Misplaced Pages

Tucson shootings

Re easy solution for dashes

Knowing that your comment was made elsewhere and some time ago, I nevertheless felt compelled to drop you a line or two. I must confess I was so taken with your proposed rodent war to settle the matter of hyphens and dashes that I convulsed uncontrollably — almost to the point of leaking in a most undignified way. As you might understand, however, we must now precipitate the inevitable struggle to settle the matter of precise species of rodents, fur colouring, weapon-length to body-mass handicapping, and rules about the presence of cats at such conflagrations. Another concern to be addressed would be the unsporting use of cheese and cockroaches as rodent distractions. Particularly important to taxonomy and morphology here will be the pungency of cheeses and the length-to-width ratio of cockroaches — we must ensure no ambiguity remains.

I propose we insert into the Manual of Style a new section on the civilized way to let the little furry buggers slaughter each other to resolve issues we are clearly unable to address by way of higher function.

Regards Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  02:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 Libyan uprising

Hello Avanu. I appreciate your good faith edit when you removed a great chunk from the intro of 2011 Libyan uprising. I also agree with you that it had become needlessly POV with many editors pushing to present certain angles. I know that intros should generally be short and this one was extremely long and was enough to repel novice readers. I just wish for you to know that my recent restoration of part of that text is not an act of defiance, I just believe that the information I had previously added belongs on the article. Please note also that I am neither pro- nor anti-Gaddai or opposition and I have only aspired to paint the picture of the episode. My biggest concern involves User:Gazpr who has twice now removed sourced information concerning rebel attacks on pro-Gaddafi civilians. Each time it has been conducted in a stealth manner but if I spot the source removed again, I shall discuss this with him. It had already been taken out by the time you blanked the section and now I have placed a small part of the removal into a new overview section before the timeline actually begins. I hope this is all right with you and I hope you appreciate I am neither pushing for rebels nor government. Evlekis (Евлекис) 08:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh I saw your edit, and I thought it was quite nice. Keep up the good work and thanks for keeping an eye on it. :) -- Avanu (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

And incidentally, I really hope that article can survive all the POV pushing going on. Parts of it really are jumping back and forth to things that I am simply surprised anyone could honestly see as anything belonging in Misplaced Pages. -- Avanu (talk) 08:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I realise this. I would personally advise you with the best of intentions that blanking is generally looked upon as hostile and it is far better to add citation tags, reduce smaller lumps, amend "journal-style" usages ("tyrant" or "dictator" to become "leader" or "president", "regime" to be "government" or "administration") and go about other ways to draw attention to the section. To be fair to you, I see you are standing by for a consensus and so am I for that matter. But as this is a current event with news coming in thick and fast and edits following suit, it may be better to wait a while until the situation settles down and then everybody knows where everybody stands. I'm just pointing this out so that you avoid ugly issues with other good-faith editors. Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) 16:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice little section for Superb when he's unbanned

Hiya, you seem like a helpful editor (Not sure from the Avanu sn if you're male or female, no offence), I don't suppose you'd want to make a nice little topic on the Talk page for 2011 LU so that SSP can put his reasons down for choosing Jamahiyra etc over the better known terms? I'd do it myself, but I'm getting sleep and must to go to the gym (girlfriend's orders) after I finish fixing the International Reactions Page and finish watching this cheap Sci-Fi flick. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

3rr warning

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. DreamGuy (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You need to be warned also. The revert you just engaged in, you did without referring to any sources, yet I have been and I was willing to actually spend time getting NPOV sources as well as biased ones. Instead of calling me out for doing research and placing reliable edits, please respond as REQUESTED at the article Talk page. -- Avanu (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

cuppa thanks

tedder (talk) has given you a cup of coffee, for taking the time to weather a dispute. Thanks for staying calm and civil! Coffee somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a coffee, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Thank you for patiently waiting out my misunderstanding and miscommunication. tedder (talk) 02:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Spread the lovely, warm, bitter goodness of coffee by adding {{subst:WikiCoffee}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I was detained today by Union County College police

