| Revision as of 16:06, 10 May 2013 editHasteur (talk | contribs)31,857 edits Undid revision 554461757 by KumiokoCleanStart (talk) The discussion is over, Your attempts to stir the drama pot are not appreciated, you are dis-invited from this talk page.← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:29, 13 May 2013 edit undo75.85.34.234 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
| ::Huh? There was nothing in my comment that was a "form letter" but your tone and response to my comments only proves that no one really cares what I have to say, nor is my continued participation in the project needed or wanted, nor are you or others interested in fixing the problems. Which are all quite sad because it will continue to contribute to the degradation of the project.] (]) 15:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC) | ::Huh? There was nothing in my comment that was a "form letter" but your tone and response to my comments only proves that no one really cares what I have to say, nor is my continued participation in the project needed or wanted, nor are you or others interested in fixing the problems. Which are all quite sad because it will continue to contribute to the degradation of the project.] (]) 15:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
| {{collapse bottom}} | {{collapse bottom}} | ||
| == Blendoku review == | |||
Revision as of 03:29, 13 May 2013
 Archives | ||||||||||||
Index
|
||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 31.5 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III. |
Re-review of sandboxed article
Hey Hasteur. I was wondering if you'd be up to re-reviewing my sandboxed article. I've reworked and renamed the proposed article to make it about industry as a whole as opposed to a single website within the industry. It may also be worth noting that a similar article (Mugshots removal) was recently created. My thinking is that new article, based on its contents, would be more suited as a redirect to my proposed article if it were move to mainspace. Again, if you are up for it and have time, take a look at User:TreyGeek/Mugshot_Publishing_Industry and tell me what you think about this version of it. Thanks! --TreyGeek (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Looking good to me, the only problem I have with it (and it's minor and personal) is that both the Texas references are to the bill's status without any independent coverage. I also note that both the references are at the end of the Texas section and not in the middle. Hasteur (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- I had the same issue with the Texas legislation. I was surprised I couldn't find news reports of it. It's possible that it and other legislation might have to be dropped, in terms of details, in a few months if they never get past the legislature. I think I'll adjust where the references are and keep an eye on the progress and any news over the next couple of months. Thanks for the feedback. --TreyGeek (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Floaters
Hmmm. You may be right, they probably don't do much. I'll go ahead and remove two, leaving just the temporary advert. Thanks for your concerns. Regarding the reasons I reply to people at RfA, please see my reply here. That said, since a number of editors have said, in various ways, that I should stop replying to most people there, I will indeed try to do so. I just hope that people won't start complaining then that I am ignoring their input. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
AfC
Hello, Hasteur. I have been involved with the Articles for Creation WikiProject for a few months now and I recently put a box at the top of my talk page for people who want information about why their AfC was declined. Just looking at your talk page headers, I noticed you get a large amount of messages from people whose articles you have declined. So did I. However, this box has drastically reduced these types of encounters. Check out my talk page and feel free to steal this box. Thanks, TheOneSean | Talk to me 02:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (3rd nomination)
Hello Hasteur. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (3rd nomination), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: this isn't nonsense or vandalism - the IP wants to raise an MfD but, as an IP, is unable to create the MfD page. I'll do it for him. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing the "priorXfD" bit - I was having trouble following the not-very-clear instructions for a second-or-subsequent MfD! JohnCD (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- YVW, I saw the creation and recognized it as a non-twinkle assisted creation so I pulled the "Previous AfDs" bit from the preivous nomination. Hasteur (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Fedz
Hi Hasteur, you have declined the creation of the article, Fedz, because the Plot and Cast sections were not referenced. I have never previously come across a plot/synopsis or cast list section, which has been referenced before.
My understanding of the plot section is that unless there is commentary or opinion within the summary then this does not need to sourced, as per WP:PLOTPRESENT. From what I thought is normal practice, I have attempted to write the plot factually after viewing the film, as per WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE. There are brief summaries available on the following links; which are included in the article.
The partial cast list can be verified on the IMDb page (although this is in a different order to the closing credits of the film), which has been included within the External links section. Tanbircdq (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- IMDB is not a reliable source. Even if it were the case that the 2 sections you cherry picked, the further section on the page Misplaced Pages:PLOTPRESENT#Citations clearly states that you need to have at least one citation to fall under the WP:V requirement. Now if those 2 sections can get cited (even if it's a single citation that shows that they're verifyable, then we're in business. Hasteur (talk) 00:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, citations have now been added to the two sections, thanks. Tanbircdq (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Help
I was wondering if you could help me argue my stance on this AfD Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/WWE_Payback or am I in the wrong here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul "The Wall" (talk • contribs) 15:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
You placed a warning on my talk page?
Hi there! You placed a warning on my talk page with a few links about Misplaced Pages policy and sanctions. I've read through all of those links previously. Could you please describe specifically how my edits constitute "inappropriate behavior"? Incidentally, I think it would have been courteous for you to do so initially, rather than copy and pasting a warning, as per WP:BITE. A less informed wiki user might definitely have been put off by such behavior.
