Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:39, 22 October 2014

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present.

Hey. Welcome to my talk page. It's a place where you can leave me messages. Please do not leave templates unless it is absolutely necessary. See also the essay WP:TEMPLAR. I am a lady, so please do use female pronouns, but I won't fault you for not doing so accidentally. (I can be a bit masculine sometimes!) But anywho, don't hesitate to give me some critiques, invoke some discussion, or anything like it! Thanks.

Gamergate-related ANI

Not sure how to message you but u just removed my edits from Grant Showbiz's page that were 1} factually accurate as he did pose nude on a record at this time and 2} helpfully evocative of his attitude at this point in his career - in fact they still are. You seem very sure of yourself but I think I know the man............ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.12.107.140 (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Holy shit, you just about gave me a heart attack. My account has also been dormant for an extended period and it's entirely possible that I've told people whose names I don't remember to fuck off the last time I was around. I was halfway through a comment saying 'Yes, but...' and then I went 'Waaaaait. September!' Snakebyte42 (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry that it appeared I was calling you a sock

I really did not think that having two accounts was sufficient to consider being a sock. I thought it also required cross advocacy, which you were not doing.

I also did not want to attack any person, except to attack untruths directly. But you were awesome in the process, and I really appreciated your involvement. I set up the two Danielle accounts next to each other because I though you might be the same person, and I wanted to be inviting to the conversation. I got forced to admit I thought you were the same, and did not want to seem defensive. But I can tell you were upset, and that is my fault, and I will most certainly "knock it off".

Thanks for you involvement. I was trying to help the project, and maybe in a small way I did.

Thanks

BOb GoodwinBob the goodwin (talk) 01:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem, it could've happened to anyone. Tutelary (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet

Thanks for your comments on ANI.

Per WP:VALIDALT:

• Alternative accounts have legitimate uses. For example, long-term contributors using their real names may wish to use a pseudonymous account for contributions with which they do not want their real name to be associated, or long-term users might create a new account to experience how the community functions for new users. These accounts are not sockpuppets.
• A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Misplaced Pages identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Misplaced Pages actions in that area.

Per WP:SOCK#NOTIFY:

• Except when doing so would defeat the purpose of having a legitimate alternative account, editors using alternative accounts should provide links between the accounts.
• Editors who have multiple accounts for privacy reasons should consider notifying a checkuser or members of the arbitration committee if they believe editing will attract scrutiny.

Check the logs. I notified ArbCom long ago, and was CheckUser'd. I've also been "outed" and subject to attack pages by a group of cyber attackers, so I've been through Oversight too.

Here's the bottom line: I'm not a sockpuppet. Any claims that I am need to be backed up with diffs. Otherwise, they're just harassment. Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

FOR, understood. I'll probably add this background informatino to one of my posts at this point. Tutelary (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Grant Showbi

Not sure how to message you but u just removed my edits from Grant Showbiz's page that were 1} factually accurate as he did pose nude on a record at this time and 2} helpfully evocative of his attitude at this point in his career - in fact they still are. You seem very sure of yourself but I think I know the man............ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.12.107.140 (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

We need sources, especially because it's a BLP of him posing for anything naked. We can't rely on someone's own testimony when it regards BLPs and sensitive issues. Tutelary (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Please comment on Talk:Garbage (album)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Garbage (album). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Slipknot image on Hatred

Undue weight because this is one single reviewer, and having an image contributes undue weight towards that single reviewer. Images should be reserved for a multitude of sources.
— your edit summary

Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages which have few visuals.
— WP:PERTINENCE