Template:Image Wondering if you saw my write-up on the talk page. Wondering what your thoughts are. I'm thinking along the lines of -- can we substitute drawings for photos? Then the UCC police will be happy; and so will readers, right?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You own the copyright to the photographs, I assume, and they may be able to dictate access to the campus for a photo, but they certainly do not dictate Misplaced Pages policy. -- Avanu (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I declared the photos public domain. But I'm wondering whether they can make my life miserable at other oppotrunities. My daughter goes to school there. I'm a good researcher. I may want to work over the UCC article with more references, and cut out a lot of the unsourced promo material, don't yo uthink? --Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it seems like it would be silly of them to make such a fuss. Probably it would be best if the College public affairs staff was consulted about the picture taking, or perhaps even the college administrators, or even the local city government. Regardless, to me, it seems inappropriate for campus police to have a blanket policy that forbids innocent photography, and is probably illegal for them to pursue anything against you regarding that sort of activity. -- Avanu (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, in retrospect, I probably should have gotten permission first. But I dislike how I was treated. There are no signs up saying "No photos". And, police have the uniforms and the weapons and what am I going to do? My thinking is: if photos are disallowed, what's wrong with drawings? No problem there, right?-Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Although it would be advisable to get permission first, we don't live in a police state, hopefully. No harm, no foul, is an expression for a reason. -- Avanu (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

AfD section levelling

Check out Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 March 27

1. If you use a level-2 heading, EVERYTHING after your section header will appear underneath your header a subheading, meaning every other article nominated for deletion on March 27 after yours was placed on that page. It competes with the DAY heading level, having the equivalent heading as "March 27" itself.
2. If you use a level-3 heading, your section will appear exactly the SAME as article headings on the list of sections, so it appears like another article on the list instead of just being a subheading of an article already nominated.
3. Your sections are a subheading of your nominated article for deletion, it therefore requires to be at a lower level than the heading level of the AfD header for the article, which is a level-3 heading. So every subequent heading for the AfD page needs to be level-4 or lower.

65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 14:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Superb Superbus

I don't really get how this fellow is seemingly not understanding that he should not keep doing what he is doing when all the other editors are telling him not to, to the point of actual disruption. Any theories? My blunt statements didn't seem to work, nor did your friendly attempts to dissuade him. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know... it's disappointing. I haven't seen any other editors with his viewpoint and it sounds like a good one to have in the article if he would just stop editing like he is. -- Avanu (talk) 04:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I put my thoughts on the talk page, I just happened to see that he was unbanned, but only for talk pages. Best choice imo, because now he is unable to edit in articles, and maybe, just maybe he can be persuaded to put his talents to good editor-friendly use. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

He is still at it! How?! O_O Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Advice

Avanu, I just noticed you posted two responses to the Evidence page of Noleander's arbitration. Just so you know you can only post to that page if you present your own evidence, and then you're restricted to post in your section only. In other words you can't post in anyone else's section. A clerk, or other person will revert your posts if you don't do it yourself. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello? You should add your own evidence section if you wish to, but this is just a matter of procedure.Griswaldo (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed 2 of the 3. The one with the editor accusing SilverSeren of claiming a "Jewish Conspiracy", I did not remove, because honestly the section is not 'evidence' at all, but merely a character attack and really should be removed from that page entirely. It was a settled matter in the Wikiquette forum, and dredging it into this other page as 'evidence' is incredibly misleading and inappropriate. Regardless of whether we ought not comment in sections, such a comment shouldn't stand apart and unchallenged. -- Avanu (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

If it is 'evidence' of anything, it would be the nature of the rancor that is present in some of the comments aimed at Noleander. -- Avanu (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I have actually adressed that issue in my own evidence section and others have on the talk page. I'm afraid that you still can't post comments to someone else's section. You should remove that one as well. Create your own section to refute it if you want, or post to the talk page, but you just can't post in another's section. Sorry. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Hi Avanu. The instructions at the top of the evidence page are very clear: "Do not comments to other editors' sections." You have added comments to three different sections. Please remove them. You may place them as evidence in your own section if you require, but please note the requests from arbitrators on the talk pages of the evidence and workshop pages. I am sure this was an unwitting mistake. Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Gadaffi article request

Hey, you reverted my revert, so I thought I'd send you a message instead just reverting again:)

The original content I had restored was not mine...I was reverting a deletion by another user. The deletion had not been discussed on the talk page (and still has not). It is sourced, and the sources seem to match the claim. I don't disagree that it's a bit vague, but I don't think we should be deleting sourced content without consensus, and especially (as per the previous user) based on unilateral whim.

