Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:23, 31 August 2007

User:Ryulong/CPenguin

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting -- ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

Archives
2004-05 | 2006 | 2007

Lisa Simpson

It was not unconstructive, please refrain from deleting others post. kevinbocking 11:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Your repeated insertion of the word very adds nothing but a POV tone of complaint. Your perceptions that Bart is not whiny, and that Lisa is very whiny, are simply your opinions. Please let go of this. / edgarde 19:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose sticking my tongue out won't help anything? ;) - kevinbocking 19:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That might make you Kevinmocking. Thanks for not edit warring over this. :) / edgarde 20:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem, it would probably get be eventually kicked off anyway;) - kevinbocking 20:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Lolicon RfC

My comment would serve no purpose attached to my statement rather than Merovingian's, as it would then simply be a non sequiter and serve to further confuse non-participants in the past debate. Since the purpose of making the comment in the first place was to clarify that we were discussing the current image, not the Wikipe-tan one, this would be counter productive. If it's absolutely necessary, you could delete the additional comments entirely. --tjstrf talk 00:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:FAMILYGUY isn't a good shortcut.

Unless you can find another Misplaced Pages page that uses WP:FAMILY I see no reason why you should do this. I mean common. WP:SPONGE redirects to the SpongeBob WikiProject, so why shouldn't WP:FAMILY do? At least keep one of the shortcuts on the page. Not everyone can remember to type out, shortcuts aren't supposed to be full names. They are suppose to be for easy use, I'll take another example: WP:WAR redirects to the Warcraft WikiProject. WP:FAMILYGUY is fine, but we need another shortcuts, I just wanted to help. TheBlazikenMaster 15:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not fine, we need shorter redirect. Can I at least get WP:FG back? TheBlazikenMaster 16:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. By the way, they are called shortcuts because they are short form, that's why WP:FAMILYGUY isn't the only one needed. You're right about five being too much, but still, seven is too much, I made WP:FG to make it short, we need it sometimes for example, summaries, as they're very limited. Two is fine, even though you might find it pointless, keep in mind it can be useful for some. And after many have joined, I won't be the only one needing that, trust me. TheBlazikenMaster 17:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:

Sorry for the late reply. Yeah, changing the setting would be better. I was at hotel (I'm on vacation) and just copied and pasted my code in quickly. It would probably be better for a longer time period before archiving. Thanks! ~ Wikihermit 19:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

MiszaBot archive settings

Thanks for the message! - kevinbocking 21:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply - Seth MacFarlane

I misread the article. I thought that the article stated he sounded like Peter - I was gonna change it to say Brian. However, on rereading, I realised what I'd done, so I removed the discussion. Thanks for getting in touch though. --Will2710| 01:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Richard Bocking

Hey Edgarde, sorry to trouble you but I was wondering if you could close my article's Article for Deletion page and take off the notability and AfD tags on the page if you get the chance. Thanks! - kevinbocking 02:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The AfD needs to run its course. I've not followed this one, but it now seems like a probable keep. / edgarde 03:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikihermit, the user that nominated it, withdrew yesterday. - kevinbocking 03:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't really have an effect. Once the article has been nominated, the AfD is no longer dependent on the nominator. Normally these things close around 7 days after the nomination.

If it closes with a keep — not certain yet, but possible — that's a strong precedent against future deletion efforts. Presuming you don't want it deleted, I'd say it's in a good position. / edgarde 03:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh alright, thanks - kevinbocking 03:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Albums

I removed your special sub-heading that attempted to garner yourself a new discussion on the discussion above it. Since all it did was address issues raised in that discussion, I see no reason why your post deserved a new heading. Also, since I started the proposal you should have requested that I clarify the meaning of it for the title, and not just say "for all jazz albums". That came up later, and I said I'll take whatever I can get. But if you were actually paying attention, you'd realize the proposal starts off clearly as a suggestion for all albums. Also, you took the time to edit the talk page again, but did not address my question posed to you. Have you ever tried categorizing albums the way you proposed? Or, as I already know, are you presuming it to be more sensible? I say i know that because if you actually had done that for a number of albums, you'd know it is anything but sensible. No more lectures to me, and I won't lecture you. I'm not your kid, you aren't my kid. Lets keep it that way. (Mind meal 01:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC))

Supermodel images

Do you really think that Image:Adriana Lima by David Shankbone.jpg illustrates the concept of a supermodel better than Image:Michele Merkin 4.jpg? I don't. In your edit summary, you speculated that I'm on a promotional campaign. I assure you, I have no connection with Ms. Merkin, and had never even heard of her before a week ago. I'm simply delighted that another editor was able to secure high-quality photos under the GFDL. Many articles on models and model-related topics do not have suitable images, because professional-quality images of models are rarely released under a free license. I was just trying to correct this. See and . All the best, – Quadell 16:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that there is a real person here, with real feelings. I'm sincerely trying to improve Misplaced Pages, and some of your comments hurt. – Quadell 17:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith

Edgarde, your comment to Quadell completely fails to assume good faith. The editor above has provided what he thinks is justification and you have completely ignored that statement (he asks you a question which you haven't answered). Please enter into civil discourse over this issue as I am sure you can come to some form of agreement over it. Thanks, Localzuk 16:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You have speculated about the editors intent. You didn't answer his question, you side-stepped it and revert warred over the image in question (which means you have entered into the debate). So my comment is based on your speculation. You failed to ask Quadell what his intent was before engaging in negative comments - this is not assuming good faith.-Localzuk 17:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It is merely the fact that you see Quadell as a spammer that is the problem. You did not look at his hundreds/thousands of edits and see what he does. You saw a couple of edits and thought 'ah a spammer'. This is the root of the problem. Your apology is good, as is reverting. I would encourage you to discuss the issue further with him and try and work out the issues you feel exist with the images - I agree with you with a couple of the uses of the images...-Localzuk 19:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunate confusion

I fear that you have confused WikiLen's views with mine; please read the comment I left at Misplaced Pages talk:Relevance#Mission: Imagining something not easily accomplished.--Father Goose 02:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:REL

Hi there; E/edgarde, if you construed me as unkindly disposed towards your good self on the talkpage, please, that is not so. We can all appreciate 'irony' here! Be of good cheers; U:Newbyguesses - Talk 12:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Artist+genre+album

Since you suggested Category:John Coltrane hard bop albums was a more sensible way to accomplish categorizing albums correctly by subgenre, I thought you may be interested to know that a user has now proposed merging all such categories into Category:Jazz albums using such a method at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_17#Jazz_albums. My hands are literally tied. I cannot categorize jazz albums at all in a precise manner. I thought that everyone agreed that at least the method you proposed was acceptable, but now even that seems impossible. I wondered if you would be interested in defending your suggestion there, otherwise there is no way at all to achieve accuracy at WP:ALBUMS. Thanks. (Mind meal 16:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for "Review B"

I'm busy implementing your suggestions as well as I can. I keep cracking up while I read your review. You are a ruthless reducer -- and funny. Bastard.--Father Goose 22:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't understand one of your points

Edgarde, I am missing something on your critique of this below in my REL3 version for Relevancy. (WikiLen)

The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standard of the notability guidelines. A fact may be relevant but not notable. The circumference of the Moon is not notable but, although a minor detail, it is relevant for the article on the Moon.

This has nothing to do with the Misplaced Pages standard for notability. However, it is the sort of example often made (mistakenly) in discussions defining "trivia" — no one (other than in straw man arguments) thinks the moon's circumference is "trivia" and therefore should be excluded from Moon. Someone so confused they believe it may ... still hasn't learned anything by reading this far. (Edgarde)

My intent here is to provide an example that demonstrates how "relevant" and "notable" have different standards. Therefore, one cannot use standards of notability to determine if something is relevant for an article. If you are saying 'no one is going to think the circumference of the Moon is notable', well then so am I. That is my whole point; relevancy and notability are different things. Perhaps, I am just not getting what you are saying. By the way, I am not familiar with the consensus struggles over Trivia. And thanks for all the work you put into the reviews! —WikiLen 01:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Band credits

How is the reader supposed to tell between an actual band member and a session musician? This is the issue here.

True, but what if I hear about the Heaven and Hell album, then go to its page and suddeenly I think Geoff Nicholls was a band member, when he's just a session guy. Album pages should not require prior reading of other pages to document details, most of all something as important as official band member.

Album covers

Are you actually trying to say that album covers aren't allowed on Misplaced Pages? Album covers are not allowed on discography pages because they are decorative. The are allowed on the actual album cover pages. If they aren't, well you have a lot of deleting to do, as every album in history on Misplaced Pages has a cover on it.

Concerns re: Team Building Editing

Moved from post on my User page

I really don't understand how you can say that a full page article that gives details about how to pull team building together and ensure it's effectiveness is not "of value" to a repository of information on team building. Some of the items discussed are not widely available anywhere on or off the ntet. I am sorry I just don't get it. To say that this is promotional is really beyond my comprehension.

Even the repository of articles you have links to contains the log and a link to the Autenticiy consulting site that promotes it:

http://www.managementhelp.org/grp_skll/teams/teams.htm

http://www.authenticityconsulting.com

Are you going to tell me THAT isn't promotional? site is also selling books through Amazon directly on the page to which you link from Misplaced Pages. When people have Amazon boxes on their sites and purchases are made through as a result of a search, they receive a commission on all sales. Are you going to tell me that THAT isn't promotional? Yes the content is free (like the team building primer) but people have the opportunity to make a purchase that directly benefits the site owner and link to his consulting service. Natually any organization that goes through the trouble of putting together information is going to want to put their logo with a link on or include a brief blurb about the organization. There is nothing "spammy" about that if the information they present is of value and the information in the team building primer IS of value and not readily available from other sources.

Executiveoasis 15:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Yes the Team building page was very spam prone. I think this has been addressed with these changes.

As for the repository of information on team building, Misplaced Pages is not a repository of links. Encyclopedic information worth including in Misplaced Pages is best placed in the article, not linked.

Incidentally, you left you message on my User page (User:Edgarde), which I don't really check for messages. If you leave messages on my Talk page — User talk:Edgarde — I'll find them more quickly. The ☺ in my signature also connects to my Talk page. / edg ☺ ★ 11:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Misplaced Pages. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Misplaced Pages does not allow advertising in articles.

Understood, however, not sure why a long article with original content would be considered advertising. Almost any article will have some information about the person or organization that wrote it. That doesn't mean it was created for promotional purposes. It was a LONG article with a few lines about the organization that hardly seems to be advertising to me.

