Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:00, 12 March 2008

Archives

August 2006 to December 31, 2007 January 2008

Notification of injunction relating to episodes and characters

The Arbitration Committee, in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2, have voted to implement a temporary injunction. It can be viewed on the case page by following this link. The injunction is as follows:

For the duration of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction.

As noted in the text of the injunction, this restriction is in effect until the Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 case is officially closed by a clerk, following a successful motion to close by the arbitrators. Please note that, for the purposes of enforcement (c.f. the final line of the text of the injunction), all parties in this case at the time of this message (link) have been notified of this injunction.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive Your Talk page

This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving. Thanks ✬Dillard421✬ 23:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your message. --Pixelface (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If it helps, MiszaBot can also be used to archive user talk pages. That way you don't have to worry about managing the archives or having to manually deal with the copy/pasting. I started using it on mine, and its been much nicer not having to do daily to weekly cleanings. :) Collectonian (talk) 01:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip Collectonian! --Pixelface (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello Pixelface, I had no idea about the temporary injunction, if I did I would never have tagged those articles, please accept my apology for this mistake, and thank you for informing me of this. Polly (Parrot) 20:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The Futon Critic

Hello Pixelface. I am unsure how to start an article on the path of AFD, as per your suggestion at The Futon Critic. Can you tell me what to do? Rockhound (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. You can read the steps at WP:AFD. Basically, you need to do this:

1. Put this {{subst:afd1}} on the article The Futon Critic. In the edit summary, put AfD: Nominated for deletion; see ]. Save the page
2. In the AFD box at the top, click the link saying "this article's entry" to open the debate page. Put this {{subst:afd2 | pg=The Futon Critic | cat=W | text=REASON}} ~~~~ and replace REASON with why you think the article should be deleted. Use an edit summary like Creating deletion discussion page for ]. Save the page.
3. Open the AFD log page. Today that would be here. You can see the current log page here, in the III section. At the top of the list, put {{subst:afd3 | pg=The Futon Critic}}. In the edit summary, put Adding ]. Save the page.

That's it. --Pixelface (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, before you list the article for deletion, you should read this section on WP:AFD and read the deletion policy. It's a courtesy to notify the creator of the article on their talk page that you've listed the article for deletion, (in this case you would put {{subst:AFDWarning|The Futon Critic}} ~~~~ on User talk:Seinfreak37). --Pixelface (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. I think I've done things properly now, but feel free to check me out and make sure I'm doing things right! Rockhound (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks good :) --Pixelface (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Great! Still learning the ins and outs of being more than just a random editor, so I really appreciate the guidance and assistance. Rockhound (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Omglolwtfbbq

Hi there, when closing AfDs please remember to archive the AfD using these instructions. No need to worry, I went ahead and did it for you. Cheers, EJF (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I tried looking for that info at WP:AFD and WP:DGFA and couldn't find it. Now I know (although I don't plan on closing any more AFDs). --Pixelface (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

re:Template:Infobox Comics creator

Thanks.

I was trying to set a size limit and was getting no where fast. I had just hit the frustrating realization that the function call I was trying to use isn't compatible with that particular overall infobox formatting and was going to selfrevert, but you beat me to it.

- J Greb (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Points

Perhaps this kind of churlishness is not intended to be pointy and I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you did not create this account to go through in a tendentious tagging spree. Thus, if you are genuinely convinced that the Symphonies of Joseph Haydn are not notable, then I suggest you either takeit up at WP:NOT per WP:MUSIC, or - better - flag them for AfD and get consensus behind you for a delete and redirect to the main list. But throwing tantrums at the talk page is unhelpful. You can do better. Eusebeus (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to this sarcastic comment by me and not the edit by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. If I wanted to be pointy, I would have taking a cue from TTN and redirected every symphony article to a list article by now.

I've already asked you about your seemingly inconsistent view of notability on your talk page and I received no reply. I did put a {{notability}} tag on the Symphony No. 59 (Haydn) article. But I didn't create the account Pops Culture, and I don't know who it is. Perhaps they're trying to clean out all the "dross" that's "clogging" up Misplaced Pages...

Personally, I think the symphonies of Joseph Haydn are notable (along with episodes of notable television series), and I don't need a References section to tell me that. I did start a discussion at WT:MUSIC about it.

I was not throwing a tantrum. My first and second reply to your comment, was an attempt to try to make you see things from another perspective.

