Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:11, 3 January 2009

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist and topic subscriptions to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

Archives

Archive 1 - Aug 2007 to Dec 2007 Archive 2 - Dec 2007 to Present

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

WP:CANVASS

I don't understand how you could approve this as neutral notification. WP:CANVASS seems to clearly define this as Campaigning. Could you elucidate for me how this is not canvassing? Thank you, DoubleBlue (talk) 07:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too sure how you could see how it is canvassing. Would you enlighten me as to which parts of his notices to the boards were not neutral? --Smashville 23:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

"Since this new proposal seems to be an attempt to force us into line with other peoples ideas of how to name articles. I thought I should make a note of it here since they failed to let us know the discussion was going on. Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (sportspeople). It is someone who has proposed this before and was shot down before but I think he is now trying to officially propose it." Clearly expressing his own view of the matter and what should be done about it rather than just saying "There is a proposal now under draft that would impact our naming conventions. Please go their to express your ideas." DoubleBlue (talk) 23:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Mostly, I am just concerned that you have officially approved this as "neutral" and I would not like to see this as precedent of the right way to direct attention to discussions. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

We don't have discussions on WP:ANI purely to cause drama. There is no action for an admin to take, so I closed the discussion. --Smashville 03:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't the least bit of concern about closing the discussion as I hope my initial comment there implied. I think Djsasso is a fine editor who had a momentary lapse of judgement. I am concerned that this was closed by saying that the post was neutral and thus implying that this is an example of how to invite editors to a discussion. Even Djsasso admitted it "may have sounded less than neutral". I would prefer that you had closed it, much as I requested, by cautioning to keep one's cool when posting and to invite discussion without expressing an opinion. DoubleBlue (talk) 06:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess considering what is generally considered canvassing, I read them as neutral. They still seem neutral to me, although I can see the use of the word "force" can be somewhat contentious... --Smashville 17:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I guess we just differ on that. Could you perhaps in future at least close a similar discussion by saying "while less than ideal wording, I don't find it to violate WP:CANVASS"? DoubleBlue (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Deal. --Smashville 17:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

re: WQA Request

The issue of Realkyhick's civility has already been solved, but thank you for checking my request.

You had written:

"I closed your WQA request as pointless and in bad faith. You did not provide diffs and you did not notify Realkyhick of the discussion. In addition, since Realkyhick is not an admin, there is absolutely no way that he could abuse admin tools and thus, there is absolutely no way he could use them against you. I highly suggest you focus on improving the encyclopedia instead of forum shopping to try to get users who disagree with you in trouble. --Smashvilletalk 00:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)"

I don't know what "diff" or "forum shopping" mean and by admin tools, I simply meant tagging.

I don't believe I acted in bad faith and I did notify Realychick. In fact, the moment I did, Realkyhick appealed to Orangemike (see User talk:Orangemike ), and thereafter Orangemike deleted my 3rd party review request and further edited the page with incorrect rationale in what appears to be an act of meat puppetry.

I've already noted multiple times that I will leave the page for others to edit to avoid "owbership" claims so your suggestions are moot but appreciated.--Nynewart (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for trying, Smash. I don't think Nynewart really "gets it,"" gut you gave it the old college try. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Thank you so very much my good man! Sam seems really cool and laid-back so I really lucked out. And from what you say, I can really learn a lot from him. I have a feeling this is going to be quite an adventure. Glad you suggested this for me! You rock! Cheers_Dude (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much!

Hey there, thanks so much for endorsing the unblock, I'm really happy to be able to edit again. (tobobo (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC))

