| Revision as of 00:43, 13 April 2007 editProveIt (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users55,408 edits →[]: oh also..← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:50, 13 April 2007 edit undoAsgardian (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,108 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
| What works best for me is the '''what links here''' button, since most previously deleted categories will be still be linked from their deletion discussions. It only works for exact matches, but you can try variations as well. I was here for a couple of months before I figured out that we can use '''what links here''' to find old discussions. It even works for redcats. -- <i>] <sup>]</sup></i> 00:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC) | What works best for me is the '''what links here''' button, since most previously deleted categories will be still be linked from their deletion discussions. It only works for exact matches, but you can try variations as well. I was here for a couple of months before I figured out that we can use '''what links here''' to find old discussions. It even works for redcats. -- <i>] <sup>]</sup></i> 00:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :Also, sometimes a category will have an '''obvious''' member ... so you can look at the edit history to find out what the old category was called. Once you know the original name, finding out when and why it was deleted is fairly easy. -- <i>] <sup>]</sup></i> 00:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC) | :Also, sometimes a category will have an '''obvious''' member ... so you can look at the edit history to find out what the old category was called. Once you know the original name, finding out when and why it was deleted is fairly easy. -- <i>] <sup>]</sup></i> 00:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == Thank you continued == | |||
| Doc, I have no idea. There was almost no commentary as you know. I have been trying to make a few posters see things a more Wiki-way with some articles (eg. Galatcus), but what I changed was positively minor (eg. present tense, removing POV) as a good 90% of the article was intact. Two of the posters involved were particularly immature, a la that nonsense about sock puppets that went nowhere. Interestingly they have not been seen since as I would definately call them out. No matter. As for Steel, I stand by the fact that he/she did not handle it very well. Zero communication, erasing a comment I made in my defence, no appreciation of how "on track" many of the changes I made were or the aforementioned immaturity of a certain group of "revert charlies." | |||
| In short, no reading of the situation whatsover, which I find to be pretty weak given that I have created/re-written umpteen articles and one of these other posters does nothing more than police one entry (cosmic fetish? Not the first I suspect. Fanboys seem attracted to these). If it had been any more serious, I would appealed, and probably would have come out on top on account of the lack of information from the moderator alone. As we know, even the moderators are subjective in their decisions and sometimes make the wrong call. If it happens again I'll drop you a line, don't worry. | |||
| Thanks for the concern. | |||
| ] 07:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:50, 13 April 2007
Also User:Doczooky (formerly DoczBot before the obvious name hit me) set up for bots.
AfD
List of Marvel Comics endearments has been nominated — unfortunately, I believe — for deletion. If you wouldn't mind taking a look at the article and adding a comment, pro or con, at its "Articles for Deletion" discussion, then the article can at least be assured of a fair and knowledgeable hearing by editors familiar with the context. Thanks --Tenebrae 05:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Pseudoskepticism
Hi, with regard to the CfD on this, I have asked the admin concerned to justify his stance on closing the discussion, particularly in light of the inevitable edit wars that would result. — BillC 17:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Linking to the CfD or reconsideration request would have been helpful. Doczilla 05:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Villain Category response
I know, but the Marvel villains list is getting long enough for it to be sorted. Rtkat3 (talk) 9:12, 02 April 2007 (UTC)
Mental illness
The mental illness article is listed as a "top" importance article within WikiProject Psychology. The article needs your assistance. Specifically we need new content and citations added. Any contributions you make would be appreciated. I look forward to seeing you edits :). Thanks again. Chupper 15:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
Doc, thanks for the support. I think the moderator got it wrong on this one. Almost no information about something I don't believe he fully looked into. I'm just trying to get a few immature diehards to see that 90% of an article is still there. The changes made actually conform to Wikpedia (eg. sources, present tense, POV). Tenebrae seems to be the only one that has picked up on this. I've learnt a lot since the early days, and have even written a few articles from almost nothing (eg. Thanos, Squadron Sinister) and revamped more than a few (eg. Skrull, Squadron Supreme, Odin), but what disappoints me is that no one can see this, or actually appreciate the changes. Once this "block" expires, I'll argue the case in the Galactus Discussion. The silly part about all this is that I asked the players to study the changes, but it seems that once again it must be spelt out.
Anyway, thanks again.
Asgardian.
(PS. - the moderator also wiped a comment I made from his Discussion. To me that does not suggest objectivity).
