Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:31, 18 April 2006

My RFA

I regret doing this :-( But I believe you opposed my RFA based on evidence brought by User:Stockdiver. Just to let you know if your oppose was concluded by evidence by Stockdiver, you should be aware that Stockdiver is a abusive sockpuppet of a known vandal, Mcfly85. And that the evidence brought up was from December. Thought I would let you know... Moe £` 03:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

On Moe's RFA, your comment. It is bad faith. This dude has so much given to this place and yet, wikipedia sometime, as to I agree, dosen't completely keep up with its own policy. Please have good faith. It was against it. I am not here to nag or point fingers but, it is bad faith and please be positive.--Slipknot222 22:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Your accusation is a serious charge; I do not look favorably upon it. I made two comments on this user's RfA. I voted; this user made the comment seen here above; this caused me to alter my vote. This is nothing personal; I have done so before under similar circumstances. I have now placed a prominent notice at the top of this page warning candidates of my standards of conduct. I hope this is sufficient evidence of my sincerity.

This user has, since April 2004, been considered for adminship 5 times. More disturbing to me is that on at least 4 occasions he has withdrawn his self-nomination before the conclusion of voting. I feel this indicates inability to withstand criticism. I believe this user is unsuitable for these duties and should not risk yet another nomination. He may be a fine editor and I wish him only well. John Reid 22:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Slipknot, We're all disappointed because Moe is considering leaving Misplaced Pages, but accusing the oppose voters of bad faith is not going to help at all. John Reid is a respected contributor. I can assure you that his vote and comments were made in good faith. I know Moe was a good friend of yours, but we all need to think positive and avoid unnecessary conflict. --TantalumTelluride 22:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Mille Bornes/work

Hi John Reid. Since the above page is only used by you right now, maybe you could consider moving it to your userspace, maybe User:John Reid/work/Mille Bornes, so it is not under the article space. I know you have this:

This is a work page of source material, images, and text-in-process. All sorts of issues must be resolved before merging into the article itself. This should not be considered public material.

At the top of the page, but if you move it to your userspace, it would cause less confusion to what it is.

Regards, Moe £` 21:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Why would I do that? Nobody can possibly be confused who can read; others aren't likely to be there. It's in the logical place; I hope other editors will join in. It's not my personal property. Would you rather have it in talk namespace? How did you find the page anyway? Did you decide to contribute to Mille Bornes, so you took a look on Talk:Mille Bornes, and followed the link to the workpage? If so, what made you decide not to contribute? Or are you still annoyed at me for voting on your RfA? Is this going to be an ongoing problem? John Reid 22:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Strange you brought up my RFA because it has nothing to do with it. It looked like a solitary editor was involved in making the page and I was going to inform who ever it was about it (it just happened to be you). Yes, moving it to the talk namespace would create less confusion. As to how I found it, I was just clicking the random article button and came across it. It has nothing to do with your voting at my recent RFA or the above commentary by User:Slipknot222 (Which I saw while I was on wikibreak). Moe £` 00:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

PS. I was just looking through your contributions and saw you, mostly, respond to users messages on your own talk page. For others sake, respond on thier talk page too. It's more convenient for everybody. (I would not have responded to your above message had I not looked back through my own contributions) :-) Moe £` 00:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing strange about it, Moe. There is no way for you to show that my comment, to which you took such grave exception, is not still a thorn in your side. I'm very sorry that you feel that way but I think it's clear: you and I might like to take a break from one another. You can rest assured that if I'm doing evil, some other editor will catch it and deal with me.

I generally reply to comments on whatever talk page they are originally made. I think this is right, proper, intelligent, and sensible; it preserves the conversation as an intact unit. When I comment on another user's talk page I routinely check back for a reply there. I don't require that anyone else do it my way or see it my way. I'm sorry if you're inconvenienced.

I shall move the workpage to talk namespace, at your request. John Reid 22:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for moving it. I never meant the comment above to be directed towards you in a mean way. I didn't think you were doing anything bad, but just that you misplaced something. But that's fixed now. As for the vote on my RFA, it's nothing anymore but the past.