I couldn't understand why a link to a page that was just a page of links with had no original content and on which books were being sold was considered to be okay and a link to a long article filled with original content about team building was deleted. Well I guess the problem is solved now.

Executiveoasis 02:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It think your concern was reasonable. For all the evidence the article was presenting to you, it might have been commandeered by promoters of one concern, who were then fighting off links to any other. It has happened on other articles.

I hope this fuss hasn't put you off editing Misplaced Pages. It sounds like you have a lot go contribute. Keep an eye on WP:N and {{WP:ATT]], and I'm sure you'll do fine. Expect to be edited mercilessly, and don't get worked up over disagreements to a level where you cannot work toward WP:CONSENSUS.

That's all the links I feel like dumping on you today. Thanks for your contributions. / edg ☺ ★ 04:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well thank you. I just couldn't understand what was going on. The page read like nothing but theoretical mumbo jumbo and it wasn't at all practical. I honestly didn't understand the structure here at at all (e.g. that there were editors, administators, etc. I am starting to get the picture now but I have a lot more reading to do. With respect to the specific page, likely the person with the page selling the books was directing traffic to his page so that he could sell more books. Maybe he was the one deleting everythign esle. I don't know. I don't want to make any accusations but it sure looked suspicious. Anyway, maybe at some point we will be allowed to have a go at that page again but for the meantime, I guess it is best to let things rest and allow the dust to settle. The stub was probably the best solution for the time being.

Executiveoasis 02:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You just got owned

Go ahead and wipe that pie off your face while I continue to follow the rules of WP: ALBUMS. Have a great day! (SabbathForever2007 20:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC))

Following the rules? That's a fantastic development. Thanks! / edg ☺ ★ 03:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

He is also back under several other names, such as RunLikeAnAntelope (talk · contribs). Since it looks like he has been following rules, I have just let the user go unless there were problems. -- moe.RON 20:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was letting him slide too since he said he would be following rules. Today he has resumed causing trouble, and it's a campaign he's been warned about plenty by now, so the good behavior may have been tactical.

Have you names of previous SEGA socks whose behavior is comparable to RunLikeAnAntelope? I'd like to add them to my sp report. / edg ☺ ★ 20:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Avoid trivia sections

You wrote:

The ideal, like many, is not unreachable. Lists are poor. So what is your objection here? / edg ☺ ★ 21:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that lists are poor, but the wording as included there includes "ideal" as if it were something we would like to do and not be bothered if we can;t because it's just an ideal. I think we want the same thing, but the wording you are defending makes it less likely to happen, in my opinion. Trying something else if you like. DreamGuy

Personal attack not acceptable

Edgarde, I find you in violation of WP:FAITH and WP:CIVIL for this edit.

No idea what motivates this, but it seems highly counter-productive. I recall Father Goose calling this tendency "self-immolation".

I will be deleting the above from the talk page and I wanted to give you a heads up first. You may chose to delete it yourself — I encourage that. Nothing in your above statements serve to improve the article. You are expressing unflattering personal opinions about my editing behavior and sharing those with other editors from a position of respected, excellent editor. This is not the first incident — see also this "guru" comment. I have no idea what motivates this personal attack. It seems to abuse the position of respect you have garnered. I look forward to clearing this up and having your continued presence at the project page. I will take replies at your talk page. —WikiLen 02:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not delete it, since I meant it. I'm really trying to describe a problem with the general sway of your guideline proposals. This is all over the Review I did for you as well.

It seemed to me entirely possible you didn't know you were doing this. I really don't see this as a personal attack. / edg ☺ ★ 06:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You are completely capable of making the same points about the "general sway" of my proposal without editorializing about me. Above, you commented: "seemed... you didn't know you were doing this." The official policy, "No personal attacks" states:

Comment on content, not on the contributor.

I notice this is not an isolated behavior of yours. You had this to say about Father Goose:

There's a desperate grasping here that doesn't hint at comprehension of what would be needed or useful.

Who is doing the "desperate grasping" and the "comprehending"? Should we ignore all proposals from Father Goose in the future because we know him to be one with no "comprehension... of what would be needed or useful"? You could have simple said, "This proposal does not address what is needed or useful." —WikiLen 21:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That would have been saying something else. In this sentence I mean to comment about the writing, not the effectiveness of the proposal. / edg ☺ ★ 03:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I am asking for Editor assistance on this. Perhaps this all is my misunderstanding. —WikiLen 21:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think edgarde's comments towards me, quoted above, were unnecessarily brusque, and overstated, but I didn't take them as "hostility" -- possibly impatience. Edgarde can be quite sharp-tongued, but I don't see anger behind his words. Nonetheless, he could do more to avoid provoking anger in others with his words. I believe he realizes this.--Father Goose 23:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, especially considering the situation. / edg ☺ ★ 03:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Replies from Editor assistance

see this request

The comment isn't even close to being a personal attack - the advice given in the No Personal Attacks policy about commenting on content instead of conduct does not equate to saying that all comments on user conduct are by definition personal attacks. Addhoc 21:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

By way of a second opinion, in case it is needed, I concur with Addhoc's assessment. Neither the comments nor the edit summary could in any way be deemed to be a form of personal attack. It is probably, as you have acknowledged, a case of being too close and subject to the influence of prior dispute. Adrian M. H. 22:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Editor assistance

Thanks for seeking an outside opinion on this — I really dislike defending myself. I certainly am familiar with WP:NPA; I referred to comment on content, not on the contributor in Review A..