It frankly bothers me when editors blank countless articles and redirect them to a list article. It does not improve Misplaced Pages in any way. Would you like it if I redirected Symphony No. 59 (Haydn) to List of symphonies by Joseph Haydn before you added sources? Even after you added sources? Would you like it if a handful of users had a discussion on Talk:List of symphonies by Joseph Haydn and decided amongst themselves to redirect them all without your input? That is what it's like for editors on episode/character articles.

I suppose I would take your campaign to redirect articles that do not assert notability more seriously if you had actually practiced what you preach on articles you've created. Words like "TVcruft" (and "symphonycruft") are incivil and are completely unhelpful. The fact is that articles about symphonies don't "clog" up Misplaced Pages and neither do articles on television episodes. Misplaced Pages is not paper. --Pixelface (talk) 02:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Pixelface, you really need to do better here, especially as editors make an effort to engage you in good faith. Thus:

1) Asserting something does not make it so.
2) This is a discussion about notability & content, not about my editing practices.
3) You make false equivalents. Individual symphonies of Haydn are notable. Episodes of Scrubs are not. This is demonstrably true. Why? Because, Pixelface, because I say so and because I like the symphonies of Joseph Haydn and because I do not like Scrubs episodes.
Oh wait.
No it isn't.
It's because we have policies and guidelines that help us establish notability: WP:N But don't be supine, Pixelface. Does this mean every symphony is notable? No. The standard of notability applies equally to all things. Thus:
4) Frankly: stop your whining and this petty-ante, bush league, tit-for-tat: - "since you are redirecting something I care about, what if I do the same to you?"

I am going to venture that you are old enough (i.e. >12) to do better than that. You need to do better generally in the way you engage these issues, you need to be more intelligent in how you react to what others are saying, you need to stop this mindless and off-point gainsaying. You need to think more seriously about how you frame your arguments. I didn't bother responding to your earlier posting because it was ridiculous. This kind of churlish, querulous, pointy, adolescent behaviour is unbecoming of an editor who wishes to be make a positive impact. Eusebeus (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You've been listed as an involved party in an arbitration case. This actually *is* about your editing practices, which you were recently blocked for. To see you help TTN edit war over redirects and act like WP:N is a policy when it comes to television episode articles, while you ignore WP:N when it comes to symphony articles you've written makes you look inconsistent at best and hypocritical at worst. Redirecting articles does not provide any positive impact so I have to wonder why you help TTN do it. You said "The standard of notability applies equally to all things." So why didn't you assert the notability of those symphonies until I called you on it? --Pixelface (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The symphonies of Haydn are inherently notable per our standards and notability no more need be asserted than for Thomas Edison; this is what I meant when I referred to your ignorance. Junky, unencyclopedic, fan-driven, in-universe, trivia-laden tv-cruft needs be expurgated as non-notable. And that now exhausts my interest in dealing with you on this. I do remind you, however, that you need to do better than your current churlish adolescence. Eusebeus (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see. They're notable because Haydn is notable. Thank you for your reply. I just don't want you to get blocked again for edit warring. --Pixelface (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to interject here...I certainly have clashed heads with Pixel before, but I have to defend him a bit now. I don't quite see why necessarily every symphony by Haydn is notable in an of themselves compared to a lot of what you're saying is bad. Sure, a lot of them are...but take, for example, #52 (that was a random number that dropped in my head). Arkivmusic lists seven specific recordings, and at least three of them are part of complete sets and another part of a yet-to-be-completed one. Look at the WP article for it, the closest thing to it making a note for itself is a singular comment by a musicologist. There's also no special name to it. I can't imagine anyone could justify an article about every classical piece that's been recorded (let's say) five times outside of full cycles. (To put it simply, WP:NOTINHERITED)

It sounds to me like you're saying "TV stuff is bad because it's popular culture, but Haydn's been around for two senturies!". It's probably true that in 200 years people won't remember most TV stuff, I'll grant, but I'd imagine that the likely hood of many of Haydn's symphonies surviving until now if they hadn't been by Haydn is also very small. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't think Eusebeus was quite saying that every symphony by Haydn is notable by default, just that third-party sources could be found for them, satisfying WP:N (which needs a rewrite in my opinion). I personally don't see anything wrong with individual articles for symphonies by notable composers — and I disagree with much of what WP:NOTINHERITED says (although it notes that WP:MUSIC allows for "inherited" notability occasionally). If this was 1785, it would be sad to see no articles about the symphonies because no book had been written about them. And Eusebeus, the simple fact is that fans of Haydn are more likely to edit articles related to Haydn. Misplaced Pages *is* fan-driven. --Pixelface (talk) 13:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Temporary injunction and "any currently existing article"

