Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:43, 30 May 2010

Misplaced Pages ads	file info – #198

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

Agreement on ANI

Sorry, I didn't catch the nub of your statement in ANI. This isn't a process I'm particularly familiar with. Your summary seemed reasonable in many respects. If I could be sure that my lack of comment would not be seized as an opportunity for attacks on me, I'd be more comfortable. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean I'd sanction anyone for continuing to discuss this at AN/I, it was a request. I was suggesting using Wikiquette Alerts instead of AN/I as it's always easy for threads at AN/I to escalate into recrimination, and WQA offers a better venue for resolving behavioural disputes. It might help to apologise for suggesting that another editor's illness should prevent them from editing. Fences&Windows 21:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Raw food to Category:Raw foodism

Please add comments here. nirvana2013 (talk) 06:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Writing about events

As troubling as it probably was for you to write that statement, I am no longer concerned with this article as recent media coverage has proved its notability. I do, however, appreciate that you took you time out to do that. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Part of the advice of the guideline is to wait a few days for current events before writing about them (fat chance!) or nominating them for deletion, as they're a moving target. Fences&Windows 20:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Nuking chatter with templates (thanks)

You earned this :-)

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For your great work on expanding Social netvetting and thus for demonstrating the importance of WP:BEFORE. Regards SoWhy 14:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, ta. Fences&Windows 14:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The Story of Marie and Julien

Excellent work in expanding this article - thanks! Lugnuts (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for starting it. I bought it last month and thought it was very touching, I think some of the reviewers were expecting too much from it. I still need to expand the production section some more and add some notes on its distribution and reception. I think it's the first time I've done a plot description, it's quite wrenching to put in spoilers and very tricky to avoid just exhaustively listing every scene. Incorporating some comments on the plot from reviews is also on my to-do list. Fences&Windows 17:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No probs. Sorry for not getting back earlier - I'm not that familar with how to get articles to the different classes. The film projet has an assement page that gives more details. Thanks again for the expansion! Lugnuts (talk) 06:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Harvey (film)

Perhaps Harvey, the pooka, the invisible rabbit in Jimmy Stewart's film Harvey (film), is worthy of a "See also" with Smoke, the invisible dragon.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Why, yes he is! Fences&Windows 16:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Nazi Germany

I have replied to you in the article's discussion page. Cosmos 05:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

And your signature? Fences&Windows 11:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion policy advice requested

To User:NuclearWarfare, User:Fences and windows, and User:Stifle

I'm interested in discussing when we userfy and incubate articles, but while doing some review of our deletion policy articles, I noticed a need for some technical copy editing to tighten up the wording of the existing articles. (For example, some options are listed in our deletion policy that are not mentioned in XFD and vice versa.) I'm not sure where to start such a discussion—whether it belongs on the discussion page of Deletion policy, with notices on XFD talk pages, or someplace central like WP:VPI. I considered, and rejected WP:VPP, as I am discussing only copy editing, not policy changes, at this time. I picked three sysops I respect to ask for advice.

My draft writeup is here Deletion policy observations--SPhilbrickT 13:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

An excellent step, good idea. Our policies do need to be consistent and comprehensive, and this fragmentation is a natural consequence of collaborative editing. I'll take a look. I think wider discussion at WT:DELPOL with a notice at WP:VPP would be the best to get wider participation. Fences&Windows 14:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Got the same answer from two of you, so I'll go ahead at WT:DELPOL.--SPhilbrickT 15:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

user:Lisa Mattocks

Thank you for your input on my talk page. I am sorry that you felt my unblock decline transgressed WP:BITE; it did not seem so to me nor was it intended to. You will note that I unblocked this user (it was not my block) some long time before your posting. --Anthony.bradbury 11:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It's worked out OK and it was great that you did unblock. It was the original treatment and block of this editor that was most at fault. Fences&Windows 16:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Bluboy Recall

I agree with this ] one hundred percent. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I have also opened a Amin recall section on his page. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Re FkpCascais

I trully apologise. I didn´t wanted to intefere there at all, but I felt that I needed to ask for prove of the acusations that were directed towards me. I´m not sure, but from what I know, people here are too busy, and can easily see the situation in a different perspective than the real one. I mean, his phalse acusations may be taken serios. I also gave him another chance to apologise, because he insulted me several times, and still does! The "barnstar" he made was made for me, and I may have not reacted in the most correct way there, I know. As I had said, I will avoid him, as I already did several ocasions, because this time, I had honestly lost all faith that he can possibly have a normal dialogue on wiki. I apologise once more, and I will take this oportunity to thank you for having taken action in a situation that was being ignored for much time. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, good. If someone is exhibiting poor behaviour, the last thing you should do is exacerbate the situation by baiting them. If he continues to use insults etc. after coming off his ban, let me know straight away. Fences&Windows 20:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I´ll certainly follow your advice. Thank you once more. FkpCascais (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

hello, F&W.

I am interested in seeing a (specific) deleted article. What's the procedure? 22:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Efcmagnew (talk • contribs)

Tell me which one first! I can check and if there are no copyright, BLP, or other problems that rule it out I can restore it to your user space or email the contents and contributors list. Fences&Windows 22:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

(sheepishly): ouch. I didn't realize you were waiting like that. I actually don't have a need to view the article anymore. I do really appreciate the help, and please tell me if you ever open an RfB, I'll be glad to comment. Thank you muchly, and if you are curious, the article was Boxxy. Cheers, Efcmagnew (talk) 01:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/S Marshall 2

Open for conomination if you so wish. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Your question at my talk page

Many thanks for your kind post on my talk page! I've answered there, but wasn't sure if you'd necessarily have my talk page watchlisted (and I took my sweet time in replying...!)