For what it's worth, I recognize that I have a problem with communicating politically, especially in a heterogenous environment with conflicting viewpoints. I actually feel like I've been holding my tongue, but I recognize that a lot of what I say probably hurts some people's feelings. It's something I have to work on, and Misplaced Pages is as good a place as any for me to practice.

Question: is there a way I could have communicated my concern about the tendencies in your proposals better? Could you recommend something?

I'll try to go lighter on matters of WP:RELEVANCE. I've already had my say (and then some) so at least in this case it should be much easier from here on out. / edg ☺ ★ 03:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Edgarde, thanks for your patience in this and my apologies for accusing you. My feelings are not hurt. I too do not like to defend myself. Explaining myself if fine. It is explaining what I am not that is annoying. I will address "could you recommend something?" in a bit... —WikiLen 04:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

My feelings are not hurt.

Great. Maybe we're done here. / edg ☺ ★ 11:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Edgarde, on your question:

is there a way I could have communicated my concern about the tendencies in your proposals better? Could you recommend something?

I suggest first asking if I am open to feedback regarding my editing. I am sure it would be yes and I would ask that you place it on my talk page.

Alternate suggestion: Make it so I don't have to defend both myself (much too old for that) and what I have written. Simple rephrasing can fix that:

• "self-immolation" becomes "this is far from what will gain acceptance."
• "No idea what motivates this" becomes "To what concerns does this speak?"

Favorite suggestion: When foolishness happens in the spirit of boldness forget the foolishness, just help the editor be bold. With that kind of help the foolishnes just disappears. —WikiLen 15:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

My advice would be, when you know you're saying something confrontational, read and re-read your comments until you figure out the least confontational words to use -- but still be confrontational. If you sound positively Victorian in your deference, you're doing it right. That way the message can be heard, without it seeming like an affront. Using as much sympathy and patience as you can muster helps too. Good heavens!--Father Goose 16:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A favor to ask

Edgarde, I would be very grateful if you would take a shot at writing the lead paragraph for the WikiLen fork. Father Goose, with my agreement, edited it out. Maybe a lead paragraph is not needed but I doubt it and I feel incomplete without one. I ask for this favor both because you are the best at this and because collaboration can only help. Thanks for your participation in this project. —WikiLen 04:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I've pulled a few items from my version that seem consistent with your proposal. Then looked at what Father Goose has removed — my lead isn't very similar to what you had, but may be considered a less confrontation-inducing approach within the same general intent.

Please remove whatever doesn't work for you.

Suggestion: while Relevancy may be the correct term to use when treating relevance as a subject, the distinction between "relevancy" and "relevance" will confuse some readers, and is generally distracting. Might be better to swap in -vance for -vancy throughout the article. / edg ☺ ★ 07:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work. No, actually brilliant. Warrants a new version number REL4.2. Thanks... and I have made the change from "relevancy" to "relevance" as you suggested. —WikiLen 11:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow thanks. I'm glad to find out it works for you. / edg ☺ ★ 11:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Gangsta rap

Thanks for your contributions to Gangsta rap, an article that could use more knowlegeable editors. I'm not defining P Diddy, but didn't 50 cent arrive a bit late to be have contributed to gangsta rap's move towards conquering the pop charts?

I'd suggest a better name, but I don't have a good sense of the big sellers. Fitty arrived after Gangsta was pretty established, and arguably around the time of Gangsta's alleged decline (if one believes that started a few years ago). / edg ☺ ★ 15:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I was thinking the same. Its just that P. Diddy is not a good example and 50 Cent was the first major rap artists that came to my mind. I will try to think of a better example or remove the sentence completely. Thanks--The-G-Unit-Boss 16:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Yr doing a better job than I could. Ice Cube maybe? Thanks again. / edg ☺ ★ 16:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw the article and thought that it had a lot of potential but it is very run down. Just though id clean it up a bit. Ice Cube is a good example. Shall I put him in? Thanks --The-G-Unit-Boss 16:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Cube's article describes him as the seventh richest person in the hip hop industry. Haven't looked up 1 thru 6, but I imagine they might not be pioneering gangsta rappers. / edg ☺ ★ 16:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I think that the statements about Ice Cube's welath should be removed as they need citiation and it is very unlikely that any will be found. And sorry for archiving, I just looked at the last post and saw that it was March-- The-G-Unit-Boss 17:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Are improvements needed on RfC request?

Hi Edgarde,

Will you take a look please, at the wording for the RfC request. I encourage you to make any changes you deem appropriate. Also, is there any point in doing this with Father Goose being unwilling to abide by it? Off to vacation... Thanks —WikiLen 12:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

re Scrubs broadcasters restored

I notice you restored the Scrubs broadcasters. I think I made my case on the Talk page. Would you care to take this to a request for comment, and would you abide by it? / edg ☺ ★ 18:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, i restored it, because i responded to your argument, which was far from valid, and since you hadn't responded several days later, i reverted. You cannot use the deletion of broadcaster articles as a precedent for removing broadcaster sections, since they are clearly different things. You have no established consensus for this move, or the several other places where you've removed it. Doesn't the fact that Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Television#Removing_Broadcasters where you're talking about these edits with no-one, was started by an editor saying that they are good, relevant information and simply need standardising, and you somehow decided to remove them, based on a questionable, at best interpretation of WP:NOT#DIR. Or how about the fact that so many TV programs have had these sections for so long.--Jac16888 21:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't bother replying because I didn't think your argument really withstood the policies and precedents I linked, and no one else is supporting your objection. The two things aren't very different at all since they are based on the same principle. As for consensus, the precedents I linked would count as such, and your only other argument was that WP:NOT#DIR applies to entire articles but not to article sections, which isn't that tenable a position.

