Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:22, 4 January 2010

WBQK

Please see WP:DPR#NAC. As the creator of this article your closing of the deletion discussion was inappropriate. In fact, that should be self-evident even without knowing the policy. Poor form indeed. Pantherskin (talk) 12:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

So are you saying that creating an article is not editing? That was new to me. And you have edited the article, in fact even ignoring that you created the article you are the main contributor. What all means that you should not have closed the deletion discussion. Btw, you did not even close it properly. Pantherskin (talk) 12:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

SPI

I looked at LTA but couldn't find what I was looking for ... this is the signature of some regular vandal whom we haven't seen in a while, I know it. WIsh I could be more helpful. Daniel Case (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Finished Regarding DC Meetup #9

• You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
• Planning — for the most part, anyway — is now finished (see here) for DC Meetup #9.

--NBahn (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Taking things personally,

Re, your message, fine, it was your article, but that is no reason to treat me like shit as you have been. There is no need for the hostility or insults. I left a single message on the closing admin's talk page. A single message. How is that jumping up and down saying 'look at me' until I get my way? To reiterate, a single message. First of all, yes, it is entirely possible for a person to make several consecutive mistakes, it happens all the time. Second, do not bring religion into this, it has nothing at all to do with it and I do not want to discuss it. Third, the admin did not decide keep. If you would take the time to read his first closure, you would see that he noted it was withdrawn. You want to throw around insults? Fine. I'm going to take the high road, and not jump down to your level. He wasn't voting keep, he was noting that it was kept, with a note about it being withdrawn, so it doesn't count how you want it to. Secondly on that previous note about how he closed it, if he had truly meant for it to be keep, and not withdrawn, he would have declined my request for the fix, but he didn't. As to taking it personally, I personally don't see how you could, as the article is maybe two sentences, a few templates, and an infobox. There wasn't all that much work put into it, it is more of a listing than an article. If you had put many, many, many hours into it, like some articles I have seen, I would understand, but I do not understand why you would put so much care into an article like that, so much care, that you can't even control yourself, and lash out at others needlessly. As to why it was so important it was noted as withdrawn, that is because that is how it is done. It is procedure, something that I take care to follow, something I care about, just like how I won't simply stand there and have a non-existent policy quoted to me. Further, I do not need a wikibreak because of three mistakes, you however, might, as you have been increasingly hostile towards me when I have spoken calmly, and civilly. You have been rude to me without warrant(AfD'ing your article does not make this behavior justifiable). Further, you think I should take a wikibreak for 3 mistakes(I know this is redundant), and yet, you have had many, many blocks for disruption. You say it isn't possible for a user to make mistakes that quickly, yet your block log is a living contradiction to that statement. Two consecutive blocks on the tenth, both for increased incivility. Both mistakes, all within a few short hours. Hmmmm... several more increases of said block due to constant increases of incivility and hostility(hmm, doesn't this sound familiar, perhaps, the conversation on that admin's page and the recent article talk page? I think I'm seeing a pattern..)... and what is this? Abusive sockpuppetry! More and more mistakes.. let's see, four socks. Looks like you kept making the same mistake over and over again.

I used to like you. I thought you were a good user with a sound opinion on a few matters where I have run into you, but after experiencing your unwarranted incivility and hostility first hand, I'm going to have to change that opinion. You have no room to tell me to go on a wikibreak, when you have made far more mistakes than I have, and you have purposely repeated those mistakes (not to mention the most recent two blocks for the same mistake on the 7th). Due to your increasing incivility and hostility, me thinks you should be the one to take the wikibreak.— Dædαlus 12:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Neutralhomer, I have your talk page watched. As two editors who I highly respect, can I make a comment? User:Daedalus969, the link you provided is not "treat like shit" or full of "insults" "incivility" or "hostility" That said, I think Neutralhomer's explanation of Daedalus969's behavior could have been worded differently.