Can you please point me to where images must reflect a multitude of sources? When a respected critic makes an aesthetic comparison, it is pertinent to illustrate that aesthetic, especially when the primary source is fair use-only and we have free use images available for illustration. This is the standard for all sorts of Reception sections. Additionally, the image description also clearly explained whose opinion it was and made no generalization of all critics. Please revert your edit czar ♔ 18:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Due weight policy. Having an image when only one source have contributed something visual is undue weight. There's not any one policy or guideline that says it, but DUE is the main thing here. Having an image makes reader's eye go to that image, and as a result, that viewpoint is garnered more due weight. By the standard that one source = one image, we'd have about 8 on the page, one about political correctness, one from GTA, one about vivid color, and one about the 1st amendment, and so on. I just don't believe an image is necessary. Polygon's comments on matter is fine, but they shouldn't be given an entire image because they are only one source. If you wish, we could discuss it on the talk and see if another editor could be sympathetic to your or my thoughts on it. Nonetheless, you're doing good work on the article in expansion and the like. I just don't agree with this one thing. Though as a counterpoint, if maybe another two sources said that it reminded them of Slipknot, then yes, I'd feel an image is appropriate, but I don't feel like with just one it is. Tutelary (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with how due weight works. If your stance was that it made the section non-neutral or that it overemphasized an unpopular/fringe belief, then I could see an argument for due weight. Some illustrations are only going to illustrate a single sentence from a large article (this includes several of my FAs), and that's fine. It doesn't make sense to illustrate GTA or political correctness in this article in the same way. I really don't think this instance is a big deal and I hope you'd agree that it's a logical and reasonable illustration czar ♔ 20:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The Salt Lake Tribune is not a "blog"

You may want to re-check the definitions of words. An editorial by the largest newspaper in the state of Utah is not a "blog", is a reliable source for its opinions and does not fall under any BLP exemption. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

North, read BLP. Opinions have absolutely no belonging in a BLP. See WP:BLPSPS. Tutelary (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary, read RS. An unsigned editorial by a newspaper is not a self-published source, and there is no general prohibition against using editorials in BLPs. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Please stay off my talk page.

Please stay off my talk page. —Neotarf (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Alright, but this also prevents me from attempting any type of background compromise with you regarding issues with you. I may go straight to WP:AN or WP:ANI or even ArbCom if I have a problem with you, because of your request. As a result of this request, I'll stay off your talk page but do be aware of it being a double edged sword. Tutelary (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Persib Bandung

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Persib Bandung. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Posting this as an excuse to post on your talk page to ask you to come on IRC sometimes and help out on #wikipedia-en-help. ;) Cheers!

Cheers, Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 03:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Lixxx, I really need to take a break. This is all starting to get stressful again. Tutelary (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Should I ask at the tea-house about this kind of behavior?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

May I ask how you found this dispute ? This appears way out of your area of interest, and the only way you could've all of sudden become interested in it is if you've started following my edits for some reason. Volunteer Marek  20:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, description of the changes is sufficient: WP:BRD. Your edit was the bold one. Article was stable before your edit on October 17th. You can not push a new version if is very controversial, and reverted by another user, see BRD. Simply. Franek K. (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes and you shouldn't be creating bad faith theories that somehow I'm following your edits. Additionally, appealing to WP:TEAHOUSE is kind of useless because I really don't comment there spare once in a blue moon, and really only check it out once it's been linked in Misplaced Pages-en-help. Not to mention that they don't have any authority for me or my edits. But if you're meaning getting a second opinion, I'd love for them to tell you all about WP:BRD and how you made a bold edit and you yourself should get consensus for it. Which is true, you made the bold edit to the otherwise quiet template on October 17th, got reverted, continued reverting and reverted it again today. You're in the wrong regarding the 'edit warring' going on. Tutelary (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Right. Out of the hundreds of recent changes you somehow pick one of mine, and jump into an edit war. And you revert per... per nothing really. It's not like you've been involved in this topic, not like you've discussed anything, not like you've shown interest. Your edit summary basically says "I'm reverting you because you reverted someone". That is a text book definition of edit warring.

And there's not a single policy on Misplaced Pages which privileges the status quo. Who cares if the page was stable before? And in fact, it wasn't. Franek K has been been edit warring on that and related pages for a few years now. Always going up right to the 3RR limit then backing down, coming back a few days later to continue. But like I said, "page was stable" is NOT a reason to revert somebody. Especially on an article/page you haven't edited before. Volunteer Marek  20:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:TALKDONTREVERT. This obligation applies to all editors: consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions, and editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions. Nobody continued to respond to any talk page stuff in the earlier version and the edit was thereby gained consensus, there for a month and a half without any trouble at all. I recommend you seek dispute resolution rather than continuing to edit war. You did a bold edit, again and got reverted. You don't get to renistate your preferred version. Tutelary (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Uhh... I did talk. I'm on the talk page. Are you? No? Then why are you edit warring? And if sources support me, then yes, I do get to reinstate my preferred version.

