Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:41, 6 February 2015

Template:Archive box collapsible

Table formatting

I didn't realize that rowspans caused formatting issues like that. Good to know. Thank you! --Kbabej (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Kbabej: You're welcome. Happy editing! —ATinySliver/ 02:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Stop WP:WIKIHOUNDING

I would really appericate it if you would stop wikihounding me like you've been doing at RfP, twice actually. Just because someone nominates an article you contributed to for deletion doesn't mean you should go and undermine everything else they are doing. Any further attempts and I will request an IBAN. It was the first time you ever commented at an RfC so it was kinda obvious. EoRdE6 02:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@EoRdE6: Seriously? Four hours later? I had legitimate concerns with your ability to collaborate with other editors. These concerns were exacerbated with this edit, summarized by "withdrawn, this is getting nowhere". It went somewhere, all right—resoundingly in the opposite direction from your intent. Then, in your zeal to argue with everyone who disagreed, you flat out lied to us (your research into the article's history argues strongly against this being a mere oversight, assumptions of good faith notwithstanding).

Meantime, don't threaten me. Want to recommend a ban? Just do it. —ATinySliver/ 02:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	How could I not give you one :) Thanks for the laughs :) - Its nice to have a laugh on here for once it really is! At 3am you've cracked me up which is a very rare in itself Thanks and Keep up the great work! :) –Davey2010 03:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC) I was doing this at 2:45 and then had the Blue screen of death!, It goes from a jumping mouse to a barely functioning laptop - Lord help me!

Aw, thank you! —ATinySliver/ 03:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

AN/I Notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Diff: is here
EoRdE6 03:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Not a vio

The Brown article: As it was worded prior to your last change, it really wasn't a violation of OR/SYNTH if you looked at the references attached to the content. It's fine the way it is now, but it would have been fine if it had stayed the way it was. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: Hello! I have in fact read the cited source—in fact, all of them since joining in the care-taking of this article. I just read it again, and still don't see where "public perception" is "complicated" by the announcement. If we can't point to someone actually saying so (and even a news reporter would need to cite such an assertion), it is a vio. Cheers! —ATinySliver/ 06:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Content preceding what I had edited (and you reverted out again) already set up the wording. In fact, after reverting me (twice) you even edited that wording and didn't see a problem with was was already there. Here is what I'm referring to, Sliver: "The announcement caused controversy when it was revealed that, before becoming romantically involved with Gordon...". The controversy already existed with public and family perception, the wedding announcement and then the reveal of their non-marriage continued the controversy over their entire relationship. So no, not OR/SYNTH at all. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually—and, good catch, I completely glossed over that—that should read something to the effect that it caused controversy within the family (edit: all I can find in reliable sources re any public "controversy" is some unspecified "critics"), and the cited source doesn't really support even that. I'll be fixing it presently. —ATinySliver/ 20:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sensing some article ownership happening. I edit the article, you revert it or immediately change it. What's up with that? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: that's not correct, and no ownership or disrespect is intended. I'm fixing things I see that strike me as wrong, regardless of who made the edit. (And I changed "her" to "Houston"—not having researched its editor—because "Brown ... her" struck me as potentially confusing. Not all of us are proficient in English, and I try to keep that in mind when editing. (Edit: also, "being involved" is grammatically poor; it's essentially newsspeak, giving a false sense of something still happening that should be in the past tense.) —ATinySliver/ 03:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "not all of us are proficient in English". We don't dumb down English Misplaced Pages articles because not everyone reading said articles speak/read English as a first language. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)