| Revision as of 17:36, 9 May 2008 editDorftrottel (talk | contribs)14,762 edits →RfB Comments: You're welcome.← Previous edit |
Revision as of 01:41, 10 May 2008 edit undoDorftrottel (talk | contribs)14,762 edits "ARCHIVING"Next edit → |
| Line 36: |
Line 36: |
|
__TOC__ |
|
__TOC__ |
|
</noinclude> |
|
</noinclude> |
|
|
|
|
== streams of insults == |
|
|
|
|
|
Regarding (now-removed) comment: '''(i)''' What precisely ''is'' the issue, iyo? '''(ii)''' I'm not "throwing insults against articles", I'm simply noting that pure plot summaries are not encyclopedic articles by any stretch of imagination. If you think otherwise and believe Misplaced Pages should allow this (which it currently does ], to my understanding), you might want to address this at e.g. ] or ]. '''(iii)''' So what should I stop? Repeating what Misplaced Pages policy says about the issue of pure plot summary articles? ] (]) 11:09, ], 200<!--DT-->8 |
|
|
:I removed that comment to phrase it better, but since you ask: '''(i)''' The issue in that particular section is the idea that we should take far-reaching action on the basis of the legal fears of laymen. This pops up every now and then, and it is best addressed promptly. Derailing the topic for any reason sucks. '''(ii)''' That is what you were doing, but I figured you would not object to my description considering that in doing so you went well out of your way and off-topic to belittle such things. Those enormous quotation marks looked nice, though, thanks for that. If I was wrong, then I apologize. '''(iii)''' I think '''(i)''' covers this. HTH. --]<font color="black">]</font><font color="green">]</font> 12:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::''the idea that we should take far-reaching action on the basis of the legal fears of laymen'' — If I'm not completely mistaken, we do indeed agree that it is generally a bad idea to plunge into blind actionism without awaiting an expert opinion. OTOH, a court case is not a good reason to ''defend'' crappy articles, either. What I (and e.g. also Ursasapien) are trying to establish is that disproportionate plot summaries are a matter of purely encyclopedic concern, entirely regardless of that court case. To make it very clear: ''No blind actionism'' does <u>not</u> equal ''No action that goes, even it's for only indirectly related reasons, in a similar direction (i.e. stubbifying/AfD/etcpp)''. ] (]) 12:17, ], 200<!--DT-->8 |
|
|
|
|
|
==Jaina Solo AfD close== |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, I was waffling between closing as delete and no consensus which ultimately led me to believe that I should go with the latter. If there is no significant improvement to the article in the future, it will be much more difficult to make the case for keeping next time around.--] <small>| ] | ]</small> 17:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
:You're right. It just looked ugly! Should put in alias. Cheers! ] (]) 20:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::yup, same thing. I did it within the text as the see also template doesn't allow it (as far as I can tell). Cheers! ] (]) 20:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==]== |
|
|
Sorry for not using an edit summary. I removed the link to cuteness since it is linked in the same section and not needed there. Thank you, --] (]) 13:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==]== |
|
|
Hi Dorftrottel, I made the change I did because that sentence makes no sense as it stands. Was she married to the first lady for a time? That is how the sentence read? Maybe we should take this to the talk page? Thank you, --] (]) 14:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Response== |
|
|
|
|
|
That was not an attack on you. It was attack on the logic you used, and then my response to that logic. ] <small>| ] ]</small> 12:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Nonsense. ] (]) 13:24, ], 200<!--DT-->8 |
|
|
|
|
|
] Please ] - Most editors that have been around for a while are familiar with the rules. If they break (or are about to break) one, it is frequently the result of some dispute, or temporarily heated tempers. In such situations, sticking to "did you know we had a rule against this" mentality tends to be counterproductive in resolving the issue, as it can be misconstrued as being patronising and uncivil. regards --] (]) 12:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:And while we're here, edit summaries such as are pretty uncivil - diliff was debating issues with you, which your rather delicate sensibilities seemed to take to heart - but he did not use abusive language - calling someone a 'prick' in an edit summary, really isn't on and as you are happy to run around the place threatening blocks, this may result in ''you'' being blocked. --] (]) 12:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Amusing edit summary == |
|
|
|
|
|
this is a rather amusing edit summary, especially when one compares block logs my dear Dorfy. All this for some formatting? Come on...Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 23:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Formatting? It's a 'nil edit note' to one substandard editor who aggressively assumes ownership of many articles under a doubtful username... and don't call me Dorfy, Casi... ] (]) 23:26, ], 200<!--DT-->8 |
|
|
::Hmmm....depends if one has a sense of humour on how one interprets the word 'expert' really. And what is a 'nil edit note' then? Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 03:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::"Substandard" editor who "aggressively assumes ownership of many articles," huh. That's totally incivil and ironic coming from someone who's had ... how many is it? ... several user names, vandalized several articles, been blocked for doing so, and then intentionally evaded those blocks through anonymous IP accounts and sockpuppetry. Notice how Dorftrottel deleted the section entitled "Quit deleting blank spaces in a section header on my discussion page," which can be found . ] (]) 06:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I know, I was bemused by that as well. Ah well. Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 06:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Oh, I have the diffs to prove it. ] (]) 08:23, ], 200<!--DT-->8 |
|
|
:::::: Now I am confused - prove what? Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 08:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::''substandard editor who aggressively assumes ownership of many articles'' ] (]) 08:36, ], 200<!--DT-->8 |
|
|
:::::::: I'm all ears (or eyes or whatever). Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 08:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Ok, but I'm stepping outside for a while. Later. ] (]) 08:43, ], 200<!--DT-->8 |
|
|
|
|
|
{{#if:Barneca||<span style="font-size: 120%; font-weight: bold; color: red;">ERROR:</span> '''Please enter the ''username'' parameter when using the {{tl|Talkback}} template.'''<div style="display: none;">}} |
|
|
<div class="usermessage" style="background-color: #BBDDFF; border-color: RoyalBlue;">] Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}. {{#if:|You have ] on ].|You have ] at ]'s talk page.}}<br /><span class="plainlinks" style="font-size: 80%; font-weight: normal;">You may at any time by removing the {{tl|Talkback}} template.</span></div>{{#if:Barneca||</div>}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Not RFA spam == |
|
|
|
|
|
No, I'm not a guy (at least my husband reassures me of this). Like many women who maintain a presence on large, male-dominated websites, though, I very rarely point out my sex. Even without doing that, I've had my share of creepy emails and sexually-oriented userpage vandalism; I don't even want to think what some female admins have been through. And to be honest, I can't think of very many times where I've seen myself referred to in the third person, so it's not come up very often. Thanks for your support, moral and otherwise. Oh wait...I wasn't ''meaning'' to spam you... ] (]) 00:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== RfB Comments == |
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, Dorftrottel, I appreciate your trust. -- ] (]) 14:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:You're welcome. ] (]) 17:36, ], 200<!--DT-->8 |
|