Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:44, 21 March 2007

• Please continue any conversation where it was started.

Thus if I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here.

I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.

• If you want to initiate a conversation, please create a new heading.

Continue existing conversations under existing headings.

Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.

• Indent your comments when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
• Automatically sign your comments using ~~~~.

24.162.50.47 in re RunedChozo on ANI

and the coverup is continuing...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.162.50.47 (talk) 07:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Thank you, but I am perfectly capable of checking pages where I have posted something for updates. I am also perfectly capable of calling people out of certain types of behavoir, if the behavoir is happening and if I think it wise and necessary. Please note, that I asked people in general, everyone from IP editors to Jimbo not to stray off point and continue squabbling and pointing fingers, but to respond to my actual concerns. I will reply about not receiving the kind of replies I was looking for, but I am pleased that for the most part, people have managed to avoid returning to the squabbling and finger pointing. I hope that if you continue to follow this issue you'll avoid this as well, especially since you also appear to want an answer from the administrators and therefore have a vested interest in being taken seriously. Also, I hope you don't mind, but I'm titling this discussion since a table of contents really keeps me organized. Miss Mondegreen | Talk 02:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The same admin who blocked PSPMario indefinitely has now locked and redirected his talk page to the user page, removing the unblock request in the process. How much more out-of-process adminpower abuse will there be in this case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.162.50.47 (talk)

Sign your posts. All it takes is four tildes (~~~~). Miss Mondegreen | Talk   03:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

And they just keep going and going, abusing their power more and more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.162.50.40 (talk)

Sign your posts. All it takes is four tildes (~~~~). My talk page is not a place for you to rant, or voice your opinions. My talk page is a place to communicate something to me, and for me to communicate back to you. If you do not have anything of value to communicate to me, please do not post here. Informing me that users have been blocked for sockpuppetry without checkuser confirmation is helpful, ranting is not. Thank you. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   03:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As a minor note, CheckUser does confirm the sockpuppetry. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Any opinions on the Mondegreen article?

This may sound like an odd question, but do you have any viewpoints on the Mondegreen article? It's kind of a shot in the dark, but I figured I'd ask you (for obvious reasons) to see if you had any views or ideas on what (if anything) needs improvement. Thanks for any feedback! dr.ef.tymac 22:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Strong opinions. :)

Actually, it's not that odd of a question, though I'm a bit curious as to how you found me. I've actually done more than a bit of clean-up on Mondegreen and related articles before, under a different name. (You wouldn't happen to know where I could find related userboxes would you?) I haven't edited there since, and was actually wondering how I'd be taken.

What I've found to be most problematic with all of these articles is that these are words that have been created around something that naturally occurs in language. Which not only leads to an unbelievably wordy article, but these definitions get confusing, because since they arise naturally they often don't have specific boundaries. They are being used to refer to language, so these definitions overlap in some areas and not at all in others and you get instances and people wonder what it is, or if there is no word to refer to it. There is lapse of time between the coining of the word and the integration into society and the actual written definition, and how the word may be used currently may not fit any of those--the coining, how it was originally used, or the actual written definition.

So when not enough of the article focuses on being an encyclopedia article, but on a list, it's incredibly frustrating, but words that get to be encyclopedia articles by the virtue of being a word, have a very rich history, so when people focus on "how many cool mondegreens can I find", the article really suffers. This is true for all of these articles.

People come to Misplaced Pages for trivia information, and we provide it. If their Encylopedia Brittanica was magical and updated itself instantly and could hold an infinite number of entries, they wouldn't look there anyway, and they shouldn't look here.