You have to understand User:Daedalus969, that when you put other editors work up for deletion, you are often going to get blowback. The question is, how will you plan to react in the future User:Daedalus969?

Admiting a mistake is noble and rare here, but saying such things as "I used to like you." almost nulifies this mea culpa. Daedalus969, I see the posting here as just as personal as Neutralhomer's posting, but even more so: "I used to like you." This doesnt help.

I would suggest you deleting this section Neutralhomer, and Daedalus969, unwatch this page please. Ikip (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Re, your message(as an unrelated aside, I always try to link to the post I'm replying to, but sometimes I get lazy and just don't), I'm going to start off.. and carry this.. discussion in the same order as the aforementioned, linked, message:

That I can understand... I treat the quasi-detective work I do regarding sockpuppets in roughly the same way(this may be partly because well, I am simply not good at creating articles. In fact, I don't think I have created a single article, although I have substantially edited a few), but yes, I can understand that feeling.(to make this easier to read, I'm going to try and structure it the same way you did in the linked post)

Alright. I actually had not heard that saying before... nothing much to say here except that I now understand what you meant.

I'm going to do this slightly differently, but still say the same thing(you'll see): I can understand the headstrong bit. I myself have the same trouble.. I don't easily give up. That aside, I myself am sorry as well, for being rude, snapping back, failing to remain calm, and being insulting regarding your block log, and, if it at all matters, for commenting on the size of that article.

I understand what you mean now, and I can understand why it worries you.. I don't know if I can really explain my drive behind those mistakes at this moment, but in case I have not already said so, I was very wrong for perpetrating those three mistakes(obviously, but I feel the need to be redundant/transparent/whatever you could call this). ... And thank you for the compliment(I would also like to say on this note(the compliment).. that I .. I don't know what I consider myself. Established, sure, but I don't know about 'good')... on that note, I would also like to take back what I said regarding that further note on whether I like you or not. Simply(in case it already wasn't clear), I would like to put this thing behind us(however, I still have posts to address, and so....).

Maybe for you, wikibreaks help.. but I really don't have much to do. I spend most of my time on my computer, doing various things, such as modeling in the 3D program Maya. ..To the point, I did try a wikibreak once, when I was under much stress from dealing with a particular editor.. A long story short, it didn't help; figuratively, the wound did not heal, it just festered(I hope that makes sense), and as my forced wikibreak ended, I began editing with the same, if not more so, mood I had when I left.

Like I said somewhere above, I take back what I said, and I hope we can put this thing behind us.

It does explain things. I don't need anything more explained in detail, I believe, I understood things perfectly. Thank you, and thank you for your time.— Dædαlus 23:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WXEZ-FM 2009.PNG

Thanks for uploading File:WXEZ-FM 2009.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

historic logos

Just an FYI, Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-13/KOTK has been opened concerning the question of whether historic logos may be used in Radio and TV station articles.--RadioFan (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout

Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Misplaced Pages:The Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

WBOP

Need some help. I tried to upload an old image of WBOP (the magic 95.5 logo) and accidently deleted the Rebel 95.5 logo, although it still exists in the file. Thanks!-VarietyPerson (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Additonally I did made the same mistake for WTGD. Sorry!-VarietyPerson (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, you can now disregard the WTGD mistake. Will now try to work on the WBOP mistake.-VarietyPerson (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You can now disregard the WBOP mistake. Sorry to bother you!-VarietyPerson (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Opened case at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-13/KOTK

Hello. The Mediaction Cabal case created by User:RadioFan has been opened by me. Please comments at the case page if you of whether accept mediation or not. Note, unlike arbitration, mediation is non-binding. Regards, The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 04:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Willking1979 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Willking1979 (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Your actions at ANI

Please stop interfering with threads that I have started at ANI. I'm sure if any actions are necessary, an admin will eventually take them. Try to avoid closing, archiving, moving, or otherwise subverting threads which involve me, since your actions appear to be personally motivated. You are still welcome to offer your opinion along with anyone else. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

WKPL (disambiguation)‎

I have just been looking into the history of the WKPL (disambiguation)‎ page. You are at least arguably correct that a dab page is not needed here, and I was about to change this back to a redirect and inform User:Jim1401 of my reason for doing so. (mind you, it could be argued that since WKPL is a redirect rather than an article, there is no primary page and a dab page should exist at WKPL. In fact the more I think about it that seems the best soultion. Would you object to moving WKPL (disambiguation)‎ to WKPL as per Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation?

