Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:45, 6 April 2009

User:Hiding/build

Archives

• RFA Thanks archive
• 2005
• 2006
• 2007
• 2008
• 2009

Thanks for the redirect

It is that article,but I disagree with the current name it should be called fata mosque bombing,FATA is arge area,it just like saying 2009 Punjab sri Lankan team attack.will discuss on article talk page.yousaf465'

MFD

• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jimbo Wales

Feel free to close it as soon as it is tomorrow UTC. Now it should stay so everyone gets a chance to see it. There was no DRV, though I could probably open one in the spirit of today. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(I apologise in advance, but I just have to : )

So, you closed it as delete...

Could I ask how you weighed the arguments? - jc37 09:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I know you're kidding, because everyone knows you just count the votes. Hiding T 09:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you not only topped me, but I think you owe me a new keyboard... - jc37 10:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Want to run a sweepstake on the date of someone using that close on Jimbo's user page in seriousness. Hiding T 10:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, cause it's likely gonna happen all too soon... - jc37 10:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

But now that you mention it, by my count it's 29 for delete; 13 for Keep; 6 for merge; 12 to move/redirect; and three to mark historical.

Since I obviously want this kept, I will (for a change) not suggest that the votes be counted, and instead think you should weigh the votes differently, and not count them this time so that I can get the closure I want. - jc37 10:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You're going too far now. Everyone knows you disregard votes that don't begin with "d". Did you doze off at cabal training or what? Hiding T 10:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ohhh, well, read the keep votes as "detain", the merge results as "disseminate", the move redirect votes as "direct", and the mark historical ones as "Dab". (And the delete ones as "Zither".) - jc37 10:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

But I detained it in the deletion log, disseminated it by casting it to the winds, directed its storage capacity elsewhere and dabbed it redundant. And everyone knows zither, being of germinic origin, is pronounced dsiff-er. Hiding T 10:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Know what else starts with D? DRV : p - jc37 10:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to wait 364 days. : p Hiding T 10:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What good is IAR if we have to follow process? Process just gets in the way of things being done right the way I want them done. - jc37 10:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, we probably need to strike this whole discussion. hilarious as it may be to us, I have a few beans here that think they might want to grow into a stalk of some kind. Have a cow you'd like to trade? Oh, you named her "Misplaced Pages", how appropriate : )

(There's an old cartoon about the car of tomorrow, and when they get to the "seal beam headlights", the response of the animator is what I'm feeling about this discussion right now : ) - jc37 10:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Lornna Soto

I don't see any reason to send this to AfD since you have added a source. That answers the PROD complaint in my opinion. Kevin (talk) 09:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• It's done now. The source wasn't that hard to find, so maybe you'd consider looking for them before you prod? My apologies, I jumped to a conclusion when I shouldn't have. Hiding T 09:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been doing the exact same PRODding as well, so I'm not sure any apology is needed. Kevin (talk) 10:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Impressive citation

Just to say that I was impressed by your reference to The Treachery of Images. Give yourself the Misplaced Pages equivalent of a slap on the back. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you. Hiding T 12:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit-war

I think this is the first time I've seen an editor argue that, since there is not (yet) a discussion about a contentious revert, edit-warring is therefore the way to go. I'm not sure what to make of your logic, and I'm hoping I've overlooked something. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Please read WP:CONSENSUS, especially the part about editing pages to get to a consensus. Also note, I've been here 4 years before I got accused of edit warring. That's not bad, especially considering I don't tend to edit war and very rarely breach 1RR. Further, I'm curious regarding your logic, because mine is the only talk page you've commented on, and either there are four participants in an edit war or none. I'd hope you'd at least question people who remove something for a demonstrably false reason, just for balance if nothing else. I always treat all participants in an edit war the same, so much so that I got a lot of flak for it, but I think it is the only way to maintain neutrality, and I would expect to be treated like that in return. Otherwise, by warning only one party you take sides on an issue and lose the air of impartiality. I'd also point you to the relevant policy page on edit warring, and ask you if my actions really meet the text book definition, because in my judgement they don't. Now I'm guessing you came here and started accusing me before I posted to the talk page. Although saying that, I can't see your post to the talk page. I'm happy to stand by my contributions record and my block log, both of which are readily accessible. Still, nice to meet you, Hiding T 15:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I gave the impression that I thought you were contributing in bad faith, or intentionally causing disruption. I do not think that either is the case. I do think that, on policy pages, after a bold edit has been reverted, no further reverts should be made until consensus has been established through discussion. I've now contributed to the discussion, and I appreciate your input there. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Contesting PROD