And let's be honest here. All kinds of junk makes it into Misplaced Pages articles all the time. Often because some tendentious user with an agenda manages to get it in there. And very often it stays in there for months if not years. Just because something idiotic manages to go undetected for a month and a half absolutely does not mean it has "consensus". And the idea that "page was stable" is a valid reason for reverting is fundamentally against Misplaced Pages's very nature of an ever evolving and improving encyclopedia.

And like I said. You didn't comment. You didn't discuss. You just jumped and started edit warring because... apparently just because I'm the one who made the edit. Not nice. Not tea-house nice at all. Volunteer Marek  20:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear Volunteer Marek, look at the facts: for a long time there was a version of the article (commonly called a "stable version"). This is not my version, this version was before my coming, see history of changes. One day you come and change template: very controversial change. Other users - in this case, I'm - reverted this very controversial change according to the Misplaced Pages:BRD and you begin edit-war. So, this is unacceptable. Franek K. (talk) 21:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not listed on the Teahouse's host list nor do I intend to represent myself officially with the Teahouse in any sort of capacity. The only thing I mentioned is that I saw the post at WP:TEAHOUSE and decided to act. It's an open forum, mainly for helping newbies to Misplaced Pages, anybody can comment, lurk, act on posts made there, or anything of the sort. The insisting that this is somehow related to the Teahouse is absolutely out of the question. Then why are you edit warring? And if sources support me, then yes, I do get to reinstate my preferred version. Kind of funny that phrasing. "Why are you edit warring?" while saying that you can edit war if the sources are in your favor. No, you don't get to edit war in any type of situation (barring any WP:3RRNO scenarios). I don't care how many sources are in your favor, you don't get to edit war it back in and that bright red line is at 3 reverts. Though you can be blocked for simply edit warring, which I think any reasonable person would see on the page that that is occurring. All in all, please stop fretting because I decided to revert your one bold edit which you sought to reinstate continuously. Tutelary (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

One more time. I have been discussing the issue on talk. You haven't. I have provided sources. You haven't. There's a difference between someone who reinstates a version which is supported by sources after discussion, and someone who just out of nowhere jumps in to edit war for no reason except that they apparently dislike one of the participants in a dispute. Or even just because they imagine themselves to be some kind of "BRD Police", so they go around reverting people nilly-willy on articles they have no interest in or knowledge of. Volunteer Marek  21:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

second Afd for Shabbos App

Nomination of Shabbos App for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shabbos App 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/Shabbos App (2nd nomination) 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.

Please comment on Talk:George Clooney

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:George Clooney. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Mail

P.S.- I had to send it twice since the Misplaced Pages system had an old inactive e-mail address on my account. The 2nd e-mail is from the current correct account. Thank you! -OberRanks (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban

I'm new to Misplaced Pages and can't figure out where to go or what to do to get Ryulong banned from participating in the Gamergate controversy. Can you explain to me how to go about doing so? Thanks. I've looked around but I don't see a course of action. Willhesucceed (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess there really isn't any doc that explains it. From my experience, it has to be community consensus at WP:AN or WP:ANI, whichever one works. Only reason Titanium got his outside of that process is due to the fact that it was under BLP discretionary sanctions, which administrators have a big sort of leeway with and can use that to topic ban or even block editors. I'd gather up a bunch of diffs of any evidence you have before you start one, and maybe email it to me; I've known from experience that what appears to be bias to editors involved with it, actually won't carry any weight. Tutelary (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I already have those collected. How do I send them to you? Should I just post the links here? Edit: I don't have article diffs, I have talk page infractions of him being abusive, engaging in bad faith, etc. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer you email me them, as I'd like to speak freely and bluntly regarding it. Tutelary (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)