is attention-seeking. If you want your post to stand-out, put the effort into writing something profound. I would suggest that you skip the box and border. You really don't need the talk or contribs links either, but I have no objection to them. --] 07:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Central discussion of objective criteria == | |||
| Your feedback is welcome at .] (]) 19:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located ]. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, ]. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ]. | |||
| On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ] (]) 21:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Talk:Sarrukh == | |||
| Hi Jack, | |||
| My in-line experiment was an attempt at mimicking the e-mail convention. It seems it was not a great idea, so I’ll do as you ask and will revert to normal replying. | |||
| This work I did, I did several months (if not years) ago. I created a ] back in the days too. All of this seems to have fallen into disuse and I do not contribute this anymore (I have to say there is no new information that I know of, by the way). So, no chance I would contribute more on this. I just wanted to justify the existing articles. | |||
| Have a nice day.<br /><small>] (] | ]) — </small> 17:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : A lot of people do not appreciate that ''convention'' in email either. re the ''Forgotten'' articles: if they are going to have their (continued) existence justified, they're going to need much better sourcing and a fair amount of rewrite. --] 08:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Objective criteria for episode notability == | |||
| I've attempted to the discussion. Again, feedback welcome.] (]) 18:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: bad fair use justifications? == | |||
| A couple of those images have bad fair use justifications for their uses and I've removed them. I'm not so sure about ], since there's historical commentary there. If you need anything else, just ask! ] | |||
| : Be bold! Anyway, I removed the useless FUR for one image; the other one will get picked up as an orphan as part of the bot sweeps and will be deleted in a week, probably by me. I'm still on the fence about the book cover too, why don't you raise that question at ]? ] | |||
| :: Thanks; for the link, too; I've bookmarked it and will look into it. And I think I'll just fix-up the other one. --] 05:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Suggestbot has some tasks for you == | |||
| * ] - expand | |||
| * ] - wikify | |||
| * ] - duck for cover, there's been an edit war but then maybe an extra opinion would be good...or maybe not. | |||
| * ] - needs references | |||
| * ] - the guy who did the nice painting on your page, expand lead, some refs....zzzzzzz | |||
| Suggestbot can't figure out anything more......cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 10:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : But you missed '']!'' --] 10:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: The other big reason for removing the lightgreen colour is that vandals invariably change it for fun. If it isn't there, they are less likely to play with it. When you do alot of biology articles you'd be surprised how often this happens (or maybe not). cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 19:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I've seen a lot of that on actor infoboxes. Maybe something along the same lines could be used for those (domains like ''good'' actor, ''bad'' actor, actress ''good'' on the couch). --] 06:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Redirects == | |||
| Thanks. | |||
| And not just me, it looks like, but several that I've done, yes. That's got me curious though – maybe I'll ask around and see what these templates/special categories are about. Actually, I think I have seen a redirect category on at least the Wikiproject: comics page now that I think about it, so maybe I'll just investigate. Not sure what the adding of stubs is about though? :) ] (]) 16:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : I'll look and see what's happened since I last looked. --] 07:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Please stop == | |||
| If you want to educate people, is not the way to do it. It's unhelpful, doesn't help solve the issue, comes across as confrontational and can constitute ]. Far better to outline what the issue is, and suggest a number of solutions, remembering the person at the other computer screen is a person. Have a look at our ], that might offer some ways of avoiding short comments which may be misinterpreted. I apologise for the header and opening statement, I admit I am being a dick to prove a point, but I think it is a point worth making. Anyway, all that said, all the best, ] <small>] </small> 16:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Point taken. Please note that I did follow-up with the anon and offer advice on what I thought was a better approach. I also asked an editor whose redirect were being tagged with stub-templates and cats to get involved. My initial comment ''was'' terse, I know. I will seek to not be so