I don't think anything I say is going to change your mind, but my concern is valid, and consistent with Misplaced Pages policy. Would you abide by an RfC? Please? / edg ☺ ★ 21:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

if you want an rfc, then do one, but, you say no one is supporting my objection, nobody seems to be supporting you either. I'm not saying that WP:NOT#DIR doesn't count for article sections, i'm saying that it doesn't fit with WP:NOT#DIR, because it is not an epg, they are clearly different as they have times and dates, like an epg is supposed to, and if you check the article history, you will see that it changes very little. you say you won't be able to change my mind, will you be able to change your's? You keep simply quoting the same argument, which is not that valid, nor does it fit with wikipedia policies. And as for "I didn't bother replying because I didn't think your argument really withstood the policies and precedents I linked", i understand them very well, they are a very different case, and a poor precedent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jac16888 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Great. Can you please fill in a statement of position here? / edg ☺ ★ 21:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm filling it in now. What are you talking about " abide by the results of the RfC in summary, and not just a cherry-picked opinion that does not represent the general comment?", what the hell is that supposed to mean?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jac16888 (talk • contribs) 21:42 1 August 2007 (UTC)

In the Talk page discussion of precendents for the deletion, you chose some fairly exceptional comments as supporting your position. I trust this was in good faith. What I'm asking is that you consider the RfC fairly. / edg ☺ ★ 21:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are you accusing me of?, i will go with the final decision made in the rfc, if its inconclusive, the section stays. Will you go will the consensus?--Jac16888 21:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for getting this in so quickly. I've made the request. These usually take a while to get started (and weeks to finish), so you have some time to refine your statement if you feel the need. Thanks for agreeing to abide by the decision; I'll certainly do the same.

If the RfC is inconclusive (which is the norm, frankly), there are other dispute resolution procedures we can go through, but this should at least get us a few more opinions. / edg ☺ ★ 21:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I read what you said.

Your arguments have tended to include various insinuations against me. I wish I could be more patient with this, but I really need to point out that this is not productive, and I don't appreciate being called "unfair". The thrust of your argument is that no Misplaced Pages policy applies here because none state with improbable specificity the exact same thing by the technicalities you designate, and furthermore that I'm a malevolent person who is attacking something you like for no reason and with no support or precedent.

And furthermore, that I cheat. This insinuation makes me very angry.

I've actually given you a lot of time and opportunities to make your case. My reasons for everything have been stated plainly. / edg ☺ ★ 21:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

i wasn't trying to make an accusation against you, i apologise if i sounded that way, but you're actually listening to me. i submit, the section can go. i just want to know if i can add a table of the ways scrubs is translated around the world, i mean the name itself.--Jac16888 21:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

and i'm sorry i said that about you cheating, you just took me by suprise closing the rfc, and i was under a fair amount of stress at the time--Jac16888 21:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that I can relate to. Sorry to blow up like that. Thanks for explaining.

Hopefully we can work together in the future underless contentious circumstances. :) / edg ☺ ★ 21:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

RodentofDeath Attacks against me

Rodent has posted in his talk page that im a lunetic, prostititute, etc. Enough is enough Edgarde please. He has been using wikipedia for months to conduct verbal degrading attacks against me, he is also attempting to identify me through wikipedia and he is placing my life in danger here through current and previous posts. I kindly request that action be finally taken here to stop this once and for all, kind regards.Susanbryce 19:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Just to update this Rodent has printed two articles that use my name, and are attack articles against me. Rodent has been attascking me for several months and it is obvious that he is using wikipedia as nothing more then a vehicle to launch vile, degrading and personal attacks against me. He has no interest in contributing to wikipedia, his sole purpose is one of degrading me including having called me a prostititute, pedophile, lunitic, idiot, and so forth. There are hundreds and hundreds of posts like this over the last several months. Please help me here as I dont know where to file a complaint to stop this once and for all.http://en.wikipedia.org/User:RodentofDeath

RodentofDeath Attacks against me

I posted the following on Edgardes page as he has been involved in the human trafficking in ageles article for some time, you are also now involved so I thought id post this here too. Rodent has posted in his talk page that im a lunetic, prostititute, etc. Enough is enough please. He has been using wikipedia for months to conduct verbal degrading attacks against me, he is also attempting to identify me through wikipedia and he is placing my life in danger here through current and previous posts. I kindly request that action be finally taken here to stop this once and for all, kind regards. Just to update this Rodent has printed two articles that use my name, and are attack articles against me. Rodent has been attacking me for several months and it is obvious that he is using wikipedia as nothing more then a vehicle to launch vile, degrading and personal attacks against me. He has no interest in contributing to wikipedia, his sole purpose is one of degrading me including having called me a prostititute, pedophile, lunitic, idiot, and so forth. There are hundreds and hundreds of posts like this over the last several months. I should also mention Rodent has previosly posted my street address and identified friends I associate with as part of an attempt to finger me. Please help me here as I dont know where to file a complaint to stop this once and for all. Kind Regards.Susanbryce 14:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Partial response on User talk:Gscshoyru — Gscshoyru might not want to become further involved. I have a few other editors I want to bounce this off as well. Administrator's Noticeboard doesn't seem interested in policing every little infraction, and Rodent is farming his most aggressive actions out to IP accounts (and soon I would expect, to new, single-purpose ID's). / edg ☺ ★ 17:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: what is your problem?