Damiens.rf

Smashville, I templated him for vandalism. He has repeatedly vandalized the article with his spurious claims of "weasel words", "No ref", "OR", despite the fact that references are, in fact, in the article (no they're not blogs or forums or OR :) ) He's been asked , over and over again, to stop. He's refusing. Bottom line, he makes a decent edit, nothing happens, he vandalizes, he gets templated like anyone else. It's policy. — Kosh 01:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You templated his page twice in 24 hours despite the fact that he had not edited. And you revert the Dwight Lauderdale article with comments such as: . Considering that you consider to add OR, non-encyclopedic tone and peacock terms to the article, there is absolutely no basis to your continued harassment of him. --Smashville 01:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Smashville, other way around, Damiens.rf was removing referenced information, not OR, etc... this is considered vandalism. Vandalism is exempt from 3rr. Every claim in the article is backed up by a verifiable source (not mine, not synth, not OR). SO no, no synth, peacock terms are in the article. As far as unencyclopedic tone. There's no set definition on that, so that's pretty much an opinion at this point. As such, it's neither right nor wrong, just an opinion. — Kosh 01:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

His edits are NOT in any circumstance vandalism. He is removing unencyclopedic content and language. Blatant vandalism is exempt from 3RR. His edits to the article are not even borderline vandalism, they are constructive. Calling edits vandalism that are not vandalism is considered a personal attack. Your edits are not backed up by a verifiable sources. They are the definition of WP:SYNTH. Specifically the most recent contentious edit. No source on earth can tell you a person's motivations for doing what they do, so to claim they do something for the "fun of it" is just silly. --Smashville 01:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Synth? Nope. SYNTH states (in part):

Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research

None of this is occuring. I am directly quoting the source any time a claim is made. This is not Synth. Thanks — Kosh 14:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm

I was going to drop you a line and say thanks for leaving the comments at AN/I but then I saw "This user is a Nashville Predators fan." on your userpage and decided to say Go RED WINGS! instead. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ha...as much as I dislike the Wings, I hope Lidstrom's okay...he's pure class. --Smashville 01:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Misplaced Pages:PLAXICO

I have nominated Misplaced Pages:PLAXICO (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

RFD

I gave a little reply, I hope you might consider it. Sorry for not coming to you first. You do a good job on the project. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Perfectly fine. I've been through enough of these to know not to take it personally. I've also been through enough to know that it really isn't all that important and if one person worries it might be disruptive, more probably will too. I went ahead and deleted it. --Smashville 04:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Unblock Request

Thank you for accepting my unblock request. SPNirology (talk) 05:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Quite welcome! --Smashville 05:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Your edits

To Dwight Lauderdale have been reverted. There are in no way OR. Each occurance of "OR" is actually sourced and referenced, and in both cases is a direct quote from the article itself. Thanks — Kosh 12:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't appreciate you referring to my edits as vandalism. --Smashville 16:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Protection of User_talk:KoshVorlon

I tend to agree with you in the disagreement, but protecting the page of a blocked user, when you're currently arguing with him on that talk page seems to be a bit out of process. Perhaps you could post the action for review at WP:AN, and see what some other administrators thing about the issue. Regards, SDJ 19:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Took to AN...although I will say the reason I am even involved is because yesterday I asked him to stop the behavior (edit warring, harassment, personal attacks) which ultimately led to his block. --Smashville 20:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have no problem with the block or anything else regarding what has transpired. (I myself have crossed paths with KoshVorlon.) AN may even hold up the protection you placed. It just doesn't look good, is all I was saying. SDJ 20:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for dealing with the situation as you have done. Not every administrator is willing to admit when they might have made a mistake. Especially when it was pointed out by a non-administrator. While I felt the protection was mistaken, I'm very impressed indeed with your conduct afterward. Keep up the good work! SDJ 05:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Dru_Down_(album)

Hi there. You closed this as delete, but didn't delete the other two in the nomination: Cash Me Out and Greatest Hits (Dru Down album). I assume they should be deleted as well? Thanks! Raven1977 (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That I did...thanks for letting me know...taken care of. --Smashville 18:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, and I hope you have a happy new year! Raven1977 (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't help but notice

Hi, was plaxicoed a Freudian slip or intentional? (noticing the title of the thread just following on AN/I)....hopefully no one else will respond there otherwise it would mess it up. Makes for great continuity. ☻
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice the title on the next one...that's great! --Smashville 23:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Nizevyn Block

Please do a checkuser on the accused sockpuppet Nizevyn. I don't believe he is a sockpuppet and has been incorrectly banned. --Theblog (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)