I want to contest this prod. WP:PROD says to complain to you, then go to DRV if you don't undelete it. I've never seen one not speedily undeleted at DRV, so the PROD policy may be out of date. Cheers, WilyD 15:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• This one, too, WilyD 15:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Done and dusted. Complain is the wrong word. You merely need to request it. I can't find the term "complain" in WP:PROD once. The reason we issue guidance to go to DRV is in case I'm not around, I may take a vacation or I may have a Mon-Fri editing pattern or weekends only. Or you may be contesting a few weeks, months or years later, and I've left. It's not out of date, it is merely a belt and braces approach. Hiding T 09:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

RFA

I responded on my talk page. :) BOZ (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming I can do the accepting now; is it OK to post my responses yet? BOZ (talk) 12:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL - got something I promised I'd post to Drilnoth's RFA first, but I'll be right on it as my responses were ready to go several hours ago. ;) BOZ (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT

• WP:NOT
• WT:NOT

As you were suggesting to give Gavin the benefit of the doubt elsewhere, I'd like you to look over his changes to NOT#PLOT, and whether they meet or change the previous (hard wrought) consensus on the text. (There is also a somewhat related talk page discussion.) - jc37 13:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the consensus is still emerging, and Gavin is editing within that framework. You've reverted twice without discussing on the talk page, which I'm not a big fan of, and I'm not sure I'd agree there's no consensus on the talk page. They're bouncing off each other, and I think they're all capable of tweaking the text if they don;t like it. Hiding T 13:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Now the page is protected. Hiding T 14:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be seeing more "discussion" on the talk page than I am. I guess I'm just remembering the rather lengthy discussions/debates/etc. which achieved the current text (which I vaguely seem to recall you were a part of). And the current discussion doesn't seem to be anywhere near that. Nor include anywhere near the quantity of people discussiong.

(And I'm not sure that I would agree that the discussion itself supports the edits I reverted.)

I especially am not certain about using the word "unencyclopedic" in the fashion that it's suggested being used.

Anyway, that said, when it comes to WP:NOT (and notability-fiction), I tend to be quite happy to defer to your opinion on the text, due to your extensive past experience with these discussions. So I withdraw my opposition (my "blanket reversion", or whatever you recently called it). And will support the unprotecting. Feel free to point Juliancolton to these comments. - jc37 15:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• I called them blanket reversions or whatever it was because you didn't make any comments on the talk page, and you just reverted, rather than edit the page to better reflect what you felt was consensus. Please participate in the discussion because it is the only way a true consensus can be achieved. I've followed the debates from pillar to post, and Gavin isn't too far off the mark with the thrust, but his language needs tweaking rather than reverting. I'm very much interested in seeing people tweak the text and rewrite, rather than plain revert, because reverting is confrontational. Granted I do it myself aplenty, but there you go. See the header. But don;t defer to me, I think we differ somewhat on our visions of Misplaced Pages, and I think it is important you assert your vision in both talking and tweaking policy. Hiding T 15:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: WP:NOT

One of the purposes of full protection is to prevent editors from exceeding 3RR, which has been exceeded/met several times during this dispute. While it's great that discussion is ongoing, it doesn't help to engage in discussion and edit war simultaneously. Thus, I feel protection is necessary at this time. –Juliancolton |  14:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

No, several users are reverting. Either way, feel free to remove the protection at your own discretion, as you're more familiar with the situation than I am. –Juliancolton |  14:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. –Juliancolton |  14:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll wait for some feedback before commenting on that thread. Regards, –Juliancolton |  15:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Celtstock AfD

Thanks for taking Celtstock to AfD, Hiding. I should have checked if there was a previous PROD on the article. I appreciate you spotting this and doing the work of starting the deletion discussion. Sandolsky (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)