| Revision as of 08:16, 19 November 2006 editNed Scott (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users39,898 edits trolling is as trolling does← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:07, 19 November 2024 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,133,055 edits →ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{ |
{{INDEX}} | ||
| {{User:Ned Scott/header}} | |||
| {| class="infobox" width="270px" | |||
| {{User talk:Ned Scott/archive}} | |||
| |- | |||
| == "List of Lost episodes/Use of images" listed at ] == | |||
| !align="center"|]<br/>] | |||
| ] | |||
| ---- | |||
| A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ]. The discussion will occur at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 18:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC) | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| * ] 3/2006 - 5/2006 | |||
| * ] 6/2006 | |||
| * ] 7/2006 - 8/2006 | |||
| * ] 8/2006 - 9/2006 | |||
| |} | |||
| {{-}} | |||
| ==Template: |
== Nomination for deletion of ] == | ||
| ]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> ] (]) | |||
| It isn't showing up right in IE right now. It has a little ''|- style=""'' kind of floating at the top, that's all. - ] 04:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == CfD nomination at {{Section link|Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1#Category:WikiProject X members}} == | |||
| :The template page or how it appears in lists? If it's ] itself, then that's normal. It's a temp fix to help with the weird template limit problem. The full example is available on the talk page, anyways. -- ] 04:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the ] guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at '''{{Section link|Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1#Category:WikiProject X members}}''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd mass notify--> Thank you. ]] 09:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's on the ] itself. If wer're in a transitional stage that's cool. What is this transition that's being made? - ] 05:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message == | |||
| :::The template has a limit of how many times it can be used in an article, and simplifying the template will push back the limit. Like I said, this is a temp fix till I can figure out a way to make the template itself be more efficient. It won't actually effect any of the articles that use the template. -- ] 05:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">]</div> | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
| Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| == Digimon fair use images on Digimon Episode template == | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small> | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:FUC | |||
| </div> | |||
| I removed the images on the Template because just recently I heard that we can't use alot of fair use images on episode lists. | |||
| </div> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1187131902 --> | |||
| == Reason for revert of syntax error fixes? == | |||
| I had a problem with the Pokemon episode lists for the same reason, if you don't agree with me please goto the ANI | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_war_over_too_many_fair_use_images_on_one_page | |||
| Is there a reason that you just did a bunch of reverts , of bot edits that fixed dozens of syntax errors in your talk page archives? – ] (]) 19:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| I'm sorry | |||
| :Yes -- ] 19:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::That is not a helpful answer. Please provide an explanation. Those errors were fixed by an approved bot task. If there were errors in the bot edits, please specify what the bot did that you view as incorrect. You have restored errors of a couple of types that had been completely eliminated from the English Misplaced Pages, so your pages are likely to draw attention from editors who work to fix those errors. – ] (]) 19:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::I understand, but do not wish to explain further. These are my talk page archives. Maybe I want to archive incorrect formatting? Maybe I'm just a jerk? Maybe I don't trust people to edit those pages for any reason, especially when they ignore the notice to not edit the pages and didn't bother to ask me about it. The reasons are mysterious. They're marked as archives and with nobots. -- ] 19:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Since it's not ], you should supply a valid reason. ] (]) 19:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm not going to debate this. Leave my talk archives alone. -- ] 20:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Oh my god, I just took a closer look at what exactly you guys are doing, and it's not even fixing anything. You can't tell me that | |||
| *<nowiki><font color="#ff9900">]</font><font color="#ff6699">]</font></nowiki> | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/Template:Digimon_episode | |||
| being changed to | |||
| *<nowiki>]]</nowiki> | |||
| (] 18:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)) | |||
| is doing anything necessary or fixing some kind of formatting issue. -- ] 20:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I know about the debate, and I've been involved in several similar debates in the last few months. So far it has been inconclusive and no consensus reached on whether or not the images in a list of episodes meet ] or not. | |||
| :]: ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ] are among numerous Wikipedians working diligently to eradicate lint errors from Misplaced Pages who have edited one or more of your talk page archives. The edit about which you are godsmacked is a correction of an ] lint error. The Wikimedia software that makes Misplaced Pages work preprocesses or parses Wiki markup (Wikitext) with a tool called a linter. Around 2019, Wikimedia replaced the old linter with a new linter. Under the old linter, {{tag|font}} immediately surrounding a wikilink or external link behaved as if the font tag were inside the link. That means that such font tags would override link colors. The new linter doen't work this way, and font color tags around a wikilink or external link don't override default link colors. This edit restores the display of ]'s signature to its original appearance, as everybody saw it, until the new linter came in. ] is considered a High Priority lint error, and we completely eradicated it from English Misplaced Pages. The only pages that have it now are your talk page archives. | |||
| :On another note, {{tl|Digimon episode}} has actually been replaced (just not in all the articles) with {{tl|Japanese episode list}}, which was also made from the Digimon template but for use in any anime episode list. It's a lot more flexible, too, and can be used with or without images. -- ] 21:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Another High Priority lint error is ]. The most common example of this error is a {{tag|small|o}} tag closed with another {{tag|small|o}} instead of {{tag|small|c}}. The old linter usually fixed this error silently, but the new linter regards this as two unclosed {{tag|small|o}} tags, which means that everything following these tags is displayed double-small, all the way to the end of the page, unless the leak is contained by a table or some other structure. We completely eradicated ] from English Misplaced Pages. The only pages that have it now are your talk page archives. | |||
| ==Lost: Featured article== | |||