terse/confrontational in the future. --] 07:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: I appreciate all the other efforts that went into resolving the issue, and I apologise for not mentioning that. I also appreciate it is hard to avoid being terse, I've been known to do it myself on occasion and am not claiming to be an angel. Good luck with the deep breaths. ;) ] <small>] </small> 20:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I just saw your comment re ] which I've bookmarked and will read-over. Cheers, ] 08:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Yes, it's a new one on me too, but I think the section on subtopic categorization, specifically that ''Some subtopics of articles have well-known names and, over time, may expand to become separate articles. Many articles cover several topics that have been combined. This can happen following a merge of several related articles. Often there are redirects pointing to these subtopics. These redirects can be categorized. In some cases the categories for the redirects that point to the subtopics will be different than the categories for the entire article.'' may indicate that the anon's edits are acceptable. ] <small>] </small> 11:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Episodes and characters 2 == | |||
| I'm unfamiliar with the arbcom system, and I suspect that little will come of Episodes and characters 2, but I wonder if there is somewhere there that I should point out that secondary and tertiary sources do exist for the most popular TV shows. I've found a few lately, and have actually put them in articles. (], ], ].) Will it affect the outcome of the arbcom if I point out that sources exist, and that these sources tend to be on the most popular shows, and that is how we ascertain whether or not a subject is notable? If I was to point that out, how/where should I do it? Thanks, ] (]) 02:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Block == | |||
| OK, it's done ] (]) 10:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Thanks, and please block these on sight - the obvious ones. Cheers, ] 10:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: ] and ] == | |||
| I wasn't really inclined against a merge for the first article -- deleting it from the parent list is an editorial decision which doesn't require admin involvement. Have you asked Mr.Z-man regarding the other article? ] | |||
| : Thanks. Replying on your page. --] 07:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ANI thread that concerns you == | |||
| Dear Jack, I started ] thread regarding a threat that I saw was made against you. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 23:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Thanks, I've replied there. This is regular background noise and such shite happens all the time. Cheers, ] 07:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: You're welcome. I think people should be able to disagree without taking the discussion out of bounds and it is really distressing to see these disagreements devolve in such a manner. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 07:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: The naughty one does a whole lot of way outside the box thinking. There are at least a hundred sockpuppets and hundreds of throw-away IPs. Poor boy really needs to find someone to get off with in real-life. Cheers, ] 07:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: If this is about the IPs threatening you, they're actually looking like a ]. -'']'' <sup>(<font color="0000FF">] ]</font>)</sup> 09:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Ya, I think this is all the same issue. I expect that there are a number of bad actors involved. I've stepped on a few toes out there. The IPs from all over the world certainly would indicate that whomever has a toolbox full of sharp tools that he then misuses. If it turns out that my userpage address has been code into some piece of ] that's gotten around, then I've a case for personal notability once it gets written up somewhere. <em><groans>I can't wait.</groans></em> Thanks for all you done re Grawp and the like. --] 10:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I'm not done yet - I'm awaiting contact from Nwwaew; one of the IPs that attacked you turned up as a compromised computer on ] running open router software and I asked him to provide evidence that will help me in the abuse report I filed against the most recent IPs. Sometimes I think these guys are ]. -'']'' <sup>(<font color="0000FF">] ]</font>)</sup> 10:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: I just saw ]; I hope the FBI doesn't come knocking on my door. Makes me glad I picked an alias ]. Cheers, ] 10:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Personally, I agree that the article does not prove notability and the sources do not meet the requirements of reliable, third-party references. However, as you can see on Hobit's talk, I'm currently in sort of a general (somewhat related) dispute with him as well, so I decided not to re-add the tags myself. I noticed you just did, so I wanted to notify you that I filed for a ]. User:] 08:17, ], 20] | |||
