Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:06, 18 June 2006

Archives: July 2005 to March 2006 / March 2006 / April to May 2006 / May to June 2006

If you are here to complain that I've removed Template:inuse from an article, please understand this template is not and never has been intended to be used on an article for more than 3 hours at maximum (see Misplaced Pages:Edit lock). It is for avoiding edit conflicts, which are impossible while you aren't actually editting an article... so leaving it up for days is uncalled for. If you do not use the template incorrectly, I will not have to remove it. I'm not trying to mess with "your" article, I just want everyone to feel free to edit it, since this is Misplaced Pages and all. Thanks.

CWGC cemetery skeleton

Hi W.marsh! You removed the "in-use" template from Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Memorials and cemeteries task force/CWGC cemetery skeleton. This page is designed to be subst: into the main article space, then edited to create the article. If it were subst: as a skeleton, it would be speedy deleted as G1, G2, A1 or A3 in good faith by other admins.

Leaving the "in use" tag in place allows an editor to slowly create the article from the skeleton without finding it deleted (and then, depressingly, G4 deleted as people tend to think that speedy deletes are G4 candidates). In short, this is a useful template and whilst it may cause minor problems to have it existing in the skeleton page, it is a template that should be used more rather than less.

I've manually reverted the change; but if you feel strongly about this, please revert me back (and let me know your reasons on the skeleton's talk page?). Cheers! ➨ ЯЄDVERS 18:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake... I didn't realize its purpose. However, I do suggest eventually making that page a template, as you expect those to be used for subst'ing (and therefore, templates like inuse can be left on them perpetually). --W.marsh 18:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I'm not convinced that page skeletons are a good idea per se, I just like the idea of other potential editors having a nice framework to use. A template just seems so... permanent?... and I'd like to maintain the option of dropping the idea when/if the project gets a flood of sensible volunteers (so far I'm the only one, and I'm not using the template at all but Misplaced Pages =/= me, obviously). Thanks for giving me something to mull over! I'll come back with something sensible as an idea in the fullness of time. :o) ➨ ЯЄDVERS 20:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You need one of these

Gnostic Movement

I have some overall concerns about this article. Primarily the notablity of the subject matter. There are very few links from other sites to the external references, and often the primary links are only to each other. I am eliciting comments since you have edited on this page. See my comments on the talk page. Trödel 23:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Block of Dabljuh

Please rethink that block. While I agree he should not evade his block, I can very well understand that he feels treated unfair, as the original block was without any basis and the blocking admin refused to discuss it. Socafan 01:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said on AN/I, if he will just promise to stop evading the block, I will reduce it back to a week. So far he hasn't contacted me. I think my offer is reasonable, and as someone else pointed out on his talk, he can open an RFC against me or anyone else after the week is up. He was causing a lot of disruption before and especially after his block, so I think he needs some time to cool off. Of course if he said he'd stop the disruption and I thought he was being serious, I'd unblock him entirely. But again, he hasn't contacted me. --W.marsh 01:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone has blocked him without any basis. I do not think prolonging the ban will help him to cool down. It will embitter him and make him think admins support each other's unjust actions no matter what. Socafan 01:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

He was unappologetically evading a block and causing disruption. There's simply no excuse for that. If he's not mature enough to realize that, I'm sorry, but there's nothing I can do about it. I think I'm being reasonable. --W.marsh 02:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree he should not have evaded the block. However, the original block lacked any basis. I can understand that he is angry and I suggest he should apologize for evading the block, the admin for the block, and all sides calm down. How is that? Socafan 02:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, and in fact, it's all I'm asking for... if he says he will stop evading the block, I will take it back down to the 1 week. Anything beyond that he'll need to talk to the admin who gave the 1 week block, not me. --W.marsh 02:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The one week block was done for evading the block by the same admin who had done the original block without any basis. Please note Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#A_partial_defense_of_Dabljuh. Socafan 02:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As he has been blocked for a whole month with an original reason of absolutely nothing I doubt he will look at his page and would like to ask you to email him to invite him to a reasonable discussion. Socafan 03:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi W.Marsh. You appear to have second thoughts on your own ban, and that is good. There has not been a reason to block me in the first place, and there has certainly not been a reason (or a provision in the policy) to prolong my block to a month. You consider my behaviour "Disruptive" before and after the block. I must point out to you that I have been at no time been disruptive (in the sense of WP:Vandalism). All my edits, before, and after the block, were done in good faith and as an attempt to improve Misplaced Pages in many ways. The problem is people opposing to my points of view, that try to construct a personal attack out of everything I say, and of administrators, that, for reasons I can only speculate on, block and ban me at a whim.