How waz i 2 no
How the hell was I to know that you would have to combine Non-Fictional Doctors with physicians dwilliams 02:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Joker (comics)
Hi, Doc. Just a head's-up, since I very much respect your work and edits. I've placed a note about the Heath Ledger citation you were good enough to take the time and trouble to look up. I'm sure the Ledger item is correct, but there was something in the Sci Fi Wire report that's troubling. I hope you don't mind — I don't I've queried one of your edits ever. Thanks for taking another look. I'll check for a different cite myself in the meantime. With good wishes as always to you, --Tenebrae 03:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Never mind. Found an interview with Ledger, so it's straight from the horse's mouth. Or, well, the Joker's mouth, actually.... Hope we're OK. All respect,-- Tenebrae 03:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Dick Grayson/Image and WP:BOLD
I agree with you, about people citing Policy as an excuse. J Greb and I chatted about it before, however that turned into a snarkfest discussion of a different color when Netkinetic followed us to my talk page to accuse J Greb of attacking him. Which is about where I got fed up with trying to beat a dead horse into listening and started asking other places to please step in :P We're working on it, and I appreciate the comment. It was needed. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Editing myself to be less pejorative - By snark I meant it got a little hot under the collar, and I was attempting to insert levity into the situation. The 'dead horse' is in reference to the discussion on the Dick Grayson page. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 04:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- I thought, Ipstenu, we had come to a truce, and *still* you are violating WP:CIV. Kindly cease and desist as a courtesy. And Doczilla, I appreciate your concerns, and they've been addresses. Why do you feel the need to reopen matters handled two weeks ago. Can we move past this please? Regards. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 02:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
My apologies for getting you dragged into this, Doc. Taking it back to my talk page. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 03:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- You offer Doc apologies, yet for your comment "turned into a snarkfest of a different color when Netkinetic..." doesn't solicit an apology? I think offering an apology towards a user that you've made a personal attack against would seem appropriate, if we are talking about common courtesy that is? Netkinetic(t/c/@) 03:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, good grief. Ipstenu just said he/she was carrying that discussion back to his/her talk page. Reply to Ipstenu on Ipstenu's page, not mine. Side note: Without a dictionary definition of "snarkfest", that word isn't something to quibble over. What are you people doing -- arguing about how you're arguing about how you're arguing about how you edit stuff for free? (It's a rhetorical question.) Doczilla 04:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Doc, fair enough. If you wish to take this discussion back to Ipstenu's talk page I'm agreeable to that. I would assume that would mean removing the above dialogue then? If not I must protest not allowing a defense towards her adversarial comments. Regards. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 04:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd written the following about the version of your comment that cited the NPA policy before we had a system edit conflict. It still applies to the version referring to "adversarial comments": Yeah, but I don't see a personal attack against you on my talk page. Whatever "snarkfest" means, you people have clearly engaged in some energetic disagreements. If that's a snarkfest, then it's just a statement of fact. If you followed someone to another talk page (and considered that you've done that here, I have no doubt that you did it elsewhere), that's just a statement of fact. If you accused J Greb of attacking you, that's just a statement of fact. Doczilla 04:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Doc, I appreciate your frustration relating to WP:BOLD that was exhibited on Dick Grayson. I haven't exercised that principle since then in an attempt to build bridges. For my part, I was happy that the matter had concluded and was taken aback that it was reopened. Regardless, hopefully this will be the last incarnation of this particular set of dredged up "facts" lol. Regards. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 04:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Okey-dokey. Doczilla 04:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_12#Category:Sex_Symbols
What works best for me is the what links here button, since most previously deleted categories will be still be linked from their deletion discussions. It only works for exact matches, but you can try variations as well. I was here for a couple of months before I figured out that we can use what links here to find old discussions. It even works for redcats. -- Prove It 00:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Also, sometimes a category will have an obvious member ... so you can look at the edit history to find out what the old category was called. Once you know the original name, finding out when and why it was deleted is fairly easy. -- Prove It 00:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you continued
Doc, I have no idea. There was almost no commentary as you know. I have been trying to make a few posters see things a more Wiki-way with some articles (eg. Galatcus), but what I changed was positively minor (eg. present tense, removing POV) as a good 90% of the article was intact. Two of the posters involved were particularly immature, a la that nonsense about sock puppets that went nowhere. Interestingly they have not been seen since as I would definately call them out. No matter. As for Steel, I stand by the fact that he/she did not handle it very well. Zero communication, erasing a comment I made in my defence, no appreciation of how "on track" many of the changes I made were or the aforementioned immaturity of a certain group of "revert charlies."
In short, no reading of the situation whatsover, which I find to be pretty weak given that I have created/re-written umpteen articles and one of these other posters does nothing more than police one entry (cosmic fetish? Not the first I suspect. Fanboys seem attracted to these). If it had been any more serious, I would appealed, and probably would have come out on top on account of the lack of information from the moderator alone. As we know, even the moderators are subjective in their decisions and sometimes make the wrong call. If it happens again I'll drop you a line, don't worry.
Thanks for the concern.