Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:18, 23 June 2007

Archives

no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

NOTE: If you leave a message for me here, I will respond to it here.

SHA-1

User:Hairchrm/sha1 - Hairchrm 02:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

mawile talk page

On the mawile talk page someone was talking about how it is usefull and i said that "i dont know if it helps but mawile is my second best pokemon and that faint attack is very usefull" and it says you reverted it and said that it was spam, i was not spamming! i was trying to help the person out by saying some other things about it being useful!-hotspot

It was removed because Talk:Mawile is not a forum for general discussion on Mawile. If you'd looked at the link, it is reasonable you would have figured the "Spam" designation was sarcasm. Besides, whether it is useful or not is a moot point. Misplaced Pages is not the place to post how "useful" a particular Poke is, as I'd already stated on the talk page. -Jeske 02:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Lo siento

If you don't know Spanish, that means "I'm sorry." When I said "leader," I only meant that you were one of thoe three who makes nearly all the edits to the Pokemon articles along with Urutapu and Mcy. I wasn't judging based on your actual edits. Sorry for confusion. A trivial matter, as far as I'm concerned. --Ksy92003 (talk) 05:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand the confusion. -Jeske 12:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Removal of Pokémon image templates

As far as notifying the relevant WikiProject, that's not up to me, that was up to the nominator. I was merely the closing administrator. ^demon 02:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I have already told him. -Jeske 02:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no duty on the nominator to notify anyone. It's nice, but it's not compulsory. Do not chastise nominators in XfD processes for your own failure to observe your watchlist. 81.104.175.145 03:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even know the TfD existed, so you might want to recant your last statement. -Jeske 03:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You didn't know, but it's not the nominator's fault that you didn't know. 81.104.175.145 04:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you say that? I don't patrol WP:TfD or recent changes, and I've been busy at other avenues during the time the TfD was going on and didn't have time to look, either. Besides, since the TfD involved a project, I would have suspected someone would have notified everyone else. As far as I know, the whole project, sans Amarkov (who forgot about it), did not know an iota about it.-Jeske 04:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. You could reasonably expect that someone would have spotted it, but nobody did. Therefore, not the nominator's fault. 81.104.175.145 04:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

One cannot watch what one did not know existed. Think about that before you chastise me. -Jeske 03:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What's your point? I'm not telling you off for missing it on your watchlist. I'm telling you off for chastising a TfD nominator for something that wasn't their problem. 81.104.175.145 04:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

D&D wiki project consensus

The whole polling issue is working wonderfully. Yes everyone is disagreeing with me which is great. And that's exactly what I want everyone to come together and agree. Everyone can disagree with me as long as everyone disagrees with me. I've never liked the idea of a representative democracy. Why is it that two or three people who were not elected get to decide for everyone? But more importantly decisions are being made as to what to do when we have to disambiguate. And as soon as everyone are at least a majority has said no which they will I will be more than happy to go in and change all the pages that I have rerouted myself. Do you understand now what I was trying to accomplish?

But was there a need for a straw poll? -Jeske 13:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Mudkips

I find your racist actions against Mudkips morally reprehensible, sir. You asked for reliable sources. We provided sources that the vast majority here considers reliable. 4chan is a reliable source: we have consistently used the meme for months. Just because you do not like the meme does not give you the right to block it's inclusion here. You are in the minority on the Mudkip inclusion issue, sir. Vast numbers of people have claimed that the meme sources such as 4chan are reliable.

You are in the minority now. You have overstepped the boundaries of your position, and you have allowed your personal bias to lead you to oppose the clear majority. 75.68.162.162 01:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No, YOU overstepped your boundaries. There is NO CONSENSUS EITHER WAY as to reliable sources, and 4chan is NEVER a reliable source because it is anonymous. Get your facts straight and read WP:RS. YOU'RE the one with clouded judgement. -Jeske 03:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The article you cited doesn't have any relevance to your assumptions. Since you are insistent on ignoring that you are A. In the clear minority, and B. Not within the rules or spirit of Misplaced Pages, I will go through this article and perhaps illuminate this whole mess for you.