Can you please either restore the content or start a talk page discussion? Until we have consensus one way or another, I think the sourced content should remain. If it wasn't referenced, I would have no problem, but someone went to the trouble of getting a reputable source, and deserves a discussion on it being removed.

Thanks!Jbower47 (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.  Sandstein  19:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Thanks for reporting the problem, but in view of the talk page's history I feel that I have to leave you with an ugly template warning as well. Regards,  Sandstein  19:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Topic ban proposal concerning the lame "Mexican-American War" hyphen/en-dash dispute".Thank you.  Sandstein  20:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Wuz guy

Yup, he PRODDED about 20 articles on fraternities. I removed the PROD and he took them to AFD. He started with Alpha and was working his way into the Betas when people started to revolt against the deletions. I am not an anti-deletionist, just when things are on the fence I tend to favor keeping or merging. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Apology

I totally misread that comment you left me. Somehow I thought that you were calling Sandstein all of those things that you had boleded, where in reality those were just quotes from the AN thread. I misread a situation, overreacted, and went after you in the process. I am sorry for that and I will be more careful in the future. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Taco Bell lawsuit.

The law suit was withdrawn.

Lawsuit questioning Taco Bell's beef is dropped --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Userpage

I assume you didn't intend to edit my userpage? ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 21:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Why would a person of your obvious intellect assume something like that? -- Avanu (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Because the normal and accepted way for Wikipedians who don't intend to intentionally cause disruption (and I had placed you into that group, in my mind) to leave a message for another editor is not to edit their userpage but to post on their talkpage. Obviously. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢

I wasn't aware it was disruptive to comment on your commenting on other people. What exactly would I possibly be disrupting? Your solitary enjoyment of lambasting other people? Maybe in the future it might be better to just use your userspace for things relating to yourself, rather than on attacking people who are just trying to work collaboratively with you. -- Avanu (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You seem to me to be experienced enough to know that it is in no way the done thing for editors to leave comments on each other's userpages. If I've mis-assessed your level of clue then I can only apologise. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 22:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, pity, you have enemies – your redirect was actually the one sensible thing I've seen anyone do to that article! ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 22:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

  Your characterization of people as 'enemies' is probably why you end up in so many debates like this. They have a different point of view, that's all. -- Avanu (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

  And persistently so, it would seem! ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 22:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Silence (Doctor Who). Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. 88.104.40.103 (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the AfD template explicitly says "do not blank or redirect this while the AfD is ongoing". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

And I believe I explained myself within the Edit Summary, so go away please. If you have a *constuctive* comment, I welcome it, but not a lecture. Ignore All Rules is a valid rule. -- Avanu (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see "don't redirect this" written anywhere, actually, Sarek? ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 22:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It says don't remove the tag during a discussion, so technically blanking the page fits within that, but since there is a debate over notability, moving the content to the List page removes that debate and we can all move on with our lives. -- Avanu (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Correct, I edit conflicted with you while trying to fix it. It is implied in "don't remove this notice", though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I'd still have said it's not explicitly outlawed for (good) reason... ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 22:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Please also do not merge or copy content while the AfD is ongoing. See WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion. Flatscan (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Since no one can logically object to the content being under the List, a redirect at the moment makes more sense than continuing a silly argument. -- Avanu (talk) 04:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

"Please do not remove comments"

Ummm.... I didn't. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well you obviously came here to reply to it. I put that section there as an alternative to deletion of the content and alternative to deletion of the article (in a strict sense). As I stated on the article, it would be simple enough to merge the information for now. Despite his incivility, Treasury makes a reasonable point about this alien race's overall notability versus other Doctor Who aliens. Moving it for now ends the complaints and if the section expands, it can easily be moved back with a swift copy/paste. -- Avanu (talk) 03:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

On the same note, editors are encouraged to look for ways to achieve consensus. I don't think this content needs to be deleted, and I don't necessarily see why Treasury objects to it so strongly, but regardless, the argument could be over if it were just moved and redirected. -- Avanu (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)