As written, it applies only to articles that existed at the time of the injunction; but, in any case, I hope the decision will be finalized soon enough, removing the need to fiddle with the injunction's scope. Kirill 05:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful and speedy reply. --Pixelface (talk) 05:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Omega (1987 computer game)

You removed a prod template from Omega (1987 computer game) indicating "Comments on the talk page indicate the deletion might be controversial". There are only comments on the talk page from two people: the comments of the person who put the prod template there -- me -- and comments from someone saying "I'm not disputing the prod." Can you expand on what comments exactly you're talking about? Did I miss some talk page discussion?

Thanks. Nandesuka (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I seem to have glanced at the the talk page a little too quickly. I'm contesting the prod but you can nominate the article for deletion if you like. --Pixelface (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

On what basis? The article was prodded because there were insufficient reliable sources. Did you find some? Do you even know what the article is about? Given your lack of comment on this article and your change of rationale, combined with your strange editing pattern today, I've raised this issue at AN/I. Nandesuka (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I can remove a prod for any reason. It's only for non-controversial deletions. Take it to AFD so it can have further discussion. --Pixelface (talk) 13:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I glanced at "contesting at this time" on the talk page and that's why I initally removed the prod. You really have no right to put it back in the article. Take it through the AFD process. --Pixelface (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Randomly de-prodding articles for no reason is disruption of the PROD process. Please take other editor's concerns a little more seriously. Naerii (talk) 13:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not randomly de-prodding articles for no reason. If another editor thinks a deletion might not be uncontroversial, please assume good faith. If the community really thinks an article should be deleted, the discussion at AFD will show that. --Pixelface (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: you are contesting a prod because you misread the words "not contesting the PROD at this time" as "contesting the PROD at this time"? You're serious? This isn't a joke? Nandesuka (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I contested the prod because you put it back in the article after I removed it and I think the issue deserves further discussion in AFD. --Pixelface (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Having looked into this a bit, I see every indication that you acted correctly and in good faith Pixelface. As I have put more articles into Category:All articles proposed for deletion then I have taken out, I don't say this lightly. 14:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Omega (1987 computer game)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Omega (1987 computer game), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Omega (1987 computer game). Thank you. Jeepday (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Aw, man

Murdered children never die. Ever. I tried with Christina Marie Williams and it was kept, though I thought it should have been a "no consensus" at least. Misplaced Pages seems to hold strong inclusionist tendencies. And really, who really knows? Someone anonymous user said that Amy Mihaljevic was as widely covered as Jonbenet Ramsey. I don't know if that's true or not but I don't feel qualified to argue notability with claims like that. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to this edit of mine? I can tell you how to AFD that article if you don't know how. --Pixelface (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I know how to AFD stuff, I was just soapboxing a bit. Thanks for the offer though. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Spellbound (software developer)

Even though the article was deleted at the original author's request, if you genuinely feel these folks are notable (and can document it better than he did), there's certainly nothing preventing you from creating a new article (maybe subtitled "computer game developer")! --Orange Mike | Talk 22:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC) (not really an evil deletionist)

That's not quite true; recreation of deleted content is a criterion for speedy deletion even if the article's title is changed. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You're missing an important caveat, Percy - recreation of content deleted via a deletion discussion is a speedy delete criterion. This article was deleted per CSD G7 ("author requests deletion") not via a deletion discussion, and thus a recreation certainly would not be a valid CSD. --Stormie (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, good point; the debate was certainly heading towards a delete result, but as you point out it never got there. An article recreated under a different title would be close enough to justify an AFD, but not quite close enough for speedy deletion to be appropriate. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