PinchasC has been questioned several times by a number of different people who figured the original ban was an overreaction. Me and others have requested him to unblock me, but he does not seem to be interested in that. The sheer stubbornness which which he adheres to his illegitimate block of me should give you an indication that something bad is afoot.

The problem is not you, and neither is it myself. The problem is on one side PinchasC, who refuses to revoke an undue ban. On the other side, there are numberous grave flaws in the policy to deal with undue bans. For example, a blocked user can not start an RFC or anything on Misplaced Pages without evading a ban! Also, the policy strongly encourages administrators not to remove bans by other administrators, regardless of the blocks being abusive or unfounded. Eventually the only alternative an unduly banned user has to "sitting it out" is to evade the ban. Another problem is that the policy does not deal with ban evasion at all - Without guidance from policy, the administrators tend to do what they at first feel is right - like you increasing the ban to a month - or others by vandalizing my additions and resorting to personal attacks. Only to later figure out that this is absolutely not the right venue to deal with someone who is evading an (undue or not) ban.

All of these flaws in the policies have caused a number of problems: Your one month block, User:Megaman Zero's declaration that one could freely vandalize me and my assets and resort to personal attacks, and still PinchasC's original block along with his stubborness to revoke it.

I would like to remove all three problems. For now, I cannot realistically propose changes to those policies, (like, proposing a hypothetical WP:EVADE) but I can ask you to revoke your block. It'll reduce the number of problems the faulty policies have caused by one and makes the situation already a lot more remediable - to the point where only PinchasC needs to be convinced for the situation to find a solution.

Thank you, User:Dabljuh 213.113.27.69 13:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Post scriptum: I *promise* I will no longer evade any blocks once all blocks are revoked. User:Dabljuh 213.113.27.69 13:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, that's nice, but how could you evade a block if you aren't blocked? Sheesh. All I'm asking is that you agree to serve out the original 1 week block without trying to evade it. So far I see no acceptance of that from you. Even if you think a block is unjust, that doesn't justify evading it. Much like breaking out of jail isn't suddenly legal if I think I'm innocent. I can't forgive block evasion. But if you promise not to do it, I'll take the block down to the original week, anything else you'd need to take up with the original blocking admin. --W.marsh 13:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If an unjust (and irrevokable) block isn't legitimation for evasion, then what is? Note how someone who breaks out of jail and proves he is innocent of the original reason for being in jail, he doesn't go back to jail again but instead receives damages for the time he was in jail.

If you go on to tell me that there is no legitimate reason to evade a ban, ever, then I must simply respond to you with "There is no legitimate reason to ban, ever". Both statements are wrong. I can accept a ban or I don't, but this is at my leisure. If you ban me for serious misbehaviour, I accept it. If you ban me for no valid reason, then I must reject this ban, and evade it, for as long as I see fit - id est for as long as I am banned. User:Dabljuh 193.138.126.67 13:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Meh, I've lost my patience with this. Continue to evade the ban = the ban stays. Contact me on IRC or e-mail if you change your mind. But don't believe everything you see in movies - he'd go right back to jail until he was found innocent in a court of law, or the charges were dropped. Which is what's going on here. --W.marsh 14:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I would be glad if you treated the abusively blocking admin the same way you treat the abusively evasive user whose originally contested statement was no personal attack. Socafan 23:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

In use removal

You removed my in-use boxes on three satellite articles associated with cell microprocessor. This wasn't a service to anyone, which you would have realized had you looked even a tiny bit harder. I've been heavily involved with the Cell article for two months now, as you could see from my edit history, I didn't just disappear into a puff of smoke because for one day I wasn't able to find time.