It's you're decision to which page you respond on. I was just trying to save others the time in trying to find resonses made on pages. Regards, Moe £` 19:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

If, as seems likely, you wish to make a public issue of my decisions, you need to create an RfC. John Reid 20:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm about to bring up a dead discussion, but why would I create an RFC? Moe £` 21:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you're beating a dead horse. If you'd like to improve the article in question, it certainly needs work. If you think my actions are out of order, I think you've taken it as far as you can on this page. Sorry. I think I've done all I can to satisfy your objections. John Reid 22:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Poll End Date and Time

May I ask why you made the userfying userboxes poll end on April 1, 2006 at 200 UTC? That seems like such an arbitrary time. How about April 8 at 2320 UTC or, for simplicity, April 9, 2006 at 0000 UTC? joturner 23:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh, I didn't! I wrote ending 02:00, April 8, 2006 (UTC). That's just 7 days -- 168 hours -- from now. Seemed like a good idea at the time but I agree that just about any closing date is arbitrary. I dislike open-ended polls, though. Change it if you like. John Reid 23:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your vote of confidence in my recent request for bureaucratship. Even though it didn't pass, I greatly appreciate your support and hope I will continue to have your respect. Thank you! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I encourage you to wait a year and reapply. John Reid 23:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Significance

Okay, I've moved the page to Misplaced Pages:Notability/Proposal, noted that at the pump and hope a working party will build. I tagged it as historical because there was no-one who turned up and supported the proposal. Some show of support would have helped really, it appeared to me I was fighting as one man. I recognise it will attract criticism, even as basic as it is at present, but it's hard to move forward if all the supporters remain silent. Steve block talk 08:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

continued on User talk:Steve block John Reid 22:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• John, if you want to take it forward your own way, let me know, I'll happily bow out. Steve block talk 09:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Lee Asher

Actually, as of right now, nobody is actively proposing deletion of Lee Asher. I did at one time, but backed off. He's apparently one of the leading professional close-up magicians, and while that's a tiny field, within it he has some modest recognition. His big problem is that he's heavily into self promotion, and has a whole line of self-published pamphlets and DVDs, none of which have ISBN numbers or are found in LC or Amazon.com. I'm inclined to let this one go. There are far, far worse self-promoters to be dealt with. In the last week I've seen self-promotion articles from a mid-level ad agency exec, a fashion company with a product line of four T-shirts, a company that makes beer coolers, and a TV show produced in-house for showing in one high school, all of whom complained about deletion.

And besides, maybe we can get Asher to write about close-up magic, which he does seem to know about. --John Nagle 07:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I AfD'd it, for reasons there noted. Maybe I'm wrong; I'll trust to process to discover that. I did throw the user a few bones on his talk. John Reid 17:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence (WP:V) that Asher is one of the leading professional close-up magicians, despite efforts of several people to find some, other than his own self-promotion and the claim of some anon (possibly another sockpuppet) on the AfD page. As far as I can tell, he's just a huckster who does card tricks. I agree that there are certainly worse cases and I wish there was a way to get rid of them all. Phr 22:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is. John Reid 01:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Lee Asher AfD

I notice you forgot to link the AfD to the AfD log page (see step 3 at WP:AFD) so people monitoring deletion discussions can find it. I'll go ahead and do it but you should know about this for next time. Phr 07:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yet another procedure. Thanks for picking up after me. I went back and fixed the other AfD I did today. John Reid 17:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Graphics for Compass and straightedge

This discussion has outgrown my talk page; moved to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Graphics#Constructions. John Reid 14:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Pi/Unrolled

Please see Talk:Pi/Unrolled

Gentlemen, I'm delighted to have so much participation in this relatively minor subsubproject. But this has outgrown my talk page. John Reid 03:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Phonearea code template

I finished the rest of those entries. the template is good for deletion --larsinio (poke) 15:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. John Reid 02:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposals

I notice you have been involved recently with the development of a number of policy initiatives. While there is no procedural bar against this, please allow me to suggest that you may be more effective if you concentrate on one or two at a time. Do understand that I'm not implying in any way that you have run afoul of any guideline here; only that you may not be as effective as you would like. If there's any way I can help, please let me know. John Reid 13:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not mind if the stuff I proposed is supported/opposed/ignored. I am merely trying to come up with ideas that would make wikipedia a better and more troll-free enviorment. Don't ger me wrong I would like my proposals to be implimented, I just dont have the patience/time to polish and perfect them alone.

Generally stuff I sugguest is ignored until someting big happens. Semi-protect was my one of my ideas... It was implimented after the not so pleasant appearance of Misplaced Pages on CNN.

I however thank you for your advice. I am not declining it, but I am not certain how to proceed. I do not mind if you may want to assist with the proposals' polish etc.