| :] edited one of of your talk page archives to correct "buy" to "but" in his own comment. That's not unreasonable, but it might have been better to mark it up as <code><nowiki><del>buy</del> <ins>but</ins></nowiki></code>, i.e. <del>buy</del> <ins>but</ins>. | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Lost/Award|Congratulations on ] making it to ]. Your hard work on the ] is appreciated! --] 00:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)}} | |||
| :There is a theory held by a small number of Wiki editors that archives are a historical record that must never be changed. That theory is incorrect. On Misplaced Pages, we edit talk page archives all the time for a variety of reasons, including copyright violations, renaming of image files, and, yes, lint fixes. This is explicitly encouraged at ]. We have been doing this for years. Most users appreciate it. A few users question it, but nearly all of those come to respect it after we explain it. I hope you will come to respect and appreciate it also. Cheers! —] (]) 22:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's an archive, and is already full of red links, missing images, regarding topics that lack context, and more. I don't agree that this is something that needs to be done. Regardless of the situation, bots still need to follow the nobots tag. | |||
| ::That being said, seeing as this is something that is showing up on a report, that means you guys will never stop bugging me about this. So I give up. -- ] 23:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::I see you have already self-reverted your reversions of lint fix edits of your talk page archive pages. Thank you for your cooperation. Cheers! —] (]) 01:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Invitation to participate in a research == | |||
| == Assessments == | |||
| Hello, | |||
| Thanks! However many of ]'s recent additions have been Naruto stubs of which there are hundreds. I thought I was finished :( --] 07:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this ''''''. | |||
| == Naruto Episodes == | |||
| You do not have to be an Administrator to participate. | |||
| What are you doing destroying all the episodes? There was a Keep vote rendered for them all under the ]. ]|]|] 04:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I read the AfD discussion before I started. A "keep" does not protect the articles from being merged into another article. This is being done per ] as well as ] part 7, the latter is a '''policy'''. I'm sorry the AfD didn't get the attention it needed to be a useful discussion. Also, there were a few keep votes that noted merging as an acceptable option. -- ] 04:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::And it's not a vote.. -- ] 04:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think the merge was in respect to the spidoes themselves being merged and shortened with each other, not eliminating them all together to just a simple itemized list. The WP:NOT arguement was made and mentioned MANY other episode summaries that existed. I am just trying to figure out why all the info is being eliminated rather than waiting for each episode to have a "short summary" added fromt hem to the episode list itself if that is what should be done... ]|]|] 04:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm trying to be selective and only redirecting articles with little to no content. In other words, episode articles that already have a summary that says about the same thing in the list article. This is not elimination, and turning them back into full articles is always an option. The idea is to promote growth on the list article first, ''then'' expand to individual episode articles. Although, it should be noted (as I am on the remaining episode articles) that such articles should be written to ] and ] guidelines. -- ] 04:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::So basically, no meaningful content is being lost in this process. -- ] 04:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Once there's enough independently verifiable information included about individual episodes, spin the information from episodes out into their own articles.''' is stated in the ] so i am unsure still wy to delete them? Trying to learn about Misplaced Pages here not faulting you for your actions, jsut trying to understand them myself. If it is because they are not expanded, that is what is trying to be done as the episodes come out from verifiable sources such as their DVD releases. Thanks for your help in understanding this all. ]|]|] 05:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::You are correct in that statement, and if you note I am merging ''only'' articles which do not say anything more than what is already included in the list of episodes. Some of them say nothing more than "this is an episode" and then have several large templates that don't actually count as article content. Others have maybe two or three sentences. So I am following the centralized discussion's guidelines. -- ] 05:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So for my sake at least, when the episodes are released or televised in North America so that there is verifiable content to include as per the Centralized thingy, how would one go about "unmerging" them back to repair? I recently noticed a "move" tab in my page functions. Is this what would be needed to put the article back and add its proper summary? Again thanks for the help cause I feel like I am always getting lost in help pages trying to find my way around to contribute to Misplaced Pages. ]|]|] 05:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::When the redirect takes you back to the list of episodes it says (redirected from .....) under the title. Click on that link again and it will show you the article ''without'' redirecting it. Then you can edit it and remove the redirect line and replace it with article content. -- ] 05:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Thanks for your help. Sorry for taking up your time. ]|]|] 05:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] . | |||
| Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns. | |||
| == nedbot == | |||
| Kind Regards, | |||
| hello, I was looking at your nedbot and I thought the button was a linked image. I tried to right click to bring up the image but clicked the button. I don't have admin status (obviously) and so the bot was unaffected. I don't know if such attempts are logged though so I wanted to drop a line and let you know it was accidental. ] : <sup><font color="LightSlateGray">]</font></sup> 07:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| :I don't think they're logged, so unless you're an admin it won't do anything at all ;) -- ] 08:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi> | |||
| == Fair use in portals == | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Potential_Admins&oldid=27650229 --> | |||
| == ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message == | |||
| I created an amendment for fair use in portals, as well as submitted to village pump, see here: ]. It would be great if you could express your support there. ] 21:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
| == Checkuser request == | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div> | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
| Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| I made a ] you may be interested in. --] (<big>]]</big>) 03:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| == oro valley article. == | |||
| </div> | |||
| Removing original message because it was long, insane, and already posted to ] where I've responded to it. and then . -- ] 08:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 --> | |||
| == Image Fair Use == | |||
| Sorry about adding quite a few fair use image onto non-article pages. I didn't realise that they weren't allowed on these pages. | |||