I give. It seems to be pointless to reason with you, you persist in your personal attacks and refuse to participate in WP:CIVIL discussion. Whatever. Though what you say may be true, unless you actually try to give your words some weight by not attacking other authors or wikipedia with them, then no one will listen to you. Gscshoyru 02:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC) — To RodentofDeath

Just to save you some time, it is pointless to reason with RodentofDeath. His goal is to be so generally disruptive and time-consuming that sensible-but-disinterested editors give up (as several have), so he can WP:OWN these articles. He has nothing but time for this activity, and his edits are entirely in bad faith (sue me) so appeals to good sense and decency will be completely ignored until he is at risk, and then gamed with.

My involvement is mostly fixing Rodent's edits. A ban on this account will not be sufficient because this editor appears to create accounts spanning various class A address ranges. The next step would be to develop a complex vandalism case, and obtain some kind of community ban. I'm completely inexperienced with such, and have not time this week for it. Hopefully it will be a lot of fun.

Any opinion on the articles he is currently linking, and his weird offer to videotape? Haven't looked into any of it yet. / edg ☺ ★ 17:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The articles he links as defense for his own side are mostly based on the government's statements, which he uses as fact. He also tries to say that susanbryce's statements about the rate of death are much too high to make sense. I really have no clue as to whether or not any of what he says is right or not, I'm just attempting to make a legit editor out of him. Seems I'm failing.

Blocking the account and semi-protecting the page may work, it'll force him on to the talk page only, anyway. I have no idea about the videotaping thing, I haven't seen that offer. Additionally... he is kinda right about the WP:COI that susanbryce has, but I'm willing to bet he has a conflict of interest as well, or he wouldn't be quite this persistent. Gscshoyru 17:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That gives me some ideas already. I'll look into it further when time permits.

If you want to work with Rodent becoming a legit editor, that's great, but be prepared for some frustration. / edg ☺ ★ 17:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks resume

Can You please tell me then how I can complain to the administrators ? Also his user page contains full copies of copyright articles which is in breach of copyright laws as well as wikipedia guidelines. Thankyou, kind Regards.Susanbryce 19:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Administrator's Noticeboard is the usual place for persistent personal attack complaints. The copyvio reports would go to Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems; Rodent can however use the articles if he can demonstrate that he wrote it himself. / edg ☺ ★ 23:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again Rodentofdeath has posted the same copyright article on his user page, even after it had been removed before and he had been warned on this. He is using this article to continue his personal attacks against me here on wikipedia.Susanbryce 13:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Current version uses a press release, which is probably not copyvio. I've added a complaint about the persistent attacking behavior to Administrator's Noticeboard. Don't know if they'll intervene at all, but that is the place for this complaint. / edg ☺ ★ 15:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Tagalog edits

i do wish to commend you on swiftly removing the content added into angeles that was not english. my tagalog isnt that good but it was basically saying that its all lies and stupid/crazy and not happening here, just for the record. thought you might be curious. it definitely didnt belong in the article. RodentofDeath 05:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks! / edg ☺ ★ 14:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

hey, you have another message in tagalog on angeles talk page. "tayo tayo na lang mga pinoy, kailangan pa bang magsiraan"

the first part is either "we're all pinoy (filipino)" or "we're all only pinoy". i dont understand the second part.RodentofDeath 20:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought you spoke Tagalog. Do you know of any online translation engines for that language? / edg ☺ ★ 20:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Bryce User page

i have taken the advice of other experienced editors and blanked my home page.

on a side note you can follow my progress on myspace.http://www.myspace.com/susanbryce

i have posted in the admin forum im happy for this matter to go to dispute resolution and have always fully supported that.

Now with that said, once again RodentofDeath has continued with his personal attacks against me, he has added an attack and my name to the human trafficking in angeles article, he is now taking control of this article and turning it into a platform to attack me. Also, i noticed on the admin forum where you referred this matter he has launched another tired of vile attacks against me, and also others too i notice. What I would like explained to me is why he is allowed to just continue these vile, disgusting and degrading attacks and continue to always get away with it? He operates with total impunity here on wikipedia and says and does anything he likes. Even more disappointing is the fact that despite trying my best to be a good contributing Editor here , i find myself under attack that in some way I deserved to be abused, degraded and humiliated across Misplaced Pages. Its very sad and painful.Susanbryce 14:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link.

I've repeated the proposal for mediation in Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If RodentofDeath agrees, let me know if you need help with making the request.

I've not been through one of these, but basicly it should be something like what Haemo did on Talk:Angeles City.