• all three satellite articles are at present mostly composed of lorem ipsum
• I very carefully set a short time limit (June 15) on the message, which had not even expired in my time zone
• the edit boxes warned casual readers that these articles were not yet in a good state of repair
• the edit boxes pointed other editors wishing to become involved at the appropriate talk page, where I announced my intent to conduct this major edit well in advance
• the nature of the structural edit I'm involved in is rather ambitious, as you might realize if you have ever had to wade through the documentation set created by IBM in the process of spending $400m
• the main article (just below the TOC) also had a green box directing readers to a recently fully-intact version

There isn't much point going to all that trouble to set up the pilons if random do-gooders run off with them in the middle of the night. MaxEnt 08:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Just great, now since my pilons are gone, people are coming along and posting clean-up notices to attract attention to a half-assed work-in-progress than no-one except myself is presently well placed to address. How did you possibly think removing those pilons 24 hours before my notice expired was going to help anyone? Next time, would it be possible to find it within yourself to hold off another 48 hours? Is that asking too much? MaxEnt 08:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The inuse template is only to be used for a single edit session to avoid edit conflicts. It may be removed after 2 hours without an edit. Leaving it on longer to try to reserve articles, it was established through consensus, is too close to article ownership. Sorry, you're just going to have to deal with other people editting these articles (as you agreed to when you submitted them). --W.marsh 13:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to own the article, I was making efforts to coordinate people (and not confuse people) who came along to help while the sub-articles were in a state of disarray. Why doesn't the Misplaced Pages inuse template help contain a link to this policy, if this is agreed? I only put the lock pilon on the new sub-articles I had just created (as extremely and incomplete primitive stubs), not the main article itself. There was lots of text on the talk page about what was going on, but nobody had yet come along volunteering to contribute. Perhaps I didn't pick the best template, I merely picked what seemed best from the template help page I found. Why can't you bring yourself to make a note on my talk page before taking pre-emptive action with hardly any explanation? Just because you think 'us regulars have decided'? I don't think the policy was intended to prevent thought before action. I had only so far moved content onto the subtopic pages that I originally contributed myself. I was being very careful not to prevent others from contributing while I attempted to bring some order to the state of the article.

I just read the ownership link you provided. None of my actions implied that I was taking ownership of anything other than preventing a general state of confusion which I brought the sub-articles into an initial state of sanity. MaxEnt 14:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the notice I provided in the main article. I went out of my way not to include the main article in the lock set. By the way, where it the policy about two hours? There is no mention of two hours in the ownership link you provided. MaxEnt 14:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is recently defined as two hours. I'm still looking for that consensual policy reference. Am I completely crazy to interpret recently as soon after the stated lock period elapses? `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

Recently is a relative term, but you are claiming it translates into a fixed two hour term relate to an event (most recent edit) that the sentence itself does not reference. MaxEnt 14:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Your link to the discussion was illuminating. Thanks for providing that. I have a good idea now where you are coming from, and I appreciate what you are trying to accomplish here. I'm going to eliminate my use of these templates as a result. I can handle this in a better way. I think you are a little quick in acting on legislative authority, but that's a discussion for another time--when I don't have giant bleeding podlets to attend to. MaxEnt 18:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Dabljuh

Hi. I've filed Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Dabljuh and listed you as one of the parties, since as filed it centers around his recent blocks and evasions of same. Regards, Nandesuka 16:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Changes to policy suggested

As you were involved in the debate that later led to a block of me, I thought you might want to have a look at a suggestion I make regarding a couple of changes to the policies at checkuser policy site and the blocking policy site. Take care Socafan 17:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:LSY inuse tags again