--Cool Cat 13:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for taking your response seriously, I was under the impresion you were trying to help policies I propose pass. Instead it appears you are campaigning against it, I do not think higly of accusations I recieve. Implying a hidden motive isn't any better. Please don't waiste my time with similar comments in the future. --Cool Cat 14:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I can be entirely sincere in my advice to you personally and in my comments on some of your proposals -- both at once -- and indeed I am. John Reid 14:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Portals

I rm the portals proposal from {{cent}}. Steve, I'd like you to consider this a favor. You need to spearhead the notability initiative; it's a critical issue, very important. That will take up all the time and effort you can give to it. Portals aren't drawing much interest right now and maybe that's okay. We'd like to keep cent short and targeted to active issues. John Reid 02:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not very happy about this. The portals proposal looks acceptable, and I was just about to implement it. I'm also not sure who the "we" is in the last sentence, I don't recall there ever being any problem with {{cent}} before. Steve block talk 07:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Steve, it's quite all right if you want to reinsert Misplaced Pages:Portal/Proposals. I don't think it's good judgement but I won't stand in your way. It's not okay that you should edit the log in the way that you have. For good or bad, I did rm that line; you chose to reinsert. I don't fight about things like this; I'd like you to do the correct thing: restore my signed edit to its original state and note your edit of the template in the log in a new section with the correct date. Thank you.

Meanwhile, let's try to be a bit more direct with our edit sums. It's less than forthcoming to say removing an incorrect statement; it might be better to say restoring Misplaced Pages:Portal/Proposals. If you feel you need to justify your action, that's what the log page is for. Personally, I don't think there's any need to squabble over it. I certainly would not challenge your reinsertion -- but on the other hand, I would never be distracted by a misleading edit sum, either.

Who is "we"? I don't think there's a "problem" with {cent} -- and I think we all would like it that way. You're included. John Reid 18:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Steve, do you think you can get on #wikipedia just around 0100 GMT, in about 2 hours or so? I'd like to chat. John Reid 22:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

No chance, I'm in GMT, and I should be in bed now, I'm just killing time until midnight at this point. That's way too late for me, sorry. Steve block talk 22:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Above comments copied verbatim from User talk:Steve block at 01:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC). At 23:11 Steve block copied a portion of this text in a slightly altered form and added a comment:

You say "we'd like to keep cent short and targeted to active proposals." That reads like a loaded statement, and I'm asking who the "we" is in that statement. I don't recall ever having an issue with listing something there before. As to your other points, I hope you'll agree I don't need your permission to restore stuff. Your questioning of my judgement is pretty pointless if you don't give a reason. As to editing the log, I never ever saw a log for cent before. I've restored your comment, and left a note on my opinion of it. I don't agree with the cent log, so I'm going to pass on listing my edit to it, I don't see any need to have a log other than the history of {{cent}}. As to the edit summary, I could find no other place in which to note my action, so I had to use the edit summary. I'm not at all sure how you decided it was an inactive proposal, and I'm not at all sure you should have made that call without mentioning it on the talk page of the proposal or even tagging the proposal as inactive. Still, that's your lookout. Like I say, it's trialling now, and seems to be working. You iknow, I left it four days to get a response from you before I did anything. I'd say that's fair play, wouldn't you. You didn't even give me the chance to respond to your actions, you presented them to me as a done deal. Anyway, it's past my bedtime. G'night. Steve block talk 23:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm on your side, Steve, really I am. I may not always agree with what you do or how you do it but I often agree with your intent. You may have noticed that there are editors who do not agree with your intent; they may also disagree with your methods. I'd like to suggest that you might, on the one hand, be able to gain support by changing your methods; on the other hand, you might alienate existing support if you continue this way. I'd rather see you make progress.

Normally when an editor leaves a long comment on talk I try to reply point-by-point. Joe asks, say, why I wear fuzzy slippers; and I say I wear slippers because the floor is cold and they're fuzzy because that was what was on sale. I don't feel comfortable giving you a point-by-point reply because I think you'll perceive it as antagonistic.

I have to ask you directly to refrain from editing signed comments. If you edit mine I may take offense; if you edit others' I may take offense; if you edit others' they may take offense. You might choose to refactor editors' comments; I do this occasionally, for instance by adding or changing section headings; but many of us think it's very important not to tamper with other editors' meanings.