First and foremost, the article begins by stating "this is a guideline, not a policy". This article does not give you the authority to stonewall the majority of users contributing to a page; it does not even mandate that we follow the policies which are laid out in it.

Point the second: The article states "Misplaced Pages:Verifiability says that any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source." multiple users have done this for the Mudkip meme. The article goes on to state that "the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material", ergo, the task of finding reliable sources is not your responsibility at all, but that of those who added the content. I repeat what I said before: you have overstepped your bounds.

Thirdly, section one, entitled "What is a reliable source," defines said sources as credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. The reliability of a source depends on context... The chan community is the authoritative source when it comes to memes and memetics. I challenge you to find anybody who knows more about memes than a Channer.

Point the fourth: I would like to refer you to Misplaced Pages:neutral point of view. The first section clearly states "None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth". Furthermore, it goes on to state "the neutral point of view is... neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject... Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint... When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed."

In conclusion, I would urge you to rethink the extent that you are warranted to edit Mudkips, especially in light of the policies in question. Furthermore, I would suggest you give Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view a second perusal, especially the sections on Bias.

75.68.162.162 04:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

And I suggest you read WP:RS's companion, WP:V, a bit more closely. The Chans are anonymous, and thus can't be trusted (nor can internet forums, other wikis - or Misplaced Pages itself when it comes to other Misplaced Pages articles). The same follows for Serebii.net, if you were here during the debates prior to D/P's release. The reasons for all of this are numerous:

• They have no editorial oversight
• There is no way to find out which person made which edit, making it impossible to trace a statement back to its origin (a requirement under the Gnu Free Document License, which is what Misplaced Pages contributions are released under)
• Posts are not static there - i.e. a post can very easily be changed.

Second, practice as you preach - "None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth." That means that you are also violating WP:NPOV in letter and spirit if I am - you're pushing hard to have the meme inserted, whereas I'm trying to make certain it can survive the axe of WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:V (to which WP:RS is relevant), and WP:NEO.

Third, I would not object to the presence of the meme in the article - provided it can survive WP:NOT's restrictions, is properly sourced, and can survive being merged (see Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Layout).

Fourth, you are oblivious to the fact that I have stated on other talk pages that the only editing I do to Poke pages is reversions and removals of game guide. Because I use the information on these pages as source material for Dungeons & Dragons monster writeups (lacking all the Pokemon games), I have an obvious conflict.

Fifth, I thank you for staying within WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL this time (calling someone racist is a bad idea). -Jeske 08:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Re. WP:COI

I know, even Bleh999 isn't a part of the Project (I think). I specifically mentioned N simply because I had to refer to his point in that comment anyways. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice 05:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

Why did you leave that comment on my talk page? I'm confused. I'm not biased... did you possibly mean to leave that comment on 75.68.162.162's talk page? Or was that comment, "And I have counterargued. Stop this, you have shown yourself biased," really directed towards me? I'm sorry, I'm confused about whether you meant to leave that comment for me or from 75.68.162.162. --Ksy92003 (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I was responding to 75. -Jeske 18:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Haha it's okay. I was worried that you were mad at me or something... haha it's alright. I've done the same thing a couple times in my past... I was especially confused because I hadn't talked to you directly about this disccussion. It's okay; I forgive you. --Ksy92003 (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverted vandalism

An anon left some rather unpleasant vandalism on your user page. It's probably childish at best, but I've removed it and reported the behavior to the admins' noticeboard. --Brandon Dilbeck 04:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Just an anon thanking you for your service

Pointed out a personal attack on a user...

That's what you get for being a wiki enthusiast and an alcoholic.

Still, thanks for the service, you really are making the greatest site on the internet better.