The article, in my opinion, and following Misplaced Pages guidelines needs major cleanup. A large portion of the mondegreen list simple shouldn't be there. There should be a small list of a few famous mondegreens. The section "origins and occurances in popular culture" is also mainly a list. This section should talk about singers singing their songs in concert with famous mondegreens, and Mairzy Doats, but the list part of it is simply a list and unnecessary. The sad part is, is that there is exactly one paragraph about what a mondegreen is and its history, and the entire rest of the article is about popular culture. There should be a lot more about the mondegreen and a lot less about popular culture. This is also true for Malapropism, Eggcorn, most of these articles. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   00:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Truly excellent feedback. I'd say "thanks for not holding back," but I somehow get the feeling that despite all this, you actually did! :) To answer your questions: 1) I just clicked on your name after seeing it in an edit history or somewhere. I can try and retrace my steps if you'd like. I assumed your user name reflected personal familiarity (and perhaps even expertise) with a topic that I have some interest in, as well as cleverness, so the rest is history; 2) I'm not sure if Wp:userboxes is as helpful as it could be, but generally user boxes seem to require a bit of digging and serendipity. If there is anything specific you are looking for, I would be more than happy to try to help. I am definitely not an expert on this, though, and not an avid user of the userbox feature, so I will concede to the helpdesk or reference desk as probably superior places to ask about that. Nevertheless, the offer to help stands, (grammar? word-play? any specific keywords in the userbox?).

Perhaps my appreciation of your response is partially biased by my thorough agreement with you ... but then again, perhaps not. What do you think about "List" articles? Do you think it would be appropriate to let users add their "coolest favorites" into a subsidiary list article, and let the "main" article consist of the more formal and authoritative entry, pursuant to the requirements you indicated?

Anyway, your insights are *tremendously* appreciated. The remarks about self-referentiality, confusing content and "pop culture" intrusions were right on the mark. These are all issues that merit attention and have profound influence in many areas, as you clearly indicate. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 02:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop getting bent out of shape over talk pages for IP address

ref: Miss Mondegreen's warning (template) on 71.218.50.181'a talk page
... and if you do be sure you know what's going on before you do. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a place to get worked up and get all nit-picky and pedantic about stuff. Take a chill pill, and get out of my grill. -- 71.218.50.181 07:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You received a template warning on your talk page because of your recent edits. It is unacceptable to call other users "poopie pants", and I don't have to know what's going on on the talk page in order to warn you about personally attacking other users. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, and it would be great if you'd like to contribute to it, however, and this was your first edit that was not blatant vandalism to another user's talk page, and neither vandalism nor personal attacks are tolerated here. I am pleased that you have moved from vandalism and calling editors poopy pants, but that being said, your comment on my talk page is also considered a personal attack; you've calling me "nit-picky" and "pedantic" and told me to "take a chill pill" and get out of your "grill". In the future, please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   07:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

ref: Mondegreen's Comment on NMChico's talk page in ref to IP rollback
ref: Miss Mondegreen's Comment on NMChico's talk page in ref to edit summary "revert rant"
ref: Miss Mondegreen's warning (not template) on NMChico's talk page in ref to edit summary "archiving"
I am sorry for reverting you as an IP. Now please discontinue leaving me messages on my talk page. I have no further interest in discourse with you. Please do not reply to this post on my talk page as any further posts you make to me will be reverted on-sight. I'm not trying to be uncivil, but you are being very persistent in trying to get my attention when it's clear that I'm not interested. That is borderline trolling. Thank you, and have a pleasant day. --NMChico24 08:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I left one comment about reverting me as an IP. I didn't expect a reply. It was not a big deal. I didn't care about that. I cared about your subsequent behavoir toward me. Apologizing for that would be preferable to apologizing for a mistake that most editors would make.

Your subsequent behavoir has been a very big deal. You deleted the comment--I chose not to revert your edit or warn you with Uw-tpv because I wanted to assume good faith, and to prevent escalation, and also because I was confused by your extremely odd edit summary, which I wanted to give you a chance to explain and defend. Your edit summary could have been interpreted as an attack or just assuming bad faith, or there could have really been a major communication failure. I would then have needed an explanation anyway, because in that case there was a major difference between what I thought I was communicating and what you received.

You choose to ignore this comment, and this time, knowing that I was watching your page, you archived the page, and had your edit summary reflect that and not something that you weren't willing to discuss, but you didn't archive my comment, you deleted it. Which is a mistake or lazy summary writing at best, disingenuous at worst.

I left you a warning for that--not the template warning because I thought that would be rude and because I wanted to be both more specific and stress that I was assuming good faith, in case this was just all a major misunderstanding. You choose to delete this warning, and completely ignoring the warning, deleted it without writing a summary.