| Is there any images that we can use on the ] page and template within the fair use guidelines?--] 18:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You can always create a new image that clearly refers to the band. for the ], I made a new image that is a minor part of the Steelers logo. Just find a simple, small, iconic image. --] (<big>]]</big>) 19:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :No worries, I made the same mistake myself when I started out on Misplaced Pages. -- ] 07:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Check Please? == | |||
| Ned, do you think you8 could do me a favor an pop over to the ] article at some point to check for formatting issues and categorization? ] 19:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thanks!== | |||
| Thanks for that RPA template on Somerset219's Talk page. I didn't want to respond because I said I would not pursue the discussion further, and because I suspected there was no way for me to elicit civility at that point. But that was the harshest bit of name-calling I've received on WP to date. I'm glad to know now what to do if something like that happens again - and it's good to see those words go away without my engaging this person again. I really appreciate it! ] | ] | ] 06:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == What's up? == | |||
| Please tell me what you think is wrong about ]. Do you think it was made in violation of our process to make guidelines? Do you think Misplaced Pages does use (majority) voting on a regular basis? Please don't cite only RFA, which seems to be the exception rather than the rule, and whose process is already under dispute elsewhere. Do you think Misplaced Pages ''should'' use (majority) voting on a regular basis? Is AFD a (majority) vote? What about RFC? Should disputes be resolved through straw polling? Should people be able to make a motion, call an aye/nay vote on it and have it stick? Please explain your opinion. ] 10:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == WP:DDV == | |||
| Feel free to comment on the page at ]. The more people who are commenting on its status or its future text, the sooner this outstanding issue will get resolved one way or another. — ] ] 19:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == My RfA == | |||
| <div style="align: center; padding: .5em; border: solid 1px firebrick; background-color: skyblue;"> | |||
| ]]<center><big>'''<font color=firebrick>Announcement: It's an administrator!</font>'''</big></center> | |||
| ---- | |||
| '''Ned Scott,''' thanks for your support on my ]. | |||
| The final outcome was a robust 62/1/1, so I am now an ]. If you ever have any questions about my actions, please do not hesitate to ]. | |||
| <div align=right>'''Thanks again, ]''' | |||
| </div></div> | |||
| ==Samurai Champloo== | |||
| I don't feel strongly about modifying the Samurai Champloo episode pages. If they are left as they are, they still meet our needs. I'm a big fan of the wikiproject templates, though; I like to standardize the LOE pages as much as possible. It was funny when you gave a B to ] (which I worked on), you said "dang, at this rate it will be a B before I go to bed :)," which was amusing. Anyways, ] needs to be evaluated again. Thanks, ] 07:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Shortcut == | |||
| Please don't take a shortcut used to link to one page for another page. Notably, I've used WP:EPISODE on the Mailing list as well as on my userpage. -- <font color=blue>]<small> ]<small> ]<small> ]</small></small></small></font> 17:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Our little disagreement == | |||
| I noticed your little "slip-up", and I would like to apologize if it seems I am showing you any aggression. I have no problem with you as a person or an editor. I think you and I are both mature enough to handle our disagreement like gentlemen. I think we've each made our points known and we can let the others decide at this point, since I doubt the decision will be made based on which one of gets the last word. So, I hope you and I won't have to continue arguing. ] 04:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It's mostly my fault, and I very much apologies. You stated how you honestly felt and I wasn't being very respectful. -- ] 04:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Heads up on RfC == | |||
| Per your suggestion, I started this: ]--] 03:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == SPA == | |||
| You may want to read ] and then look at there contribs, that anon is a sysop at that wiki and is only casting his opinion as delete as bad faith because i am against inclusion of a spam article. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/] ] ]</font></small> 07:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: Removal of exclamation points in ] == | |||
| I don't think ] would apply here, as it's not the title of the article he was changing. The original title of the episode has the exclamation points in them, and they shouldn't have been removed without a valid reason. --''']]]''' 04:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The title being used in the infobox is the most recognized title, the English dub by Funimation. I'm not a fan of the show, but I do know that much. As I pointed out in one of my edit summaries, part of the problem here is that we are using a template that is not set up for these kinds of situations. -- ] 04:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually, wait, I misunderstood something. The issue he was causing was that in the first sentence of the article (where the Japanese title was, not in the infobox), he was removing the exclamation points from the translated title. Other editors re-added them, and he reverted them as vandalism. That'd be a 3RR violation. --''']]]''' 05:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oh, I see... seems I overlooked that since both edits were going on at the same time.. I stand corrected. -- ] 06:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==''Lost'' episode guidelines== | |||
| Regarding your recent attempted change to ], please keep in mind that those guidelines were the result of extensive discussion, as well as a formal mediation which resulted in unanimous agreement. It is not appropriate to simply come in and make a major change to those guidelines, especially without even an attempt at discussion on the talkpage. If you have concerns, you are encouraged to bring them up, but in the meantime, please respect the consensus decision. --] 16:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Uh, the mediation didn't result in any naming conventions to be used. In any case, it still doesn't override the consensus of ]. -- ] 21:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: The episode guidelines were discussed in the mediation, and approved. They've also been reconfirmed at the guideline talk page. If you have concerns, please bring them up there. --] 21:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::The article naming was not apart of the mediation. -- ] 21:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Please stop engaging in move wars. The proper way to handle this is via civil discussion, at ], not in yanking articles back and forth. --] 08:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Needs help == | |||
| I see you edit the seperate Digimon episode pages alot. But recently the Pokemon episode(s) articles are being considered for deletion in accordance with Misplaced Pages's deletion policy. Please place a vote at ]. Thank you for your time. ] (00:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)) | |||
| :I did already. Personally, I'd be happy if they were all deleted, although I did support a merge. -- ] 03:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Fair use images in lists== | |||
