Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:55, 14 December 2016

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic.

Picture of the day Mediterranean moray Photograph credit: Diego Delso

• Archive
• More featured pictures

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Thank You!

Thank you for patrolling/editing Pizzagate. It looks like r/The_Donald and R/Conspiracy has bled out into Wiki. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 16:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thanks for your contributions. I just want to mention that you don't have to thank me for every edit you agree with. :-) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay no problem, and thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if you saw it, but this article has a lot of useful content, including this tidbit that might help with the scope issue: "Narrowly defined, “fake news” means a made-up story with an intention to deceive, often geared toward getting clicks. But the issue has become a political battering ram, with the left accusing the right of trafficking in disinformation, and the right accusing the left of tarring conservatives as a way to try to censor websites. In the process, the definition of fake news has blurred." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Plastering a user's block all over Misplaced Pages might not be considered good form. Their pre-block comments hold just as much weight after the block. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@DrFleischman:Yeah, I only put it in three locations where the user started a thread where they were likely to no longer respond in the thread. Sagecandor (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I guess it's ok then, though I personally wouldn't do it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@DrFleischman:Compare with and you start to see it may not be an isolated event, unfortunately. Sagecandor (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Reply

Sorry, didn't mean to delete your comments. I tried to self-revert but you beat me to it. Edward321 (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

just a suggestion

I wouldn't keep deleting their comments. The absurdity speaks for itself and you may end up in an unnecessary edit war. APK whisper in my ear 02:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@AgnosticPreachersKid:Okay I'll heed your advice, thank you. But where are they all coming from? And what can be done about it? Sagecandor (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

These kind of topics attract a lot of readers/editors that don't normally bother commenting. Unless it's a BLP violation or obvious trolling, I'd suggest leaving the comment until others chime in and decide it needs to be shut down. But that's just me. :-) APK whisper in my ear 03:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay that sounds like a good plan. Sagecandor (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The wrong way to close a discussion, or do anything on WP (as we just saw) is to do it unilaterally. The best way to do anything on WP is with community input and consensus. TimothyJosephWood 03:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Usually, agreed. Also agree with this edit and this one by AgnosticPreachersKid. Sagecandor (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

And another one by Ian.thomson . Sagecandor (talk) 07:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard notification

You go after all my edits just to make edit wars and harass me, its clearly you dont want to debate by opening a Talk sections, you engage in edit wars on subject you arent even interested in the first place. And then you constantly try to smear my image by telling others that my behavior is that of a Kremlin mouth piece, probably for me being half Russian. But meanwhile its you who edits the entire day from 0:00 to 8:00 and then from 15:00 to 0:00 and so on. Its highly unlikely someone has that much freetime, and it should be considered and pointed out as you accuse (or suggest by the way you post) that anyone else who disagrees with you is by being paid by the Kremlin.

1. -This and the other day when you mass flagged my pictures on Wikimedia is clear harassment. You were warned by @Ankry
2. -More proof how other users feel harassed. As can be seen in the conversation between @LavaBaron @SashiRolls --Crossswords (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crossswords (talk • contribs)

Thank you for the notification. Sagecandor (talk) 08:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Results closed followed by closed. Sometimes it seems it's tough to WP:Assume good faith. Trying. Sagecandor (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Duplicating material in DNC cyber attacks → DNC emails/Podesta emails

Keep in mind that the DNC emails and Podesta emails pages try to focus on the leaks themselves. Repeating paragraphs and sections of information from DNC cyber attacks is WP:UNDUE. _Gravity 18:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@FallingGravity:Well I was just "thanked" by DarTar for the additions. I think the info is directly relevant but definitely the analysis of who was responsible, and the fact they hacked both the RNC and the DNC and only released info on the DNC is definitely relevant. Sagecandor (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Both of these articles already included sections on who was thought responsible. Remember, statements by U.S. intelligence are still a WP:POV, much the same as statements by Russian intelligence. _Gravity 18:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but now they have much much better more well-sourced sections. Sagecandor (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@FallingGravity and Sagecandor: I agree with both of you that there will be some initial overlap. I created the umbrella article since – as of this week – the topic is much broader than the individual "incidents". I expect we will clean up each article to make sure the relevant information can be found in the most appropriate one.--DarTar (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@DarTar:Thank you for creating that article, that is excellent. I agree with you about clean-up, but also hope the structure and sections will remain, if perhaps more concise. Sagecandor (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the edits at Talk:Russian intervention in the 2016 United States presidential election

Hey, I saw that you reverted 70.214.78.91's edits at Talk:Russian intervention in the 2016 United States presidential election, and that you warned them for their behavior. I'm a bit concerned with how they've been acting. How best do you think this should be handled? --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 21:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, saw your reply on my page. Will do. He replied on his own talk page (and removed your warning). I'll continue to assume good faith; he may just be passionate and not be expressing it in the best way. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 21:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

User blocked. Sagecandor (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Much appreciated. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 22:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (it wasn't me) Kleuske (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Please disregard. ANI report was frivolous and already stricken. Kleuske (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Kleuske Sagecandor (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I would normally respond with "my pleasure", but in this case, it wasn't. I acted a bit rashly. Apologies. Kleuske (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

FYI

It doesn't. TimothyJosephWood 17:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

ANI

I am going to file a complaint if you don't remove that sanctions notice from my talk page. It's clearly a violation of WP:POINT and I have no idea what constructive purpose you could claim it accomplished. As you know, when you posted that you were warned to determine that I had not previously been notified before posting. I'll give you a chance to revert that notice, and now I am warning you not to make disruptive edits. Both the notice and my message to you on my talk page made clear that the notice to you was not an accusation or warning about specific conduct. If you don't understand what I have just written here, ask a friendly Admin to advise you. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)