Anyway - thank you. Your suggestion is one I'm actively considering, and although I don't think I'll be going through with it right now I'm now assuming I've almost run out of excuses and will be going through with it "soon".

Thanks again, TFOWR 12:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Google test

Misplaced Pages:Google searches and numbers is still marked as a proposal. It looks like a supplement of Misplaced Pages:Search engine test to me, should it be marked as such? Fences&Windows 16:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I knew I had written that essay some time ago but could not find it.

I would say WP:SET is a how-to guide on finding sources, but WP:GNUM should be an actual guideline on using Google in the deletion process. Stifle (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. I'm going through the old proposals to weed out the stale and failed, and once I've done that I'll look at reviving or widening discussion on the remaining proposals. Fences&Windows 16:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

MTV Gen AfD

I really don't want to make an issue of this, but I feel that you were unnecessarily hostile in your attitude toward me, and that you did not assume good faith. I genuinely wanted to improve the article, but had not found any suitable articles to substantiate the use of the term in an encyclopedia. I tried to find sources that mentioned MTV Gen in a serious context, and couldn't. I'm sorry that I failed in this task, and perhaps I could have tried harder, but I no longer have access to university databases, and have no local library. I asked others and they found several sources, but if you look through the history you can see that they did not meet wikipedia standards. As no one, even the most ardent supporters was able to produce any sources of any use, it seemed logical to conclude that they quite possibly did not exist. I think you'll find that in general I have been a reasonably conscientious contributor to wikipedia off and on for years, and am not a crazed deletionist. In future perhaps I'll try to be more careful, but I still stand by my actions which I think improved the encyclopedia. This article is a lot better now than it was, and I expect it would have been years waiting using any other method. If I was making a habit of nominating for deletion, or blanking pages I would understand your attitude. Perhaps in future you could tone down your rhetoric. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I had not seen your message. Thanks. I have deleted personally directed comments. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

please check this article for neutrality.

An IP had added some material in Excommunication of Margaret McBride justifying the Catholic position. Can you please check that for neutrality. --EvilFlyingMonkey (talk) 11:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a huge neutrality problem; I do see a potential issue of original research, but that should be easily remedied by only referring to interpretations and opinions given in reliable sources. Fences&Windows 13:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Strange links

Sorry to bother you, but before being blocked, User:LAz17 has posted some strange links on the discussion on Talk:FK_Partizan#logo. He had proposed the club logo to be changed, but the club official website has the one that was in place on the article and that he desagreed with. His proposal was turned down, but after some discussions on another talk page, regarding a name change that was also turned down, and that I also voted not to be accepted, he in vengance, altered the Partizan logo almost in a vandal move. When I tryied to explain to him that he was not right, he trolled me giving me some links that I didn´t opened, but that I can see from the link title that they are offensive. The first one says "Krme jedno" meaning something like "Dirty pig", and I´m not going to open them, but I suspect they are not official website as he claims. It is found on the bottom of the link of the Partizan talkpage I gave you. What shall we do? Should the links he put there be removed? I suspect they are insultive and possibly harmfull. FkpCascais (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a link to his photobucket, it's a screenshot showing the logo in use on a website. I don't know what that phrase means, but he's already blocked for incivility. A literal translation is probably not correct, I think it's a common phrase though probably mildly insulting. I'd leave the links be. As for the content dispute, the logo is obviously used both with and without the stars above it. However, I found a news story posted to the official FK Partizan website that complained about news media not using the two stars: I also found that "The two stars symbolize 20 championship titles which Partizan gained in its history." The 2009/10 jersey has the stars on the logo:. Based on this I'd support using the logo with the stars. Fences&Windows 11:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I wasn´t sure about the links, and since I saw that they are not the official website, I was kind of suspicious about them. Regarding the logo, the link he has provided doesn´t really mean nothing, since that is a logo found on a link to another website, not the official one. The official one () has only one logo, with stars. Regarding the comment, I informed better, and I found out that the expression is used when someone is being called stupid. I was not showing you this to get him blocked, but rather to ask you how to procede in this situation. Since my downlowding manager is not working properly, I´ll see someone to fix the logo. Thank you very much for the links you provided to me, they say it all, and I´m really sorry to make you loose time on this. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I just saw you corrected the situation regarding the logo. I also hope that this will send a message that wikipedia works strictly with sources, and not personal preferences, neither favours between users. Thank you very much. FkpCascais (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zero, None Of The Above

Thanks for letting me know. I've changed my !vote to Merge accordingly. Robofish (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of sockpuppetry

Your comments on this page are totally unacceptable. You're supposed to be an admin, and yet you appear to deal with an AfD request that you don't like by throwing around baseless accusations. I want this resolved; it's not reasonable to expect new users to deal with an attack by an admin.

I suggest that you 1) Find some actual evidence for your claim 2) Show that it isn't empty misdirection by having the appropriate checks performed (what is the point of outing a sockpuppet if nobody is going to deal with it?) or 3) apologise. Please note that those options include the possibility of me being guilty; I'm not trying to make demands for a resolution that doesn't benefit you).

Could you also explain how calling somebody a sockpuppet with little evidence and not acting on it is in any way constructive? Minkle Slowberries (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to beat around the bush when single-purpose accounts start AfDs. You're not a new user, so don't pretend to be one. Fences&Windows 21:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)