| Hello, I see you have contributed your thoughts to ]. It's been dead for a while, but I have archived it and taken a new fresh start. I hope this time we will be able to achieve something as I have summarized the main points of both sides (feel free to improve them) and I call you to express your support or oppose on the concrete proposal that I have formulated. Thanks, ] 02:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Civility== | |||
| Ned, I am concerned about some of your recent edit summaries, especially where you are using a very angry tone, including profanity. . Can I please encourage you to re-read ]? --] 09:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't see how this concerns you at all. Considering we are both in a dispute at the moment I find it in very bad taste that you are looking through my contributions to ''find'' something to correct me about. It's considered wikistalking and harassment. (If it were not for our dispute I wouldn't have a reason to assume bad faith here, but, as they say, if the shoe fits.. ) -- ] 19:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Ned, I believe that you have been uncivil in most of your exchanges with me, in the form of condescension and snarkiness. I suggest that you knock it off and adhere to the ] policy. By treating others in an uncivil manner, you are inviting them to treat you likewise. --] 21:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I know I'm not perfect and I can lose my cool sometimes, but I don't believe I have been uncivil to you. I believe this is the comment (as the only comment I can see as being "uncivil" between us) that you are talking about: "''Common misconception. You've been caught with your pants down, as you so obviously misunderstood the real definition of resolution. You're embarrassed, I understand, but get over it.''" | |||
| :Granted I probably could have put that a better way, but there's only so many ways a person can repeat themselves. You're almost to the point of causing a distribution over this issue, and I felt it necessary to be a little bit harsh in my words (if you can even call that harsh) in order to make it clear what the situation is. You, not the fair use guidelines, are mistaken. -- ] 01:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Ned, you continue to be critical, but on NO occasion have you offered a definition of "resolution". Again, knock off the make wrong and be civil.--] 03:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I gave you four definitions. Again, I have not been uncivil with you, so please stop with the false accusations. -- ] 03:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| You really need to cool down Ned, you make valuable edits but recently some of your edits (namely to WikiProjects -- without a '''consensus''') have been very rude. I ask you to cool down and stop making significant changes to projects and "their" children pages and come to the discussion board to get a consensus. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/] ] ]</font></small> 08:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You need to ] and secondly I never said any thing specificly about the 4400, I amt alking about WikiProjects as a whole, thirdly please read ]. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/] ] ]</font></small> 08:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::What do I need to assume good faith on? You're making false accusations in hopes of making me look bad. Do you have anything, at all, to back up these claims? Do you understand that consensus is used for disputes, and not for every decision making process on Misplaced Pages? My talk page is not a place to vent your frustrations. -- ] 08:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I should make this clearer, consensus ''seeking discussions'' are mostly used in cases such as disputes or where greater opinion is necessary, etc. -- ] 21:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Ned, while you have some good points to make in these and other discussions, and I think you're a valued editor here at Misplaced Pages, I need to say gently that I too am concerned at what I see in terms of frequent civility breakdowns in your interactions and especially your edit summaries, per the examples given above. I also asked you to tone those down back in June, . No one is denying you your right to participate in heated debate, but let's all try to be respectful of one another. Thanks for listening. -- ] 04:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :PKtm, the 3rd editor who is in dispute with me over the Lost episode titling, also leaves his comment. More often than not I am a calm and patient editor, but leave it to people who are in a dispute with me to dig up any possible bad thing I've ever done. Again, I fail to see any examples of recent incivility in our dispute, or anything that could be considered "''frequent civility breakdowns''". I'm not perfect, and I'm not saying I am, but it's extremely rude and immature to be leaving these pile-on messages like this when it has nothing to do with recent activities. -- ] 05:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ned, I don't know why you say that I'm in dispute with you. I have barely weighed in on the titling dispute (my one edit on the naming conventions page being ) and haven't even voted in the poll that's underway. I've stated I don't have immensely strong feelings on the issue. My points above were general, and were kindly meant, not intended as anything that is "piling on". I would ask that you take them as such, and that you perhaps step back and think about the points that I and others are making, which have nothing to do with a specific dispute. Thanks, ] 06:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm sorry, it's just that in light of there not being a civility issue in the first place, I fail to find any of these messages helpful. Are you looking at just the messages left here or are you looking at any of the discussions that have stirred them? They're all directly relating to specific disputes. Sorry that I jumped to conclusions about your position on the dispute. The criticism of my behavior by the above three editors is grossly inaccurate. -- ] 06:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Our criticisms are only inaccurate in your opinion, Ned. I suggest you take a look at the dialogue you have had with us from our point of view. Take a look at how we can view it as uncivil.--] 22:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Saying something that you disagree with is not uncivil. Being civil is not the same as being forced to be "warm and friendly", it means being reasonably polite and considerate. Obviously, I will watch how I word things around these people, but not because of civility, but because it's just not worth dealing with over-dramatic complains like these. I might not respond with a smile when people are being rude and / or ill-rational, but I will never intentionally try to harass someone or say something to make them feel bad. | |||
| :::::I also find it very ironic that the people who are leaving these messages do not seem to hold themselves to the same standard they seem to be holding me to. -- ] 23:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I find it very ironic that we have repeatedly pointed out your hostile tone to you in a number of dialogues, but you refuse to acknowledge and correct any incivility. Curious, do you think we are all wrong and working against you?--] 04:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You know, I honestly am sorry if you really were ''that'' offended by anything I said. I stand by what I said to you just now, in that I might not be "warm and friendly" in every situation, but I do try to be polite. | |||