As you can see, now summarized here, my recent activity on your talk page hasn't been trolling. It has been a desperate attempt to assume good faith when you refused to discuss your actions and when instead of simply leaving a situation, you escalated.

• You could have not responded to my first comment, or simply, if you had to, and I don't know why, because it didn't reflect badly on you, deleted my first comment and I wouldn't have done anything, but you decide to attack me as well, and at the time I wasn't sure it was an attack and was assuming good faith, so left it open for you to explain whether you didn't understand my comment or were attacking me.
• You could have not responded to my second comment, or you could have deleted it with an accurate summary, and that would have been that. I was not looking for an argument--in fact, every time I left you a comment I went out of my way to assume good faith, even when it wasn't likely done "by accident" or a "communication failure" and there was a pattern of behavoir to go on, I assumed good faith.
• You could have cleared this up at any time by actually responding to any of my comments, or by leaving me a note here if you didn't want to respond on your talk page.
• After comments two or three if you really did want to clear things up, all you had to do was leave a comment here explaining that it was a misunderstanding after all and that you were going to delete the comments. As your comment here proves, your more than capable of communicating.

I assume that I won't have a reason to comment on your talk page again. I certainly hope I won't. But if I do, I'd appreciate if you also assumed good faith, and actually communicated this time. It also helps if you assume that people who comment on your talk page are there to communicate with you and work from that standpoint--instead of attacking them and reverting their comments. They may not phrase things nicely, they may reflect badly on you, and they may not do it well, but the majority of people who comment on your talk page--on anyone's talk page are trying to communicate something. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   08:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandals

Next time the two anons bother you or your page with vandalism, report right away to AIV. The incidents you cited were weeks old and another admin removed them from AIV. Rlevse 21:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The first comment didn't qualify as outright vandalism so I didn't report. The second comment did, and as you can see, I've been away. Also, that final comment was made on the fifth, which is yesterday. The incident started--(comments on another user's talk page) two weeks ago, and since there were no previous warnings, I warned instead of reporting right away. Doing it again, RECENTLY is what I went to AIV for. I'll repost now, explaining that. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   22:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

reply to your comments

Ref: Miss Mondegreen's warning on Rebroad's page]
Hi. Thanks for your feedback at User_talk:Rebroad#Warning_in_re_your_page_moves. I have left my response at my talk page. Would be happy to discuss further. Many thanks, --Rebroad 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, regarding Talk:Person#Do_not_rename_this_page, please be aware of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. You seem to be working on the assumpion that I edited the disambiguation page, which is a false assumption. I do not understand why you wanted the page renamed back to the previous messy state. It seems obvious to be that Person needs to be a disambiguation page, directing users to the definition that they may want. To have listed the move as an uncontroversial one seems rather fraudulent IMHO. --Rebroad 18:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to you at your talk page, and I'll reply to this comment here.

First, assume good faith. Especially considering the nature of your edits, and the fact that they look POV pushing at best and outright vandalism at worst, and that users here, including me, have tried very hard to assume good faith with your numerous bad page moves--you might want to consider trying it in return. We already have a line of discourse open--all you have to do is ask why it was listed as an uncontroversial one, or you could have gone to the WP:RM history and looked yourself.

It's uncontroversial precisely because yours was controversial. If we had a discussion about the move back, it might very well have been no consensus, simply for the very reason that on articles like Person it's very difficult to achieve consensus. Which is why users are not supposed to move a page unilaterally--which every user who has been around for more than four days can, unless the page is protected. I could move the page to Person (hello, hello, hello), and while generally everyone would agree on moving it back--there are lots of places it could be moved to where we might not have gotten the consensus to move the page there, but we might not get the consensus to move it back either. If you move a controversial page, by yourself (which is against Wiki policy), moving it back is uncontroversial because it's restoring the page to the last agreed upon version, to the last time there was consensus, even though it might be impossible to get agreement to move it back. You might not get agreement to keep it there either. Controversial articles often just don't decide (no consensus), because they can't, and you can't force the community to come to agreement, but one user can't force this type of change on the community either. Moving back to the last time there was consensus, keeps some semblance of order and keeps people from going around consensus and discussion to get their way on controversial articles. 07:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)