| : I'll look for what you're referring to on his talk page. He has been quite persistent about removing tags without understanding that the 'references' on most D&D articles abjectly fail ] and most of the other relevant WP: links, too. Cheers, ] 08:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: As a note, I've removed less than 1% of the tags added by you and Gavin total in the last month. So I'm being very selective on my removal. Also, thanks again to Dorftrottel on your actions here. ] (]) 15:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I'm well aware that you are focused on a relativle few articles. Please note that mostly it is Gavin adding the tags and I choose to defend against their removal without reasonable steps having been taken to address the concerns. --] 15:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Tagging == | |||
| Hello Jack, | |||
| Rather than having discussions over the 4 or so articles we are arguing over, I thought this would be a good place to discuss common things. | |||
| Issues as I see them: | |||
| # Do staff reviews at enworld and related sites count as ]? I'd say yes, as they have the backing of the site. | |||
| # Do reviews in general counts toward WP:N? Again, I'd say yes. | |||
| # Does Dragon magazine, while run by Piazo count as independent? That's more tricky. I'm told WoTC had veto rights on content, but couldn't dictate content. This is a pretty common thing to have happen. As it was Piazo's staff picking what to write on, not WoTC, I think coverage of material here is fine. Reviews of WotC material are more questionable however. | |||
| Thoughts? ] (]) 15:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I'm going to give a brief reply now as I have to go. Overall, I believe notability requires much more solid sources than most of those on offer in the D&D articles I've looked at. I expect the ''reason'' that those are what's on offer is that ''they are all there is'', and so they're offered-up in the hope that they'll be enough. I see the reasoning as backwards as editors such as yourself believe the articles should be here and that by finding what sources exist you've done your bit and sourced the article. My view is that if whatever sources exist are not seriously reliable and in depth, etc, then notability just isn't there and the article needs to go. If you want me to leave an article untagged for a concern for such as notability, then find a solid source. The New York Times, for example; something solid and not just a fan-zine or some guy's lamo-tripod site. To specifically address your three points: | |||
| # enworld does not impress me as a reliable site; staff review, or mere user post | |||
| # Of course reviews count; it is a question of who is speaking. | |||
| # Dragon Magazine/Piazo/WoTC are all far too incestuous with the genre to count much. And thank for your frank comment re veto rights. | |||
| I would ask you to look at tagged articles as actually needing work and not to view the tag as the problem but to see the issue it is pointing out as the problem. | |||
| My basic position on some hundreds of thousands of articles on this site is that they are unencyclopaedic and need to go. This stuff belongs elsewhere; Wikia, or something like it. I see this sort of content as leaching on the good graces of largely uninterested editors who happen along and fix some spelling or apply a template. Thus one of the fundamental reasons that many editors prefer articles here vs over on some wikia subdomain is that here there are lots of people who help out. And I view this as unfair to these editors. --] 15:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : ''(butting in)'' - as a volunteer site I tend to think most folks only edit things they want to or don't feel too put upon to edit. I certainly don't push myself to edit things I am not interested in. I have used White Dwarf (produced by Games Workshop), which was/is an independent magazine (WRT D&D) with an international reputation and circulation, to place reviews for D&D material, though I wouldn't use its reviews for Warhammer as they are produced by the same company. The 80s was a time when D&D had a much higher profile and if I trawled through newspaper and magazine archives at the time I am sure I could find stuff to add. cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 05:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Hobit seems to have not edited much since he posted his query. Your post would mostly seem to be about my closing comments and I agree that editors mostly edit what they feel like; there is no real obligation to click any edit link. This is part of why I've vigorously opposed anything in the TV 2 AC case that amount to requiring (i.e. strongly encouraging) editors to participate in transwiki process; it's up to the interested editors. | |||