| :::::::Here's the thing, you haven't pointed anything out to me. Elonka had two examples, one of which was tongue-in-cheek and was not about "anger". PKtm had one example from June. I pointed out what I thought ''might'' be what got you mad and tried to clear that up as well. If you continue to press people (much like you're doing now) you'll only force them to become more and more blunt. I've asked more than once if anyone could point something else out to me, and no one has. | |||
| :::::::In the discussion about high resolution images I tried to explain to you, very politely, that you were thinking of ''printing'' resolution. Despite citing four separate dictionaries, you became very confrontational and decided to keep making your arguments. In the course of that discussion, in trying to help you understand the use of "resolution" in our ] guidelines and policy, I found myself having to be blunt with you. The above example that I gave was as far as I took it. | |||
| :::::::Either you are mistaken about my "tone" (it's text, don't look for meaning you can't reasonably prove), or you're just angry and frustrated about the situation where those images got deleted. Even if you somehow proved I was a downright asshole that wouldn't change the situation of those images. I don't understand what you think you will accomplish by harassing me about this. If you feel this is such a strong issue then bring it to the attention of an administrator or make a ] on me. -- ] 05:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Lost episode page names == | |||
| Hi, Ned. As it happens, I had already seen that RfA and was getting ready to post when I got your comment. Thanks for letting me know, anyway. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 20:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Template WikiFur and Wookieepedia == | |||
| I don't think you're following my point: Misplaced Pages policy is that external wikis aren't reliable sources for articles. Now, you say that if we use their content, we have to source them in some way, per the GFDL. I agree. But there's no case where we ''COULD'' do that. I.E., say that CNN does an interview and it's so good that we want to quote a transcript of the interview from their site. In that case, we're just using their content, as a raw material, to directly quote it. Well, if we directly quote CNN for educational purposes, that's fair use, regardless. The same applies to WikiFur's GFDL license. And even if Fair Use didn't exist, there's no conceivable reason we'd use their content on Misplaced Pages, ''other than'' to just write an article. And articles written in such a manner aren't reliable. We can't have wikis sourced in other wikis sourced in other wikis, and so on. ] 06:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Recent or not == | |||
| The page is over a 100k and number of users and at least one admin asked for it. How can you make such drastic and radical reverts without discussing it first? Not very civil.--] 13:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Whoa, calm down there man. This had nothing to do with being civil, just that I noticed that discussion from the previous day was even archived, which is generally not acceptable for talk page archives. It seems there's a hell of a lot of disputes on that talk page, and I'm guessing you think I'm somehow apart of that. Sorry for the confusion, but I was only passing by and thought someone had archived too much (a common mistake that most people do not get upset about like this). I don't want to be any part of those disputes, so I'm gonna stay the hell away from that talk page. I mean, I made a good faith revert on there and you come to my talk page acting like this? Yeesh. -- ] 19:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == signature == | |||
| The way I read that is you cant use a template for a signature not that you cant have a tempalate in your signature. Am I reading it wrong? --<small><span style="-moz-border-radius: 5px; border: solid 2px #F98A2F; background-color: #FFF; color=#5994C5">] | ] | ] | </span></small> 06:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You can't use templates in your signature because you're not ''supposed'' to used templates in your signature. "''because the developers have determined them to be an unnecessary drain on the servers''", "''Transcluded signatures require extra processing—whenever you change your signature source, all talk pages you have posted on must be re-cached.''" -- ] 06:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not that I'm offended by it or anything like that :) but I thought I might bring this to your attention. -- ] 07:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Nihongo== | |||
| The presence of this template is hardly necessary in the list articles; it is already at the main page, formatted incorrectly, and is irrelevant. Furthermore, I also corrected grammatical errors. Please don't revert me again. ] 06:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Episode list == | |||
| Hello! Thank for your help getting the ] looking as good as it does. ^^ I have a question about it. Somebody recently noticed that there are two episode 40s in English, and spent a lot of time reordering all the episode numbers in order to "fix" this. What's actually going in is that the two episodes were combined into one. Is there some way to merge those two cells (some kind of rowspan trick) so that that doesn't happen again? Do you know? --] 19:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :We could manually put in the table code for those two episodes. Not sure what else to do, since the templates already are so complex they have a limit of being used 230 times per article I'd rather not put more variables in it. I'll try to come up with some more ideas, but that's all I got for now. -- ] 02:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Chat== | |||
| Hiya, do you by any chance use any of the instant messaging clients, such as AIM or Google Talk? Or do you use IRC? I get the feeling that if we could actually chat at a more rapid rate, we could probably avoid some of the miscommunications that seem to be creeping in. --] 22:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == InShaneee == | |||
| Nothing I did hardly excuses a 48 hour + 48 hour block. I reverted something twice and InShaneee blocked based on bad faith. I blame him for violating more than five highly regarded policies. The fact that I try the patience of admins is a non-issue. If I try your patience enough that you will abuse your powers in frustration doesn't make you a victim, it makes you a bad admin. I'm nowhere near as bad as many users on Misplaced Pages, and if Shaneee can get pissed off enough to block me without me having violated any policy, it does not speak well for what he'd do to other users. | |||
| Basically, it's no surprise that an admin would defend an admin and try to claim that admin abuse is the fault of the blocked for getting on his nerves, not his inability to control himself. When I violate all of the policies he did, you can crucify me for it. But InShaneee did wrong, and his lack of maturity as an admin is no fault bit his own. - ] ] 01:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :So you admit to testing the patience of admins??? Testing peoples patience is an issue (see ] or ] take your pick). ''semper fi'' — ] 02:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :First, I'm not an admin. | |||
| :I'm saying it's human nature to lose your cool sometimes, but I never said that made it ok. I said what I said to illustrate that I believe it was an isolated issue. It's likely this whole RfC mess will be more than enough for him to learn from these mistakes and be an even better admin. | |||
| :You need to calm down about all of this. -- ] 02:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::He seems intent on defending his actions with the exception of doubling the block. That does not tell me "this admin has learned from his unadmin-like actions and won't do them again". | |||