This won't be resolved quickly, but there is a process. / edg ☺ ★ 16:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way to have any vile degrading remarks he has made about me removed from Misplaced Pages? it is obvious he is using wikipedia as a vehicle to launch these degrading attacks?Susanbryce 16:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, can something please be done about the human trafficking in angeles article, he has posted my name all over it and is using it as an attack page against me now.Susanbryce 16:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Edgarde, RodentofDeath has set up his user page as an attack page against me again, although he has not named me directly, he did post this which makes it obvoius.... here's an incomplete list of the lies found so far on both wikipedia and elsewhere about Angeles.... and this is all lies from one person!!! (seems to be a credibility problem, eh?)

He turned the Human Trafficking in Angeles page into another attack page against me, i reverted it, but im getting no help from anyone here, please help.Susanbryce 16:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to disturb You again, but RodentofDeath keeps inserting my name and identity all over the Human Traficking in Angeles page, i cant revert any more. He has highjacked the page and is now using it as an attack page against me. He has included numerous lies such as im a Jurnalist which I clearly am not. Hope You can fix this please. kind regards.Susanbryce 20:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

nice try susan, especially with deliberately spelling journalist wrong. it seems that they think you are a journalist here

"Author of the petition is Australian journalist Susan Bryce who says 30,000 of the prostitutes are young girls." from http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/CultureAndMedia/?id=1.0.1135974883 and even you yourself claim to be a journalist here: http://www.agitprop.org.au/stopnato/19990928newdawn.php (i especially liked the section on propaganda) RodentofDeath 20:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Like An Angel Passing Through My Room

The comment "This is Abba's only song done completely by one person, Frida." is misleading as Benny Andersson is playing keyboards on the track, and is also responsible for the ticking sound (not a metronome).-- 220.239.254.30 23:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest RodentofDeath

Now rodentofDeath has admitted ne lives in Angeles, he admits he does business there and he admits he is a regular at the bars trafficking women. he has a conflict of interest and should not be allowed to edit the angles or human trafficking in angeles article. his only only edits on these subjects and he constantly states his involvement in these areas. He constantly defends those involved in pedophilia.kind regardsSusanbryce 18:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think neither you nor Rodent has a valid COI case. Rodent certainly claims a lot of first-hand knowledge and frequently offers original research, but those things by themselves do not clearly demonstrate COI.

The Administrator's Noticeboard conversation has been archived, and I think they expect you guys to head to Mediation. Would you be interested in initiating this?

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Guide to filing a Request for Mediation
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation#Instructions

I think Mediation relates strictly to article content, not user behavior. / edg ☺ ★ 18:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Yes I would love to go to mediation on this, its something Ive supported for months. Can we please proceed. Can You do it or do I need to do it? Im actually out of the country on a speaking tour to the Universities in NZ, so I dont have much free time at the moment, but Ill make sure to participate and as always be giuded by more experienced Editors.Kid regards.Susanbryce 18:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me look into it. If I can start this without becoming one of the disputants myself, I'll let you know in a day or two. / edg ☺ ★ 19:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Ill try give it a go tomorrow setting it up, i just dont have much time at the moment. I need a bit of free time here for my famly.Susanbryce 19:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Family Guy Project

Sure thing, I'll be happy to help! Gavin Scott 17:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Tagalog

Sorry, if someone keeps adding tagalog to the chat I guess I better update you there.

tayo tayo na lang mga pinoy, kailangan pa bang magsiraan.... we are the only filipinos here, do we have to hurt each other?

so wag tayong magsiraan sana.... I hope we dont hurt each other.

on a side note, its a poor attempt at tagalog, the writer is obviosly not filipino.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanbryce (talk • contribs) 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's helpful to know editors aren't sending "secret coded" instructions. / edg ☺ ★ 17:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, on a side note, you could probably ask 20 Filipino to translate this and they will all come up with a slight varient. There is no exact translation here. kind regards.Susanbryce 18:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Misandry IPs

Hi edgarde, just to let you know I submitted those two IPs (189.155.54.100 & 89.210.111.19) to WikiProject on open proxies to confirm that they are open proxies - if the User behind these IPs is Anacapa it would start to really worry me - he never used open proxies before--Cailil 23:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Good to know. If you're on this, I'll not bother labeling these so as not to complicate the matter. If there are further IP posts, I'll request page protection. / edg ☺ ★ 23:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Scrubs

I left a message. I probably should have brought it up on the talk page of the article considering the RFC there. I just didn't realised that was this article. Garion96 (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for taking care of this! / edg ☺ ★ 20:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Changing links

Sorry about that. Since the redirects have been batted around to point at different documents, it didn't occur to me that fixing the links themselves to reflect changes in the redirects would cause a problem. No change in the meaning of your comments was intended.--Father Goose 06:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: See also Erotic art

I feel like this one is a bit of a tangent in Sexual arousal, where the See also list is pretty long already. Also, adding Erotic art opens the door for anything that can be said to cause sexual arousal, whereas up to now all the See also subjects are more directly related to the topic.