For example, you've copied comments here that you and I made on your talk page -- but you copied them out of order. Check the timestamps. By putting my request for chat after your long comment you make it appear that our conversation went in a different direction than it did. I'm glad you restored my comments on the cent log; but I don't understand why you would alter them at all. It's not that it upsets me very much -- it's that I don't like to see you going the wrong way on the road. It's too likely that you'll run into somebody who is quick to anger. Then you've violated talk page guidelines and you're on your way to RfC.

I understand that the cent log is new; we'll see if it works and if it doesn't, well then, we'll try something else. Meanwhile, I'd appreciate it if you'd be so kind as to log any changes you make to the template. That way we'll have a record of what goes in and goes out, a bit more detailed than edit sums. If you want to discuss the log, best to do so on Misplaced Pages talk:Centralized discussion. Comments in the log itself are best directed to specific changes to the template.

Let me make it crystal clear: You do not need anyone's permission to edit {{cent}}. As I said, it's quite all right with me if you make changes. Indeed I'd like to avoid as much as possible all controversy -- not just here but everywhere. Certainly we don't want editors arguing about what proposals can be argued about.

Please do try to remember that I'm here to help. I think it will do a great deal of good if you and I take a few minutes to chat privately. Just let me know when it's a good time for you. John Reid 01:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

John, I copied here what I thought was germane. If people want to read that whichever way they want that's up to them, the timestamps, as you state, address what way it went down. I'm getting confused here. I prefer to reply at a user's talk page, you prefer to keep conversations in a thread. I tried to give the best of both worlds here and screwed that up. I apologise. Your comments are still where you left them, unedited.

As to removing the comment, I apologise. I had hoped for a reply from you so that we could move forward. Like I say, I felt your action in removing it and marking it as inactive was incorrect and perhaps somewhat unilateral; me, I'll talk to the person or people shepherding the proposal before I do that, I won't just do it. But that's me. So I got to waiting four days, and I saw no response from you, and I couldn't figure out what the cent log was, there was no talk page, and so I figured the best call would be to remove the comment. After all, you removed the proposal from the cent template, what harm could it do. However, as you say, I screwed that up. I apologised. I have replaced it.

As to the cent log, I honestly am not going to jump through loops and use it; I apologise, but I can't see what it adds that the history of {{tl:cent}} doesn't, it's too timeconsuming and I see it as instruction creep. You want to add anything I do to the cent template to it, feel free.

As to what I do and my methods, people who have a problem with me should just up and say it. I can't address what I don't know. What people say to my face is for me to deal with; what people say behind my back is for them to deal with. If I'm harming the project, let me know; I don't think I am, but then again, who does. I also can't say I ever met someone who disagreed with my intent. It'd help me if you told me what it is about my methods you don't like. Steve block talk 19:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course mine are only one man's opinions; it's important to keep that in mind. You're free to disregard them but I hope you'll get some advantage from a different view.

I do indeed prefer to keep all discussions in coherent threads. More, I'm especially careful to document what I do when I move talk around. After all, it's bad enough when people say things that are misleading, deceptive, untrue, or malicious; I think it's extremely important to avoid even giving the impression that I have somehow altered someone else's comments so as to bias a discussion or impute an incorrect meaning or character. I'd rather blatantly rewrite other editors' comments and so state, openly, than correct another editor's misspelling. Naturally, not everyone agrees with this stand but I think it's closest to overall community consensus and practice. I certainly accept your apology. I'm much less concerned that what you did might affect me and much more worried that it might affect you.

I rm the proposal in question not as inactive, but as inactive new. That may have been a poor choice of words; I'm sorry. To rephrase at length: The proposal in question is very new. It has not attracted very much discussion. Just to remove that last statement from the realm of the relative, I count 6 contributors to Misplaced Pages talk:Portal/Proposals. That's not much discussion for a proposal that cuts across the entire project. Perhaps advertising the proposal on cent is exactly the right thing to do. Well, that's why we do things the way we do them: I do this, you do that, we all hope for the best. Not a problem, I think.

Please re-read this thread from the top; I think you're missing my drift. You need to spearhead the notability initiative. That's what I think. I wish you would reserve your political capital, your initiative, what have you, for this. I asked you to consider the rm a favor. It's not just you who has limited energy (as do we all); the community has only a limited amount of attention. I applaud you for getting out in front on the general notability issue and I'd like to see you stay there and win.

I can't make you maintain the log and I can't keep you from editing cent without logging your changes; but I'd really appreciate it if you didn't make work for other people. The log is needed to keep track of the complex and potentially contentious changes made to the template. Edit sums are not enough, sorry. You might try following the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Centralized discussion#Conclusions and see also Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion/Conclusions#Concluded topics.