| ::And Moe, I do not violate either policies. The most I have done is possibly unintentionally tested some admins, which violates no policies. And Moe, stalking is certainly against policy. I doubt that you happened upon this page. - ] ] 04:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::If you want to talk to Moe then do it on his talk page, please. I am not discussing this issue with you, Link. I'm entitled to my opinion and you being annoying about this won't gain you any support. -- ] 06:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sorry to discuss this on your talk page Ned, but I thought I would just point out in ] something Link should realize: ''From ]: "This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason."'', with that said I'm done discussing anything with Link. ''semper fi'' — ] 14:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: Question == | |||
| If you're asking about Goku's power level when he powered up to fight ], then no it was '''not''' over 9,000. His was over 8,000 (''in the ] Manga that I '''own''''') and in the Japanese anime it was just 8,000. ] dubb obviously changed this for some reason (and I'm not sure too sure of this but I think the uncut ] dub did too) just to make Goku sound stronger. This caused some confusion among fans. They also rounded Piccolo's, Gohan's and Kuririn's power levels before their battle against the ]s just to give them an exact fighting power instead of what they actually had. Example: Gohan's power before fighting was rounded to 1,000 instead of the 981 ] gave him in the manga and the 981 that ] gave him in the anime . Personally, I would go by the Japanese sources because they came first and, therefore, are considered ] by all means. | |||
| -- ] (] | ]) ] 14:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Re:Edit Summary == | |||
| Cheers, I think I ripped it off from a movie I saw. I am having an RfA just now, ahem, and I used it there aswell, I belive everyone needs a calling card | |||
| ] 03:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == You should probably resist the urge... == | |||
| ...to respond to comments like . Or, if you do, point out applicable policies and guidelines like the fact that the edit of yours she was referring to clearly does not fall into the category of ]. Don't get into a sticks-are-stones type of debate. —] (]) 15:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == here's the deal == | |||
| Stop instigating problems on ]. I don't know what you're after, but you're not a participant on the talk page, and haven't been a player. I don't know if you're just following me there from the TV naming convention dispute, but you are not help to progress anything forward. Judging by your , you seem more prone to revert rather than contribute, and more prone to revert than discuss on Talk, so please realize that you may not be working cooperatively lately. -- ] ] 17:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not instigating problems. It's extremely rude to try to exclude anyone who wishes to honestly be apart of a discussion such as that one. I'm sorry, but you won't be able to bully me away like that. I great deal of my contributions (maybe not in raw numbers) has been to templates, and discussion regarding templates is of interest to me. And for your information, the only thing I need to do is expand on my edit summaries. Unless you think that vandalism reverts are a bad thing? Or maybe reverting trivial fan-fiction entries? Please, give me an example of any of those reverts that you disagree with (obviously other than the ones about ]). -- ] 21:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Stop spamming == | |||
| If you want to advertise a proposal, use the proper venues ] and ]. —]→] • 04:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It's not spam, and talk page boxes are very common for such notices. On a side note, I've really been sticking my neck out lately.. -- ] 04:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <nowiki>{{unblock|Totally uncalled for. From past discussions I've seen placing a neutral talk box at the top of talk pages (that would be directly effected by a major proposal) not only as acceptable, but as a good idea. Centrx only offered his personal opinion about promoting the discussion, and I didn't think he was leaving me such a message as a "warning". Before reverting his removal of the message I looked for any discussion about that removal first, and didn't find any. I didn't even think he had a strong feeling about the matter. and I add that no policy for guideline has been cited. Other than his message above, this is the first time I've seen anyone have such an objection to this method of requesting comments. -- ] 05:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC) }} </nowiki> | |||
| For some context, here's apart of ]: | |||
| :"''Widely disseminating a policy proposal means post it on ] and ], in addition to the talk page where it belongs, ]. —]→] • 01:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)'' | |||
| ::''Centrx has been . It's not surprising that the number of participants in this discussion is limited if it cannot be adequately publicized. ] 03:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)'' | |||
| :::''Centrx blocked me for 20 minutes when I had reverted his removal. Totally not cool and unacceptable. He has given no explanation nor cited any policy or guideline to support his actions. Isn't this what they call censorship? I could understand that this ''might'' be seen as spamming, but to actually block me over this is.............. *deep breath* . It's totally disrespectful. If he had at least left something more than the small message on my talk page (that seemed to only indicate his preference), or even left a message ''here'' (I checked here before reverting the change, actually, since I figured he had a good reason, but he had given none) I would not have reverted his removal. There was no reason to block me whatsoever. -- ] 05:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)''" | |||
| See also ]. -- ] 05:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ? == | |||
| ] 12:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Please don't == | |||
| Please don't suggest that I have ownership issues because of my comments on the MfD of Coffee lounge/Games. I simply pointed out that it is likely to slant the vote having people who are not affected by the deletion vote to delete the page. That is not an ownership issue, nor is it inappropriate. This is in a grey area, but it might be considered to fall under ]. ]]]<sup>]</sup> 03:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually, it's very inappropriate to say that people who are not effected by or involved in one part of Misplaced Pages should not have a say in that part. It is something that suggests the view of "owning" something, and pointing this out is not considered a personal attack. -- ] 09:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Dalbury's RfA == | |||
| My RfA passed with a tally of 71/1/0. Thank you very much for your support. I hope that my performance as an admin will not disappoint you. Please let me know if you see me doing anything inappropriate. -- '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' 03:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == List of major opera composers == | |||