| :: I suppose what I was getting at above was that many editors here end up doing stuff to move the many unencyclopaedic articles along. By 'along' I don't necessarily mean actions that address any fundamental encyclopaedic question; I'm referring primarily to things such as reverting vandalism, fixing typos and spelling issues (an area in which the D&D articles are quite challenged), and techie edits such as fixing wiki-syntax. If, when the day is done, some article is deleted or buried in a redirect grave, then along with the edits that added whatever unencyclopaedic content, all the good faith edits by others are gone and I view that as a greater lose that of the effort of the ''fans''. This is a key reason that I believe dealing with such issues is best done sooner than later; sooner means there is less time for passersby to stumble upon an unencyclopaedic article and waste their time on it. | |||
| :: I think all sources such as fan magazines are on the light side. Such things are largely self-promoting (not of a specific company, but of whatever genre or hobby). No, I don't think the NYT is the be-all and end-all of sources, but if somebody serious who is out-of-universe comments on a D&D band of dwarves (example), then you've got something interesting. A lot of the rest is just guff (or worse, a cite of a tripod site). Cheers, ] 09:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Splinter in Mind's Eye == | |||
| If you agree that ] is valid for ] but not ], why not just delete it from the EU page? Or talk about it on the Expanded Universe talk page? (I can actually see both sides to it on the Expanded Universe page… It is obviously not the article on the book, but the book is acknowledged as the first EU novel (retroactively.)--] | ] 04:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : If I were to just remove the image from ], someone could just add it back citing the rationale given on the image page. I could just remove the rational per Bold, but, again, someone could dispute/revert that. By tagging the rationale as disputed, someone may review the rationale and, if they call it as ''bad'' then the issue may be definitively sorted. Thing is due to be sorted sometime after today, so we'll see… The whole concept of an ''Expanded Universe'' is a rather dubious one, to me. nb: ] refers to ]. --] 09:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == align="bottom" == | |||
| , Jack. I don't know a thing about HTML or CSS, so designing the user page was a trial and error process. I had no idea that some of the code was meaningless or broken! --] (]) 04:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : I'll take another look at your pages when I have a moment. Should be quite straightforward. Cheers, ] 09:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Thanks for all the clean-up, Jack! The problem with ] was an old trick that got fixed in a recent update to the MediaWiki software. You used to be able to hide a <nowiki> <ref> inbetween <includeonly> tags or inbetween <span style="display:none"></span></nowiki>. If you did that, the reference would still show up in the {{t1|reflist}} template, but wouldn't show up anywhere else. Useless in articles, though it made for a nice way of storing references on my /hippos and /rhinos pages. Thanks again for cleaning up the code! --] (]) 05:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Double PRODs == | |||
| Heya, As the rules for PRODs are quite clear that the same article cannot be PRODded more than once, restoring the redirect was the right thing to do. Just mentioning for future reference, and thanks! ] (]) 13:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : I was looking at the undoing of the redirect as skipping the restore of the prod. Redirecting an article with a prod on it would seem to be an endorsement of the concern (but not of the prod itself) and if the redirect is later undone, the prod should return, too. As I said, I'm fine with it being redirected and am glad the Catchpole suggested it. --] 13:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Happy Valentine's Day! == | |||
| ] has wished you a happy Valentine's day, and good luck in love and friendship!]] | |||
| A short/sweet little message, which I hope has made your day better! Happy Valentine's Day!!! ] (]) 02:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Perhaps '''full protection''' should be requested on ]. Just a thought, ] <small>(] • ])</small> 06:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Bamford == | |||
| For someone who has -repeatedly- said they are leaving and want ''nothing'' to do with Misplaced Pages, he sure does blather on endlessly about the 'injustice' inflicted on him by those attempting to get him to follow our rules. --] (]) 13:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : He has been hammering away at his talk page for something like four hours. I was considering suggesting a courtesy blanking, but he'd have to stop and I don't see that happening until he's exhausted. --] 13:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Semi - Protected == | |||
| Hey Jack — I've semi protected your usertalk page for the next six hours due to vandalism and threats. If you would like it removed, just ask. '''] | ]''' 00:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Thanks; it happens a lot and I'm fine with it being semi protected for long stretches as needed. This is a ] attack; there's a post above about it. I'll add the IPs to the report on it and drop you a not with a link to it. Cheers, ] 07:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:58, 19 February 2008
i took a big shit on my moms tits.