You seem to have some difficulty taking advice from me, which makes me very reluctant to give it. Maybe my advice is worthless. I'd like to hope that there are other editors whose opinions you do respect. I'm afraid that you're going about some proposals in a way that will not gather support -- and since I think those proposals have some merit at core, I hope you'll be open to suggestions from others.

I would prefer not to discuss specific objections openly on talk. I'd rather not give your opponents any ammunition. I really would appreciate it if you could find some time to chat quietly with me on IRC or through some other medium. John Reid 21:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

John, I had a huge reply written here, but it's late and I want to go to bed. Allow me to cut to the meat: giving me advice is one thing, presenting something to me as fait accompli is another, which is how I took your message and actions. I may have misread that too, for which I apologise. I'll listen to anything offered. I'm already thinking on your last post at the proposal. There's certainly a communication issue between us, but I'm big enough and ugly enough to look past that. IRC is probably not going to work, I can't stay up until 2 in the morning. (BST) I just tried you but I didn't get through. Anyway, I'm away to bed. Steve block talk 23:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you're concerned about fait accompli. This never bothers me very much. Somebody does something that I think is wrong, I go ahead and do something else maybe. Or I do something and somebody else reverts it -- oh well. It's a wiki. I tend not to discuss things at length beforehand. I do what I think is right and comment on talk. If I was wrong then somebody else will fix it. So long as I don't do anything especially drastic, I think it will be okay. I don't get into revert wars because I figure that if I was right after all then somebody else will change it again.

By all means chat me when it's a good time for you. If I'm not around then, try another time. I'm often around. Certainly no point in your staying up late to chat anybody. My hours are long and irregular so there's a pretty fair chance I'll be in the office when you're free. John Reid 02:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Cent

Concerning Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion/Conclusions and Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion/Template log, I think some sort of list should be merged onto one page.

If you notice on the Conclusions page that the first half just copies all of the detailed conclusions that were passed, while the second half is a sinmple log of all conclusions. I think this entire page could be modified to something that looks more like Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests where you just list a copyedited, one brief paragraph digest of the conclusions. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's continue this at Misplaced Pages talk:Centralized discussion#Conclusions. Sorry, my fault for getting started on your user talk. John Reid 11:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for supporting me in my RfA. I really didn't think people appreciate my work here that much, but it's nice to see you do: my Request was closed with 66 supports and 4 opposes. I'll do my best not to turn your confidence down. If in any point in the future you get the feeling I'm doing something wrong, do not hesitate to drop me a line. --Dijxtra 11:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! Now back to work. John Reid 17:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Drama film stub image

Kewl! Her Pegship 04:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Drama film stub, if you please! I don't even know what the drama stage stub looks like. If you want other stuff like this, let me know. John Reid 18:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course. :P I've been tinkering around with a few stub images for the film stubs using the Nuvola icon, but I'm glad somebody else is into such embellishments. I'm particularly fond of the image. Have fun! Her Pegship 18:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Your vote on the Deny recognition proposal

Hello John Reid. Please note that I've replied to your vote on the Deny recognition proposal. Your opposition seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the process in use there; I've simplified and emphasised the instructions to prevent any further confusion. // Pathoschild (/_map) 21:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:HORSE ****?

I'm not sure that WP:HORSE is the best acronym for your essay - the first place I saw it, (without having read the policy), I thought it meant "I think Statement A is horse shit". Maybe WP:LEGS would be better - the point of the article is about the legs, anyway, not the horse: a cow could've been used. Maybe I have a dirty mind. I've refrained from changing it, since it's your essay :) -- stillnotelf is invisible 23:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Please make any needed improvement with my blessing. You can set as many shortcuts as the rest of the community will allow you. It's certainly not important to me. Thanks for reading the essay. John Reid 02:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I see you've made the change; and I think I understand your point. You're thinking about horse's ass; that's certainly not my intent. I've added the singular, too, since I'm more likely to write something like Sorry, but I think that's a leg. John Reid 15:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Your probably false claims about the template subnational entities

• • You indirectly claimed there has been at least one reincarnation, please consider to remove your claim or to provide evidence of re-incarnation (s). If you just took the words of Willy, then I suggest to take more care with what he says. -- Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Please read. Thank you. John Reid 20:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• I did not read it, because false claims are not a matter of opinion. You may read lie . Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)