| Could you please at least explain your reasoning and show that you've actually looked at the methodology and previous discussions? Please? ] <font color="green">]</font> 05:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Even though you've removed it from the AfD, I really don't appreciate the assumption of bad faith (and let's not argue semantics here, you basically declared that you presume bad faith). I stick to the 1rr on all my edits, and discuss if there is continued disagreement. It's not unreasonable to ask for an explanation of an OR tag for an article which is clearly thoroughly cited and has a methodology stated. How else is a good faith editor to know how to fix the article to make it ''not'' original research? That your response to my request for an explanation was met with an AfD disappoints me. ] <font color="green">]</font> 05:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was about to leave a note on the talk page when it had been removed a second time. What disappoints me is that I actually have to explain this to people. It will fall on deaf ears, though, because this group of editors would rather ignore policy than delete a good article. It's using a specific criteria for inclusion that was invented ON Misplaced Pages. It's not a case of using multiple sources to show that someone is notable because of the requirement that it must meet 6 of 10 specific lists and excludes any other possible sources. -- ] 06:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::So you could have left a note on the talk page and left the tag off, if need be. I think it's time to re-read the bit on original synthesis and perhaps look up synthesis, and also to look at ] - ignore all rules. It's a useful article which reflects scholarly consensus using good sources. It's a compilation of lists. That's not such a unique methodology. It's basically the same thing someone does when they're writing a standard article, only in this case, instead of each fact having one citation, it essentially has six. ] <font color="green">]</font> 06:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::..."Ignore all rules" does not and cannot trump WP:NOR. If we want to use a specific method of "scholarly consensus" then we need to show that method being used externally, or not use that specific method. -- ] 06:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Excellent point == | |||
| I'm glad you agree! Perhaps we could get this point reflected more explicitly at the highest levels... ], ], etc., and then have it trickle down to the lower levels like ] and ]? --] 06:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Sounds good to me. -- ] 11:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==OCD and Taboo== | |||
| Well you might want to take a look at ]. The subtitle of the book is "''Resemblances Between the Mental Lives of Savages and Neurotics''". The upshot of the whole thing is that the processes giving rise to taboo cultures and the processes giving rise to neurotic illnesses (such as OCD) are developmentally and psychoanalytically very similar. That's why I added ] to that section (those studying OCD also seem to be interested in the subject of taboo). But in any case this is certainly not a big deal, and I'm not going to even bother adding ] back in the list - but you could do that if you want :) ] 09:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The link to the book seems much better :) -- ] 11:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Tainted poll?== | |||
| Hi. Sorry to bother you. You participated in a television episode article naming poll which now lives ]. Some feel that wording changes have compromised the results of that poll. If you don't mind, could you please take a look at what is there now and add a quick note at ] to say whether your feelings on the matter remain the same? Of course you can feel free to read over the entirety of both links for more information. Thanks. —] (]) 02:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :My good sir, I thank you kindly for informing me of this important matter. I shall leave a note at once :D -- ] 06:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Kate's Lost Image== | |||
| What exactly is the problem with the image of Kate? All the other major characters in Lost have images of themselves standing looking at the camera. Please explain this to me, because I am very confused. - ] 11:23, 15 October 2006 (GMT) | |||
| :Trust me, it's really silly, and I don't completely agree with it myself.. But we just need it to be a picture that shows the ''character'' rather than the ''person'' in order to claim fair use per ]. The same probably needs to be done on all the character pages, but I'd rather do something like this one at a time so I don't have to be in 10 million different discussions at once. -- ] 11:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Template:Participant == | |||
| Hi Ned. I left a message for you at ]. --] 20:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Response to your POV message == | |||
| Re: , don't worry about that thread. The aroma of ] is getting palpable in that area. Thanks though. —] (]) 11:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Virtual classroom moving right along == | |||
| Based on your comments at the MfD, I thought you might like to see how things are progressing with the Virtual classroom. We've moved on to our second lesson, though each lesson is continuous so that we can all benefit from the experience of new visitors as they arrive. I expect to learn a lot more from the interface ''share and compare'' discussions, for instance. So far, I've created a new tools page accessible from my userpage menu, inspired by all the ideas shared in those discussions. | |||
| The current lesson focuses on "stubbing," with a short course to kick off discussion provided by our resident expert on the subject, ]. Please feel free to add your expertise and questions. | |||
| To help keep track of what's going on, here's a template you can place at the top of your userpage or talk page: | |||
| {{VC assignments}} | |||
| Hope to see you at the Virtual classroom again soon. ''''']''''' 14:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Do not edit other users' posts== | |||
| I noticed that you edited someone else's comment for clarity, spelling or grammar. As a rule, refrain from editing others' comments without their permission. Though it may appear helpful to correct typing errors, grammar, etc., please do not go out of your way to bring talk pages to publishing standards, since it is not terribly productive and will tend to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. For more details, see ]. Thanks, <!-- Template:Notyours --> --] 04:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :If those edits were apart of your comments, instead of just being a list, then you shouldn't be making modifications to it after others have replied to it, per those very same talk page guidelines. Since you were editing to it after others have responded, I figured you considered that part of your message as just a list for reference. -- ] 04:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 00:07, 19 November 2024
| I'm not that active these days, but I'm still around. Feel free to send me an extra poke here or via e-mail for anything, trivial or important (or to just say hi). | |
 Archives • ℹ | |
|---|---|
|
1. 02/06 - 05/06 |
9. 05/07 - early 08/07 |
"List of Lost episodes/Use of images" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect List of Lost episodes/Use of images. The discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 11#List of Lost episodes/Use of images until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Vahurzpu (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Cocktaildb recipe
Template:Cocktaildb recipe has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. —¿philoserf? (talk)
CfD nomination at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Category:WikiProject X members
A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Category:WikiProject X members on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Qwerfjkltalk 09:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Reason for revert of syntax error fixes?