I note specifically you've linked to a sanctions for off-wiki canvassing, which is ironic, as the only off-wiki discussion I'm aware of is your post here. Then today, when attempting to look up the recent UFC 159 results, I hit the horridly organized 2013_in_UFC page and was reminded of the discussion there. I read through a good portion of the MMA-related talks on Misplaced Pages and felt that my posted approach was a good place to start improving the current format, since the aforementioned page is definitely an eyesore, to me. If you disagree, well, that's what the section I created is for.
HeyDecency (talk) 05:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Being that you're way too familiar with wikipedia policy for the length of your edit history (as evidenced by your straw poll posting and your claims here), we'll just go ahead and throw out your accusation of bite. In fact I'd be tempted to level a WP:SOCK accusation at you, but you've not given enough data points to draw a reasonable attempt at a successful SPI. The same "Revert to status quo ante what worked" argument is not going to happen. If we were to follow your plan, we'd have individual event articles be created (as soon as someone on UFC staff hints at it) and deleted (because it fails WP policy and fails IAR reasoning). As for the reddit post, I was trying to go into the lions den and explain. In no way did I attempt to canvas for a a specific action, but try to recruit new editors to help improve the broad swath of MMA articles. The information I linked to you was the standard boilerplate warning that reminds users who are not adhering to the primary purpose of wikipedia, that MMA articles are under community restrictions and that Administrators have a lower threshold for applying sanctions. I disagree with your premise that the page is an eyesore (as I've seen a great many other articles that have greater problems). I object to you being just the next in a line of faceless burner accounts calling the same question without paying attention to the rest of the page and why the previous requests failed. Hasteur (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hello again. You can disagree with my propositions all you'd like, that's your right as a fellow editor. That doesn't in any way mean my actions constitute inappropriate behavior, however, which is what the warning you placed on my page quite clearly says. Unless you can specifically provide an example of such behavior, as I very directly asked you to do in my post above, please remove your additions from my talk page. I'll ignore the rest of the intimidatory assumptions as they really have no significance or place here- feel free to launch any sort of SPI proposals whenever you'd like and I'll submit to them willingly. HeyDecency (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Once the notification of the GS/MMA is given it can't be un-given. And your continued seeking of a pound of flesh only strengthens the case of your disruption of wikipedia. So, by all means go ahead and have a tantrum and call for my head on a platter. It makes exercising the GS against you that much easier. Hasteur (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't sought anything here other than an explanation of the warning for "inappropriate behavior". You've now declined to give such reasoning twice, despite being asked to do so very directly. HeyDecency (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll play. Your familiarity with Misplaced Pages policy, claiming the BITE exception, and our continued taking offense strongly suggests that you're not a new editor, but one who has either been editing previously under a different name (and therefore a Sockpuppet) or someone who was recruited (External Canvassing) and is being coached from outside to try and get me to do something regretable. I will respond no further and will take any further postings here as harassment. I made a single posting on your talk page and now you've come back multiple times. I formally invite you to put your money where your mouth is and bring me to administrator attention so that your actions may be investigated as well. Hasteur (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't sought anything here other than an explanation of the warning for "inappropriate behavior". You've now declined to give such reasoning twice, despite being asked to do so very directly. HeyDecency (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Once the notification of the GS/MMA is given it can't be un-given. And your continued seeking of a pound of flesh only strengthens the case of your disruption of wikipedia. So, by all means go ahead and have a tantrum and call for my head on a platter. It makes exercising the GS against you that much easier. Hasteur (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hello again. You can disagree with my propositions all you'd like, that's your right as a fellow editor. That doesn't in any way mean my actions constitute inappropriate behavior, however, which is what the warning you placed on my page quite clearly says. Unless you can specifically provide an example of such behavior, as I very directly asked you to do in my post above, please remove your additions from my talk page. I'll ignore the rest of the intimidatory assumptions as they really have no significance or place here- feel free to launch any sort of SPI proposals whenever you'd like and I'll submit to them willingly. HeyDecency (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for volunteering your time at the DRN, the GITS dispute is a problematic one for me, but I hope the acknowledgement of appreciation in my latest post is a welcome one. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I have responded to your challenge
at WP:ANI. -- # _ 19:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Template:Deleted page listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Deleted page. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Deleted page redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Your comments at ANI
| Missed the point in that we've had a discussion about this before, but whatever. Hasteur (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC) |
|---|
|
I just wanted to let you know that there is plenty of diffs and there is a clear case that BMK is an abusive editor but no one cares what I have to say nor do I think anything would be done about it so there is absolutely no reason for me to spend the time drafting up an RFC or long thread just so people can tell me how I am being a jerk to another editor who is a jerk and abusive editor throughout the project but is repeatedly allowed to remain. I tolerated it for years and now that I have been a vocal critic of these abuses from him and others now I am the monster. Its typical of this project that's why we are losing so many good editors and admins. We are punishing the good and keeping the bad ones. That's one of the big reasons I don't edit much anymore. I'm down to a couple hundred edits a month instead of over 10, 000. Kumioko (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
|