Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:30, 2 October 2014

As of July 16, 2014, I continue discussions started on my talk page, on my talk page, as I feel this is easier than moving back and forth between users'.

Archives

December 15, 2007 – January 9, 2009 January 11, 2009 – May 12, 2009 May 13, 2009 – April 15, 2010 April 19, 2010 – December 20, 2013 January 19, 2014 – April 8, 2014 April 10, 2014 – July 8, 2014 July 20, 2014 – September 24, 2014

Sleeping Dogs FAC

Have you seen the progress made? URDNEXT (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes! It seems to be coming along nicely; it certainly is wonderful that it was picked up by a copyeditor so rapidly. Tezero (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

And John will also be copy editing the article as well. URDNEXT (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Serge

Ok, fair enough. I actually left you a detailed reply on his talk page, but her removed it (though its viewable in his history) and then stopped me from talking to him via that means. Anyway, I'm done. Thanks for a decent experience from you though.Nice to see not everyone is that bad (and I sense you kinda see my frustration). Good luck.

87.112.83.31 (do IPs get notifications like this?), I'll reply on your talk page. Tezero (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Sonic X

Congratulations on the FA! Get ready for another FA today or tomorrow with Sleeping Dogs too. URDNEXT (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

URDNEXT, I wouldn't count on it getting promoted that quickly; Sonic X had to wait a few days after the last comments were made, and Sleeping Dogs last I checked still has some unaddressed copyediting issues (that I nonetheless can't fix because of the generic way in which they were posited). I think I am gonna look over Tony Hawk's Underground a bit more and nominate it soon after Sonic X's FAC template gets updated, though - plus someone has agreed to copyedit Amy Rose. All in all, I've got enough FACs to last me quite a while. Have you got any plans for more? Tezero (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll take Super Mario Bros. 3 to FA, The Social Network to GA, then FA, Batman: Under the Red Hood just the same as the latter, and Payday 2 just like them. URDNEXT (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

So, how's it going? URDNEXT (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I feel kind of... sunbleached. In a literal sense it's very warm and bright where I'm sitting at the moment, and I'm also rather "burned out" from various obligations. Actually, right now I should be looking for transport to Cincinnati, from which I'll be taking the train next weekend; penning a couple of documents for my university's honors program; and cranking out a couple of assignments for my Web Programming class. In other words, heh, Misplaced Pages is not of the highest priority at this moment and I'll log off after telling you this. On Misplaced Pages, I dunno, I'm also getting kind of disillusioned with my work - it feels like I'm just going through the motions at this point rather than actually improving articles and educating myself. Actually, I might not bother FA-ing everything on my "current projects" list; it only depends on whether the motivation's there when the time comes. I'm considering just putting most things on Misplaced Pages aside for a month (except whatever FAC's on the table at the time) and doing the GA Cup; that might be a nice change of pace. I dunno. What are your feelings on the matter? Tezero (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I highly reccomend you do the GA cup. It's necessary for someone to have a change of pace on something they do a lot for their own sanity. URDNEXT (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congrats with making Sonic X a FA. It is looking really good. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should the Four Award include post-GA DYK?

I have closed the discussion. --Pine 07:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Question

Do you have Netflix? URDNEXT (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, URDNEXT, why do you ask? Haven't watched much on it lately. Tezero (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you do me a favor and watch The Social Network? Of course, if you haven't already. URDNEXT (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I saw it on DVD circa 2011. It was pretty good, though I found Mark Zuckerberg's girlfriend profusely unlikable, and I now kind of resent Johns Hopkins, where it was filmed, for rejecting me but only waitlisting someone I know with an ACT score ten points below mine. Why do you - wait, you're working on that page, right? Is this so I can make sure the plot is adequately represented? Tezero (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

No. I was wondering if you were willing to take the page to GA with me in the GA cup. I saw that you were interested in participating, so I thought I'd help. URDNEXT (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Nothing against you or anything, but I'd rather not. Looking at it now, it's in pretty good quality, and I'd prefer to use the GA Cup to improve articles in direr straits and, if possible, on subjects less familiar to me. (Maybe I'll find a way to get the Navajo article topped off in a few days and then pick some obscure language articles. And I've wanted to try a mathematics or geography article for a while now.) Of course, as soon as that starts I'm open to collaborating with you if you want. Tezero (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want, I can help you with one, if not all the article you're working at. Just a thought... URDNEXT (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just so you know, the GA Cup is for reviewing GANs, not nominating them czar ♔ 23:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Then I'll start my own GA cup, with blackjack and hookers! (I'll either do the real GA Cup or just get a bunch of GAs outside my comfort zone as planned. Haven't decided.) Tezero (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, I didn't know the GA cup was about reviewing. Oh well... 02:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

FAC

I think you placed this on the wrong FAC page. Just a hunch. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, too, this might interest you. RationalObserver's attempt to rewrite policy after I mentioned it supported my close-paraphrasing of a few critics with in-text attribution. Note: He's been at that policy page re-writing things since I started to refute his argument about the Phares paraphrase on 27 September. I followed the rules and limited my close paraphrasing to a few critics per the guideline when I wrote the article. One reviewer has now re-written policy to impose his personal criteria and objection. Dan56 (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Dan, given how you've had multiple FAC's for other articles fail for plagiarism/close paraphrasing issues in past months, I don't think Rationalobserver did that just to see this one fail for FA. Whether it was to change guidelines is another story. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, that was one article. Might point was they changed guidelines to fail this one, likely because of this. Dan56 (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, you're right but since my iPod doesn't do well with editing large sections (I.e. it crashes) I can't fix it myself. Would you mind? Tezero (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Very well, just thought I'd point it out. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I think he meant that he needed help moving it since he is on an iPod—anyway, I took care of it czar ♔ 01:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Tony Hawk

Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Amy Rose

Hello, Tezero. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Amy Rose at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Good luck with FA and all the best, Miniapolis 14:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Meeting

We need to talk about the FAC. @Czar I think we'e screwed now that Blackmane dropped out. URDNEXT (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean "meeting"? Do you want to Skype or something? ...Honestly, I don't blame Blackmane; there are too many viewpoints going into what the article's scope should be. Tezero (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

We need to discuss the article and what to do now that we have 3 oposses. Czar should join us too. URDNEXT (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

UDNEXT I've left you a message on my talk page, I was gonna leave it here but I didn't want to clutter or annoy anybody. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 17:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It's fine. Thanks for the message! URDNEXT (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

What do you suggest we should do? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 17:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Emergency re-write of Plot, Development and a copy edit of Reception. At least that's what Jimmy said in the FAC. URDNEXT (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll make a start on the plot section now. You're right, all three of those sections could be easily restructured. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 17:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Jaguar! URDNEXT (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

RE: FAC

FYI, since you're and ‎SNUGGUMS's objections to xx (album) was based on RationalObserver's portrayal of my paraphrasing as inappropriate, his attempts to rewrite Misplaced Pages's policy to substantiate his opposition to my FAC have been reverted on the basis of what I have been arguing to him, that Misplaced Pages allows the kind of limited close paraphrasing that I used with in-text attribution ("Distinctive words? No, no. Just about anything could be labeled WP:Plagiarism or a WP:Copyvio matter in that case") I'd appreciate it if you didnt let what might be a begrudged sock undermine the hard work I put into the article and made your decision based on your own observations/review. Dan56 (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Dan56, I didn't have a uniform opinion on the paraphrasings - some of them I thought were reasonable - but the ease with which the other reviewers found them in a small amount of text suggested there could be a lot more. I'm not yet taking a position on whether Kww is a sock; I don't see enough evidence yet. Tezero (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

What "ease"? And what "other reviewers"? My paraphrasing was done according to Misplaced Pages's "longstanding guideline" on it, before RationalObserver rewrote the policy to sway you and others to opposing the article, tainting the review. Dan56 (talk) 01:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, where did you get the suggestion that Kww is a sock? He's an admin and I collected my evidence/info to his talk page (which I had linked for you in my original message), since several socks of User:Jazzerino have tried to sabotage my work and activities, including User:Flow Ridian who did just what Rational Observer did and derailed a past FAC of mine. Dan56 (talk) 01:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, he just conceded (after being reverted by the actual policymakers) to the guidelines that supported my paraphrasing, even though he finds them "flawed". Like I originally said in the FAC, he has been trying to impose his personal criteria to writing and convinced you in the process that his inflated paraphrasing section at the FAC is based in any of WP's rules. Dan56 (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, now that I take a look, Dan56, his "observances" do look to be ill-received by the community and not in line with Misplaced Pages's actual policies on plagiarism (which I'm admittedly not well versed in; I've never had copyvio complaints on an FAC as far as I can remember). I don't think they were made in bad faith, but it reminds me of an ongoing WP:TFAR I have, where an editor opposed based on his personal distaste for some of the sources, despite the fact that they're routinely accepted as reliable. Tezero (talk) 01:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Just so you know, before I made any edits to the guideline, it already contained and still does contain this note: "even with in-text attribution, distinctive words or phrases may require quotation marks." Rationalobserver (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, I know, Rationalobserver; I just don't feel the text was close enough to warrant that. Tezero (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, FWIW, the "policymaker" that reverted me has said: "While Dan56 has often contributed positively to Misplaced Pages, I do see that he has engaged in a lot of WP:Close paraphrasing at the article in question. So I understand your concerns on that front." Rationalobserver (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

In that case, I'm going to uphold my support, Rationalobserver: if someone else opposes on copyvio concerns it likely won't pass anyway, so in case it really is okay I don't want my oppose to keep it from passing. The reason I can't be firmer about this is that I'm not well-versed in what constitutes excessively close paraphrasing as I've never been asked to consider it before. Tezero (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, and FTR, I'm not trying to convince you to oppose, but I am concerned that if you judge proper paraphrasing based on what Dan56 does, you will be sorely mistaken. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Code

Does the editor know about any notable portal where users upload videos? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 06:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Man, it's like an authentic version of vaporwave. I'm tired as a log's lazy cousin right now, but I'll try to pick out some details for you tomorrow. Tezero (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - BLP

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33

• Referring specifically to Gamergate controversy and related articles and edits, but note this this alert applies to all edits related to the area identified above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2014

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 7, No. 3 — 3rd Quarter, 2014
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2014, the project has:

Content

• VG Project Main pages

  • Main project – talk
  • Project category – talk
  • Portal – talk

  VG Project Departments

  • Assessment – talk
  • Cleanup – talk
  • Peer review – talk

   

  • Reference library – talk
  • Newsletter – talk
  • Video game images – talk

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)