Is there a reason that you just did a bunch of reverts like this, of bot edits that fixed dozens of syntax errors in your talk page archives? – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes -- Ned Scott 19:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- That is not a helpful answer. Please provide an explanation. Those errors were fixed by an approved bot task. If there were errors in the bot edits, please specify what the bot did that you view as incorrect. You have restored errors of a couple of types that had been completely eliminated from the English Misplaced Pages, so your pages are likely to draw attention from editors who work to fix those errors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- I understand, but do not wish to explain further. These are my talk page archives. Maybe I want to archive incorrect formatting? Maybe I'm just a jerk? Maybe I don't trust people to edit those pages for any reason, especially when they ignore the notice to not edit the pages and didn't bother to ask me about it. The reasons are mysterious. They're marked as archives and with nobots. -- Ned Scott 19:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- Since it's not yours, you should supply a valid reason. Gonnym (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not going to debate this. Leave my talk archives alone. -- Ned Scott 20:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- Since it's not yours, you should supply a valid reason. Gonnym (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- I understand, but do not wish to explain further. These are my talk page archives. Maybe I want to archive incorrect formatting? Maybe I'm just a jerk? Maybe I don't trust people to edit those pages for any reason, especially when they ignore the notice to not edit the pages and didn't bother to ask me about it. The reasons are mysterious. They're marked as archives and with nobots. -- Ned Scott 19:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- That is not a helpful answer. Please provide an explanation. Those errors were fixed by an approved bot task. If there were errors in the bot edits, please specify what the bot did that you view as incorrect. You have restored errors of a couple of types that had been completely eliminated from the English Misplaced Pages, so your pages are likely to draw attention from editors who work to fix those errors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Oh my god, I just took a closer look at what exactly you guys are doing, and it's not even fixing anything. You can't tell me that
- <font color="#ff9900">]</font><font color="#ff6699">]</font>
being changed to
- ]]
is doing anything necessary or fixing some kind of formatting issue. -- Ned Scott 20:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- Ned Scott: とある白い猫, WOSlinkerBot, Qwerfjkl, Tholme, Izno, CommonsDelinker, Jonesey95 and Gonnym are among numerous Wikipedians working diligently to eradicate lint errors from Misplaced Pages who have edited one or more of your talk page archives. The edit about which you are godsmacked is a correction of an Old behaviour of link-wrapping font tags lint error. The Wikimedia software that makes Misplaced Pages work preprocesses or parses Wiki markup (Wikitext) with a tool called a linter. Around 2019, Wikimedia replaced the old linter with a new linter. Under the old linter,
<font>...</font>immediately surrounding a wikilink or external link behaved as if the font tag were inside the link. That means that such font tags would override link colors. The new linter doen't work this way, and font color tags around a wikilink or external link don't override default link colors. This edit restores the display of Krimpet's signature to its original appearance, as everybody saw it, until the new linter came in. Old behaviour of link-wrapping font tags is considered a High Priority lint error, and we completely eradicated it from English Misplaced Pages. The only pages that have it now are your talk page archives. - Another High Priority lint error is Multiple unclosed formatting tags. The most common example of this error is a
<small>tag closed with another<small>instead of</small>. The old linter usually fixed this error silently, but the new linter regards this as two unclosed<small>tags, which means that everything following these tags is displayed double-small, all the way to the end of the page, unless the leak is contained by a table or some other structure. We completely eradicated Multiple unclosed formatting tags from English Misplaced Pages. The only pages that have it now are your talk page archives. - David Levy edited one of of your talk page archives to correct "buy" to "but" in his own comment. That's not unreasonable, but it might have been better to mark it up as
<del>buy</del> <ins>but</ins>, i.e.buybut. - There is a theory held by a small number of Wiki editors that archives are a historical record that must never be changed. That theory is incorrect. On Misplaced Pages, we edit talk page archives all the time for a variety of reasons, including copyright violations, renaming of image files, and, yes, lint fixes. This is explicitly encouraged at WP:Linter. We have been doing this for years. Most users appreciate it. A few users question it, but nearly all of those come to respect it after we explain it. I hope you will come to respect and appreciate it also. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- It's an archive, and is already full of red links, missing images, regarding topics that lack context, and more. I don't agree that this is something that needs to be done. Regardless of the situation, bots still need to follow the nobots tag.
- That being said, seeing as this is something that is showing up on a report, that means you guys will never stop bugging me about this. So I give up. -- Ned Scott 23:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- I see you have already self-reverted your reversions of lint fix edits of your talk page archive pages. Thank you for your cooperation. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in a research
Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Kind Regards,
BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)