Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:01, 11 March 2008

HighInBC is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages soon.

• Archive 01
• Archive 02
• Archive 03
• Archive 04
• Archive 05
• Archive 06
• Archive 07
• Archive 08
• Archive 09
• Archive 10

DusterBot not working

Hi, It seems that User:DusterBot stopped working some time in October. Could you take a look? Is he back? (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, there is a bug I needed to fix and I never got around to it. I am doing some paid code work right now, but when I have time I will get it working again. Thanks for reminding me. _(1 == 2) 23:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. Is he back? (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Civility

Acknowledged. `'Míkka>t 18:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

RNS_System

Hi there -

I'm dealing with an OTRS ticket asking why this article was deleted. Clearly, it's unsourced. No disagreement there. I'm not sure, though, that it's truly spam (and you deleted it G11). Can you give me some insight into what you were thinking so that I can pass it on to the OTRS correspondent? - Philippe | Talk 18:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for coming to me about this. I seem to have been in error, while this article can use a more encyclopedic tone, it is not "blatant" advertising. Please convey my apologies to the user on otrs. I have restored the article. _(1 == 2) 14:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your help. I'll convey such to the user, and also educate them about referencing, etc. Thanks for your quick response! - Philippe | Talk 15:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it turned out to be a copyright violation. _(1 == 2) 07:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

IAR and admin actions

I've taken some time to think about what others have said about that incident. The unblock more of me being bold, and I've considered it, and I don't think it was the most appropriate move. I've decided to read through the blocking policy, and similar policies (ie protection, deletion). I didn't intend to have that action rub off as wheel-warring. I could make excuses all I want for this post, but I was simply a bit annoyed at Marskell because of the tone, and made a hasty statement. I think I'll continue being bold, but that doesn't mean I plan on repeating that action. Maxim_(talk) 00:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that is all I can ask. Thank you. _(1 == 2) 14:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal RE: User:Mikkalai's vow of silence

You are a previous participant in the discussion at WP:AN/I about User:Mikkalai's vow of silence. This is to inform you, that I have made a proposal for resolution for the issue. I am informing all of the users who participated, so this is not an attempt to WP:CANVAS support for any particular position.

The proposal can be found at: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed resolution (Mikkalai vow of silence) Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Ignore all rules

Hi there. I'm sure that, for you, the current problems with Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules are part of a long, exasperating conflict, quite possibly with exactly the same users as before. However, I felt that the tone of your reply to me was rather condescending (outright lordly, actually), and it is my observation that speaking to people in such a manner is almost always counter-productive. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 05:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but when I see a quacking feathered water bird, I call it a duck. Just like when I see a brand new account that seems to have only one purpose, I call it a single purpose account. In my comment of 04:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC) my tone was meant to sound like a rebuke, that was my intention. I think that rebuking counter productive behavior is productive.

As for my comment of 05:03, 3 March 2008, that was just me disagreeing with you by explaining that the community does not agree with your opinion that policy protection is harmless. _(1 == 2) 14:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, and your disagreement was clear. I felt that you arrogated the identity of the community, and that's a bad practice, as it's essentially a display of interpersonal power. The message that the other person hears is that you are not part of the community, not that most people in the community disagree with you. It's a bad practice to refer to a community rather than the discussion consensus, past or present, anyways, as anyone's understanding of a 'community' of this size is necessarily fractional and incomplete, and again, it comes across as a flourishing of arrogated authority, rather than a discussion amongst equals, which, I hope you remember, is what we are. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I can speak for the community in areas of common knowledge, and I was correct in speaking for the community in saying protection should be avoided. I can also say a bunch of other stuff about what the community wants which is well established, but it is not relevant now. I agree that in areas of controversy one should not speak for the public at large, but the "ability of anyone to edit articles without registering" is a foundation issue, and not subject to opinion. Protection is an undesirable outcome, period. _(1 == 2) 20:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I find it unlikely that protection will be the outcome of this dispute. I cannot say that I know from experience, but I suspect, that the best way to resolve such disputes in the long term is to retain as fair, calm and impartial a position as one is able.

I think I might join you in staying quiet for a while, as the User:Chardish and the User:Newbyguesses thing is out of control, and besides the misunderstanding between ourselves, I have no cause to argue with anyone. I'd really rather find out why WP:IAR ended up as a twelve word sentence, and why it is so less informative than other policy pages, and whether I should seek a consensus on making it more informative and useful. The current version, to my eye, reads a lot more like "Why should I have to justify my swift delete of your obviously non-notable article?" that "It's okay, go ahead and write down what you know about Yak butter manufacture, you don't need to worry about any rules, or be registered to edit an article."

There have been several thoughtful comments made by various people that have been drowned out in the rush to address User:Chardish, and I am considering if it might be useful to collect them on a separate page, in the meantime, for when tempers have been spent. It seems like they are unlikely to be reigned in.

You might perhaps check the edit history of Special:Contributions:69.49.44.11 as well as that of User:69.49.44.11, for the full record of my involvement in the Misplaced Pages. As to this particular disagreement, I think I started out with a fairly innocent comment, having wandered over from pointing out that it is inherently pejorative to accuse another person of using weasel words. I'm not above loosing my temper with anyone, over here on the other side of the keyboard - I'm rather thin skinned, actually - but as far as I can tell, I'm doing absolutely nothing sinister or suspicious in any way, and I have attempted to address people civilly, when I have found myself unable to speak to them kindly.

Given a great many people, a small number of them are bound to behave in uncommon ways, you know. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Until(1 == 2), Strongly agree with your edit here. thats all ;)--Hu12 (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Be sure to say so on the talk page hehe, there are those who wish to portray those essays as more than essays despite the lack of consensus to do so. _(1 == 2) 14:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Didn't know?

You missed a helluva party! ;) ~ Riana ⁂ 14:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)