I have found a more suitable tag which I have now left on the page, due to the fact that, despite your assurances, there was an edit whilst mine is still in progress. --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 19:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: my user talk page:

That is possible, but I have found in the past that there are often a few of these edits together. I am using the tag to stop these. Also, 5 days is the maximum downtime. I am predicting that 1960 will be done tomorrow, and 1961 by Monday. --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 20:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but the formats are incompatible. For example:

GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 20:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

DVD+R/W's RfA

Thank you for your support in my RfA, which ended with the result of (74/0/0). If there is anything I can help with feel free to ask. Also, if there is anything I am doing wrong, please point that out as well. I look forward to working with you in the future. Highest regards, DVD+ R/W 01:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

inuseuntil deprecation

I also added invitational notices to the Cell sub-articles to avert the sort of confusion I originally hoped to avoid when the inuse template struck me as the most suitable existing mechanism. To prevent future editors from becoming so struck, I also made this change:

.

As a result of our interaction, I spent quite a bit more time floating around in policy-space, especially concerning the admin subculture. I regard the primary flaw of these templates as having a negative orientation: Misplaced Pages notices should be biased toward positive instructions wherever possible, much like the traffic controls in Quebec that only indicate (in green) what you are allowed to do, which has been shown to encourage faster processing. I might actually go back and edit that template page again, to make yet more clear. MaxEnt 02:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a blurb up front. I'm not sure that commentary was intended for that page, but it will do more to avert future misuse that the notice here on your talk page that people only find after you kick out the struts. It was your own logic that set me off: edit conflicts are impossible here (because it was nearly impossible anyone would come along to edit those subpages rather than the main article, at least until the subpages gained a recognizable structure). I didn't regard those notices as preventing any edits from taking place, other than edits to mark incomplete sub-articles as fodder for the cleanup crews. What you failed to take into account, I think, is that the inexperienced editor can only think in specific terms, while you were reasoning instead from established patterns of use/abuse. In specific terms, in my case, the risk of having no notice at all was greater than the risk of having the wrong notice. I only put this template up in the first place because not 60 seconds after creating the first version with ipsum lorem text in place to assess the correct placement of the navbox template, someone came along and flagged the article for translation. General case reasoning against the use of a facility must be pointed out where the facility is first discovered, otherwise the inexperienced editor runs off with it and conducts specific reasoning as to appropriate use. MaxEnt 03:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

One more small point, just to make it clear that understanding the larger picture, I am totally converted and in favour of your position. It was when I read the consensus debate that I fully grasped the situation between us. I was not consensus that no specific appropriate use existed for these templates (many voices disputed this); it was rather a consensus that the general misuse outweighed any specific-case application. It's just that I didn't get a sense of that distinction in your initial justification and the implication that I ought to be sensitive to the general case assessment that I couldn't possibly know was annoying to me. MaxEnt 03:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Bot

I think the bot acts bad. It moves all the stubs and template stuff from over the category and places them under the category. -- Frap 20:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually that's just how AWB behaves by default. Per stub policy, there's no correct place to put the stub, but since the stub category is the least important of the article's categories, some Wikipedians prefer to place the template after the category tags, so that the stub category will appear last. A stub can either be there or after the external links... anywhere else is awkward. I'm not sure what you mean by "template stuff". --W.marsh 20:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Template stuff would be anything that use the {{stuff}} things. When viewing an article the category is at the bottom of the page, not the stub, so I think that the stub should be placed before the category. -- Frap 21:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's really something to bring up on WP:STUB's talk page to see if there's consensus to establish a standardized place to put the template. Right now, it's up to the editors discretion as far as I know. --W.marsh 21:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Bot flag

MarshBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to have been doing good work for a little while sans flag. I've reviewed a few contributions and see nothing objectionable. Go forth and pester a 'crat. robchurch | talk 01:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)