Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:30, 17 December 2013

December 2013

The Fort Campbell Children's Theatre is as noteworthy as any other children's theatre in Misplaced Pages. It was part of the Morale Welfare program of the Army at Fort Campbell and cites the history of that organization. It may not be as important as Fort Campbell itself, but is a part of its history. There is no reason to delete it as being not noteworthy. Hairhorse (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch for deleting Billy St. John for being not noteworthy. I indicated that the article was just a draft and did not have a chance to finish before your nubile fingers deleted it. BSJ has published over 50 plays which have been produced in all 50 states and many other countries. I will finish the project. Knock yourself out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hairhorse (talk • contribs) 22:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC) sorry, forgot to sign. Hairhorse (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

A complaint against you has been filed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Barney_the_barney_barney_reported_by_User:Alfonzo_Green_.28Result:_.29. Alfonzo Green (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Z10

I couldn't believe this and had to check. I've learned that reverting any material, not just the same material, counts towards the 3RR bright line thing. In my naivete, I didn't know this before. It's a damn shame though, particularly as the edits concerned were removing woolly thinking. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 05:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mark Arsten (talk · contribs) - made a mistake. Thought I'd only reverted Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs) 3 times, but being a sneaky little sod he had reverted earlier attempts to whitewash this article. Of course if admins had pulled their collective fingers out and enforced WP:ARB/PS on Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs) and his fellow anti-Misplaced Pages editors, this wouldn't have been a problem would it? Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, thanks to Hasteur (talk · contribs). Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

And not forgetting Roxy the dog (talk · contribs). Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

And IRWolfie (talk · contribs) (who's been hounded off by the inability of admins to extract digit as well), and Vzaak (talk · contribs) who also wants them to extract digit and Jzg (talk · contribs) who having told the pro-Sheldrake SPA editors "don't be so stupid as to try to claim that this isn't fringe"...- and they promptly did just that. WP:AE is required I'm afraid, starting with the SPAs. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Barney, my attempt to persuade Mark Arsten to unblock you has come to nothing. I have a question for you; do you know if Red Pen is really gone for good? 76.107.171.90 (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks 76 (who is not 74). Don't worry about me being blocked. I have no idea whether TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) has done an IRWolfie (talk · contribs), although I could try to email him. There is quite a high casualty rate amongst editors trying to enforce WP:FRINGE. It is very difficult to reach consensus with people who are simply not competent enough to edit. And the powers that be simply aren't interested in enforcing WP:FRINGE, but rather take the view that there are two sides in every dispute equally wrong, when related to "fringe" issues this simply isn't the case. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I have not been editing due to a holiday and computer issues. The holiday is over, but the computer issues remain so I will probably not be very active till those get worked out. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I’m 76 damn it! If I was 74 I would have written at least 8000 words of completely incoherent gibberish.

Seriously though, I find the current situation quite disconcerting. Historically the pro-Misplaced Pages editors are supposed to win because the rules favor them. However if the administrators won’t enforce the rules then the pro-Misplaced Pages editors might as well not have the rules on their side at all. Are you really going to take Alfonzo to WP:AE? And do you need any help? 76.107.171.90 (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Not going to discuss strategy publicly as people are watching. Log in and email me. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Barney, but the whole “editing from an IP thing” is a matter of personal philosophy. It’s my own way of saying “consider my words, not my reputation”. I’ll try to figure out if there’s anything I can do non-collaboratively instead. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You don't need to edit logged in, you just need to drop me an email. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

It has taken me this long to figure out some of what is happening. I'm changing my thinking from 3RR to 3EE from now on. I'm going to try to get my email working, so don't do anything drastic like has been going on elsewhere. Thank you. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 09:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

So, I started compiling a list of diffs to be used against Alfonzo and BlarneyBallocks in a WP:AE when I had second thoughts. In looking over all the incidents associated with Sheldrake I’ve noticed that any effort to improve the article is a fight against fringe pushing retards AND administrators. I’ve also noticed that a number of articles have been converted into pro-fringe propaganda and have stayed that way. If Sheldrake’s merry morons want to pack his article full of bullshit then perhaps we should let them. After all, the internet is full of misinformation, but obvious misinformation is the least dangerous kind. If the Sheldrake article can’t be true, then it’s probably best that it be glaringly false so that it won’t deceive anyone. I think I’m done following the Sheldrake article. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Peter Sleight (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to FRCP

Sir Charles Price (MP) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to DL

Steven Rose (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hilary Rose

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1966

The article List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1966 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Pure Listcruft

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JMHamo (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1966 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1966 is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1966 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JMHamo (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Arthur J. Stanley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Charles Ross and William Taylor

List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1953 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to John Barker and Thomas Wallace

List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1959 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Robert Spence and Ann Bishop

List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1966 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to John Sutton and Harry Harris

Anita Gregory (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to British

Clement Mundle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Scottish

List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1947 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John Hutchinson

List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1952 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Harry Jones

List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1955 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Dan Lewis

List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1956 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Robert Brown

List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1962 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to William Cochran

List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1964 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to William Hayes

List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1965 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hans Kronberger

List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 1968 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to David Rees

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning: Pseudoscience

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to pseudoscience and fringe science. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

In particular, please stop casting aspersions of misconduct against others, see my comment in the recent AE thread.  Sandstein  16:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)