But in any case a redir to an existing page is not properly deleted via a CSD in a case like this. So even if WKPL (disambiguation)‎ is reconverted to a redir, it should go via prod or WP:RFD, in my view. DES 04:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

As you apparently saw, move done. Thanks for adding the dab template and talk page template -- I was about to do them, you saved me a step. DES 05:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

You got mail

Regarding the CU you needed. — Coren  03:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle

You've been asked nicely to stop editing his talk page; please respect that request. While I agree with the original premise that Delicious carbuncle should let the matter go, you're now badgering him in the same manner. Let it go ;) Shell 06:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I also asked him to do the same on my talk page, but as you can see he posted twice on my talk page after that request. I don't really see why or how I should do what he asks on his talk page when he can't do the same on mine. Seems a little one sided. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Easily solved. Delicious carbuncle has agreed to avoid editing your talk page as well. Thank you for the quick response. Shell 07:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Please forgive me if I don't believe him. He said that before, but came back. I will try to AGF, but it is tough with someone like DC who doesn't live up to his word. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments like that are unlikely to help resolve the situation. I know if someone made similar remarks about me, I would feel compelled to respond. Shell 07:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I did say I was assume good faith...it is just tough to when he acts like he has, especially with the innocent user PCHS-NJROTC. That is the real reason why DC and I are interacting. Take that and the posts after asking him not to post on my talk page and it makes trusting/believing him very difficult. I am trying very hard to though and will continue to assume good faith, but again, it is tough. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concern, however, when you find it becomes difficult to assume good faith any longer its usually an indication that its time to disengage and allow other, fresher community members to deal with whatever situation has occurred. Quite a few editors have weighed in over the issues with PCHS-NJROTC so I'm certain things won't simply be left to rot if any issues crop up. Another discussion after the holidays are over is likely to produce a larger response and a more clear consensus on what, if anything, should be done. Shell 08:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That is clearly the problem. Where does the discussions end? One is closed, DC starts another. Where does DC, trying to get his point across (like he hasn't the first three times), step into continous and blatant disruption and harrassment of PCHS-NJROTC? Everyone from you to Ryulong to even ChildofMidnight has told DC to back off, nothing will come of it, it was a clear mistake, move on. Yet, DC seems to think that rehashing the same points that he stated in the first three discussion a fourth time is going to change things. What it is going to change is PCHS-NJROTC isn't going to get blocked, it is DC. To be very blunt, if I may, he doesn't seem to have the brains when to jump off the ship when it is sinking. This continous discussion is sinking faster than the Titanic. When does stating a point cross over into disruption and harrassment? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

WSVG

Please be careful. You have reverted a lot of edits at WSVG, marking them as vandalism, but I do not believe they were vandalism. Instead, the content that was removed was short and unsourced, and thus it should be removed if controversial. The editor came to #wikipedia-en-help asking why it was being reverted and explained why the information might be wrong. This doesn't mean it is wrong, but it does mean it needs a source. I undid your reversion. Please let me know if you have any questions. Regards. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on WSVG. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Final warning

You were indef blocked for sock puppetry, and then given a second chance several months later, after which you drew a few minor blocks for edit warring or disruption. You are hereby restricted from any further interference with User:Delicious Carbuncle or any other administrator or editor who wants to raise concerns at a noticeboard. Any more disruption of threads by "forceful archiving" or initiation of tangents, such as retaliatory ban proposals, may result in restoration of your indefinite block. Either edit peaceably, or find another online activity. Jehochman 03:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)