• Good luck with that. I will post a notification on the Composers and Classical Music Project pages in the even tyou have failed to notify the relevant projects. Eusebeus (talk) 05:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Alright, but I don't see why that's necessary. I've been notifying the major contributors and creators of the articles on their user talk pages. --Pixelface (talk) 05:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You don't see why that is necessary? You will soon be disabused. And you will need to work very hard to convince me and other editors that this is a good faith nomination btw, backed up by evidence on your part that this is not disruptive and pointy, but in fact a well-reasoned action. Otherwise, you likely open yourself to a block for disruptive editing. Eusebeus (talk) 06:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Merge discussions don't have to be brought up on WikiProjects and that sort of thing could actually be considered canvassing. The fact is that those articles are very poor on their own but when merged together could become a featured list. --Pixelface (talk) 06:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Pixelface:_Disruptive_.26_Pointy. Eusebeus (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Musical instruments from The Legend of Zelda series

Hi! Regarding your proposal to merge with The Legend of Zelda (series) - I think that's the best idea if the page isn't kept, and I'm happy to help with the wording if that eventuates. - Bilby (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I was bold and merged it earlier but I guess that was reverted. After seeing your improvements to the article I changed my mind to keep. I think it's a good article on its own. --Pixelface (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for notification

Thank you for notifying me on my Talk page about your merger proposal. I agree completely with the many editors who opposed it in discussion. Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thank you for your view on the matter. --Pixelface (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Re User:VivianDarkbloom

Thanks for your message on my talkpage. I note that the above editor has been unblocked by another uninvolved admin. I would comment that "Sock" is a shorthand for the term "Alternate Account" and, as you say, not a reason for performing a block of itself. However, when an account violates WP policy (such as WP:CIVIL) and it is known that it is an alternate account then Good Hand, Bad Hand finds that the violating account needs indef blocking - the editor can then use the main account, or close it and request the indef on the alternate account be lifted. This editor chose neither. I would also remind you that incivil behaviour/personal attacks is no justification for violating WP policy. Anyhow, a different sysop has reviewed the matter and decided to lift the block. That is fine by me, it is how things work round here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I appreciate it. --Pixelface (talk) 09:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Haydn

This is classic tendentious editing. Consensus is solidly against you and you still dig the hole for yourself deeper. Just remember what's waiting right at the bottom of the hole if you keep digging. Moreschi (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, but I don't know why you think starting a merge discussion is "tendentious editing." I started a discussion to see what the consensus was. WP:OWN is a policy. Nobody owns those articles. And nobody made you "waste 10 minutes of your life" reverting my edits. If you don't think articles like Symphony No. 81 (Haydn) could be summed up in three sentences in the list article, say so on the list talk page. Since a merge appears controversial, I've listed it at WP:PM in order to gain wider input. Thanks. --Pixelface (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course it COULD be summed up like that, but almost any article COULD be summed up like that. If you really don't get why your actions are so pointy, there's really no help for you any more. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

A page being very short is one good reason to merge, see Help:Merging and moving pages#Merging. Starting a merge discussion is not disruption. --Pixelface (talk) 11:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

List of awards won by Million Dollar Baby

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of awards won by Million Dollar Baby, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of List of awards won by Million Dollar Baby.

40 Days For Life

The result was a keep, thanks for your vote. - Schrandit (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No need to thank me. You're the one who provided links to the Sacramento Bee and The Guardian. --Pixelface (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The Bank Job

Hi. How come you changed the cast list to back above the Plot? I have only ever seen the cast list after the Plot (at the very least). Seeing as most people are not able to discern who actually stars in the film, we now have a cast list on the left and another one in the infobox on the right! Greetings TINYMARK 20:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The Cast section was almost at the very bottom of the article. The Plot section was pretty long so I decided to put the Cast section above the Plot section. I've moved the Cast section below the Plot section since you asked. --Pixelface (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I was actually wondering if the was some deeper meaning to it. The plot does seem to be getting too long, but that always happens with a newly released film. I also noticed that you wikified tha date incorrectly. WP:MOSDATE states that the day/month or month/day should be linked when the year is present, which should also be linked. This has to do with the display of the date-so that it displays with the correct punctuation and to the user's preferences, where set. For more info you can look here or in my talk archive. Happy editing TINYMARK 21:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot about the date style the article was already using (and I forgot about unregistered users reading the page). Thank you for fixing it. Although I don't always wikify the year. --Pixelface (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. However, he is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate. Enforcement of this remedy is specified here.

Furthermore, the parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question, and are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute. Please also note that the temporary injunction enacted by the Committee on February 3 in relation to this case now ceases to be in effect.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Lovisa von Burghausen

Lovisa von Burghausen — latest collaboration.

Jack Merridew 14:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
for the Work Assignments Committee