Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:58, 27 April 2008

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

— Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The current local time is: 01:11, 25 December 2024 (GMT)

• .JS
• .CSS
• 1A
• AFC
• DW
• ESP
• ETP
• FAC
• GAC
• MATH
• PC
• PLUSING
• RC
• RM
• TSPACE
• USPACE

Only 51846 articles (0.748%) are featured or good. Make a difference: improve an article!

Help

Hi Will,

I realise you are not an admin. anymore, but I will say this anyways...could you please find someone that will block this IP 82.110.149.233 ? Heaps of edits and ALL vandalism. Thanks!  :-) Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 12:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Email

Regarding certain accusations of sockpuppetry that are frankly ridiculous but seem to refuse to die, please see forthcoming email. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Input

I suggest that we take the question of fictional House characters to mediation. Can I ask you to weigh in on which form of mediation you would prefer? Thanks Will. Eusebeus (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who newsletter

Hello Will. After proposing and receiving ideas here I have finished my recent cleanup of the participants list for the Misplaced Pages Doctor Who project. You can see the members that I removed from the active list here I also noted the reasons that they were being removed from the list, however, at the request of Lady Aleena I hid those edits so you will have to click on the edit section command if you want to see them. There are about another 10 editors who have not made any edits on wikipedia since last fall. I am keeping an eye on them and may move them to the inactive list in another six months. The reason that I am informing you of this is so that you can remove them from the mailing list that you set up for the Doctor Who newsletter that you recently started if you wish to do so. I hope that this is of some help for you and I apologize for taking up your time if it is not. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 16:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems I have an impersonator...

I warned this user here, and as a result it's clear they created an account to impersonate me. What sort of action do I take here? Seraphim♥ 17:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Content forks

Hi, could you clarify this change? I know that content forks are generally merged rather than deleted, but sometimes (especially in the case of POV forks) deletion is the only good option. Thanks, Black Falcon 18:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow... Black Falcon 18:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with many of the points that you raised in the AfD (at minimum, the article ought to be trimmed quite a bit and renamed to a title that is more defined in scope and doesn't give the impression that the article should be a laundry list of questionable activities carried out by or events connected to the Church of Scientology or Scientologists), a single AfD does not invalidate an established portion of the deletion policy. While Scientology controversies is a content fork, there is apparently no consensus for the position that it is an undesirable fork and/or for the idea that deletion is preferable to merging in this case in this case. Black Falcon 18:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It may be that content forks have been given free rein for some time, but removing the criterion from the deletion policy would only deepen the problem for other cases, where there often is consensus for deletion or merging. Black Falcon 18:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Truly undesirable content forks are generally deleted, so the criterion is not "dead weight". Moreover, POV forking is a major problem in many topic areas that are plagued by ethnic or nationalist disputes, and there is often no other way to deal with such articles except deletion. Black Falcon 19:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Allegations...

Re . Agreed. I've benn trying to trim sections which already have articles elsewhere. I've just done it for Japan. If you're prepared to help out, please do William M. Connolley (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 24 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Planet of the Ood, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Revert

Just so you know, I reverted here, since there was no Talk Page evidence of disputes over neutrality or facts. Sherurcij 20:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Userpage question

Hi, can I ask what the strange box below your barnstars is? The multicoloured one? Cheers, and enjoy the Sontarans!! —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Missing planets? Shadow Proclamation? Oh, I've got it: all your edits are related to Who. Oh, dammit! :-) Fair enough —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

False claims you've made about me

And Will, regarding a comment you made at AN, it contained three false claims. You said "His actions caused the Episodes and characters 2 case." and that is totally false. My actions caused Corvus cornix to start an ANI thread where he falsely claimed I was reverting all of TTN's edits. That's easily disproved by looking at my first 15 reverts. It was Eusebeus and TTN who turned them into redirects (and Eusebeus, by the way, was blocked for editwarring over them, and continues to editwar over them, as can be seen at WP:AE). I was turning the Scrubs episode articles back into articles because I saw no consensus for them to be redirects on Talk:List of Scrubs episodes. And if it was *my* actions that "caused" the Episodes and characters 2 case, why did the arbitration committee restrict TTN? You're second false claim was "Specifically, edit warring on Scrubs episode articles." The arbitration committee and other editors found no evidence I was edit warring over Scrubs articles, look at the Workshop. Look at the history of articles like My Mentor and tell me who's been editwarring. Finally, you said "Him saying there's no consensus for PLOT is just wrong - only he agrees that it should be removed." and that's easily disproved because Hobit also removed that section from policy. And I can certainly provide more diffs if you'd like.

• Father Goose said "This is more a style issue than a content issue, so the appropriate place for it is arguably in a guideline, not in a content-exclusion policy."
• DGG said "More generally, NOT PLOT as it is written does not belong in NOT--policy should be general principles, not the details found there."
• 23skidoo said "I agree with those who feel this is better suited for MoS rather than trying to pigeonhole it into a policy that, technically, is intended to supress content."
• Eubulide said "I object to treating plot details in a different way than other types of sourced information in WP." and "This is done only for plot summaries and nobody gave an explanation for this exception. If an article is missing real-world context, the reasonable approach is to add such context, not delete the rest."
• SmokeyJoe said "I think WP:NOT#PLOT, as written, belongs in WP:WAF."
• Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles said "We should remove the plot section of what Misplaced Pages is not."
• Hobit said "I'll chime in by saying I don't think issues of plot summary should be here." and Hobit later said "I think at the least WP:PLOT lacks consensus and shouldn't be here"

And there's tons of opposition easily found in the WT:NOT archives. Oh, and if you don't want this comment to appear on your talk page, I'd be happy to leave it on my talk page. --Pixelface (talk) 06:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)