Would you be okay with my removing that entry? / edg ☺ ★ 06:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see another editor interested. i added to see also so that we can connect related articles together. A navigation template will do it better, you can give a go i think. If we organise articles together articles will improve by themselves. Lara_bran 06:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Made the change. I'm not much for organizing today. I'm more of an alarm bell. Thanks for getting back to me. :) / edg ☺ ★ 06:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

As wikiproject sexuality is not active, i would love to see another editor to work with me. I will do only organising and tidying of articles, not for adding any content. Article Sexual pleasure(which includes orgasm, BDSM etc) stub and Sex gel(used for lubrication and birth control) stubs to be created. If you cant help, you can guide me for a help Lara_bran 06:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Interested I Am

Yes, I am interested in joining the Wikiproject for Family Guy. I have been regularly watching FG reruns on FOX this summer, having seen many season 5 episodes. I'd like to clean up certain FG episode pages because I seem to notice that "cultural references" sections tend to be tagged with "trivia" tags. As an FG fan who enjoys the constant pop culture knockoffs on the show, I'd like to keep cultural references sections as "non-trivial" as possible, as I doubt it'd be constructive to log every single pop culture reference in the show. Thanks for the invitation! I have now particpated. --Andrewlp1991 01:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wedineinheck

Thanks for the response. I find I disagree with your assessment of the situation. In my view his repeated personal attacks - that I am an "arrogant," "obnoxious," "cry-baby" fall into the realm of unacceptable behavior. As he has continued to make such comments after repeated warnings from Nat and myself I find that his actions merit a block. He seems to believe his behavior is... tolerable. I hope you do not. Perspicacite 09:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for messaging me.

I agree Wedineinheck's reactions aren't helping at all, and suggest Wedineinheck has a problem with perspective (perhaps partially because they may be too new here to know what to expect).

But calling good faith (albeit crummy) edits "vandalism" appears to be what set Wedineinheck off on this trajectory. Your 2nd warning starts out good, but then quickly puts this user on the defensive.

I can't insist this wouldn't have happened if you WP:AGF'ed and patiently explained what Wedineinheck did wrong. But Wedineinheck seems to believe they've been unfairly persecuted.

For what it's worth, I've probably done this to new editors as well. It's something to look out for. / edg ☺ ★ 09:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: More unsolicited suggestions

Sorry to pile the assigned reading on a new editor, but Misplaced Pages:Simplified ruleset explains the rules you'll most need to know. Plowing ahead without knowing these conventions is also an option.

If you choose the latter, try to take user warnings in good humor, and ask questions when you don't understand. Perspicacite may not have assumed good faith, but he wasn't just picking a fight either. His intentions were good, and he was trying to do the right thing for Misplaced Pages.

In situations like this, assuming good faith and avoiding personal attacks will help smooth things out. / edg ☺ ★ 09:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look. I am definitely convinced, however, that Perspicacite was trying to pick a fight. I am absolutely not interested about this character, however, and do not wish to further discuss him. Personally, I hate conflicts, and have no time to waste with such individuals. Wedineinheck 10:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the page, I'll have a look. I am definitely convinced, however, that Perspicacite was trying to pick a fight. I am absolutely not interested about this character, however, and do not wish to further discuss him. Personally, I hate conflicts, and have no time to waste with such individuals. As for my own comments, they were indeed made stricly defensively. As english is not my first language, they may have seemed too unsubtle, but reflect the fact that I did not believe in my contradictor's good faith either. Best, Wedineinheck 10:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for messaging me. I think when you get a sense of how complex things can be, you'll have a better idea of where Perspicacite was coming from. It's hard to understand people's intentions sometimes.

I hope the Simplified ruleset helps you a lot. Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages. / edg ☺ ★ 10:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

God's gender

I don't have anything constructive to contribute to that section, so I don't want to tag it again, but generally other Misplaced Pages articles aren't considered reliable sources, especially when the cited text is also unsourced.

My main reason for {{fact}} tagging the usually male depiction of an officially genderless god statement was to prevent:

• editors with different interpretations performing conflicting revisions on that section, and
• other religions from being appended by drive-by editors.

Thanks for all your work on Masculine psychology. / edg ☺ ★ 08:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm not exactly sure I understood it, though. About sourcing the statement that God is portrayed as male in Islam, Judaism, Christianity, etc., I suppose it hadn't occurred to me to do so because it's such a given. It would be like writing an article about water and saying, "Human beings need water to live," and then having someone else say the statement must be sourced. It's good to have sources, but sometimes things are so obvious that you just forget to source them because it seems unnecessary. I was raised Catholic, have attended services at Jewish temples and Muslim mosques, and I have never heard God referred to as anything but male in these three religions. -- Andrew Parodi 08:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I worry too much.

Currently envying your User page. / edg ☺ ★ 08:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

My dear Edgarde

Hello, I'm YourLord, I was blocked indefinately some time ago for re-creating deleted material. Not a serious crime in my opinion although I admit I did deserve to be blocked for some time. I then proceeded to continue editing as an unregistered user, thus denied the privelages of a registered one. I maintain two IP addresses as I divide my time between two seperate houses, my father's and my mother's. Both own a computer which I frequently use, Misplaced Pages being one of my preferred websites. I believe you recently labelled me a sockpuppeteer. I understand that using two IP addresses whilst blocked may appear somewhat suspicious but I resent being called a sockpuppet because I do not use several accounts simultaneously. Nor do I maintain an account of any description for that matter. I used to but as you know I was blocked, leading to this whole ghastly affair. As a result of my being declared a sockpuppeteer, a whole category has been created for "Suspected sockpuppets of YourLord" in which my name is connected to several vandal editors which I find grossly offensive. I have denied any connection with these somewhat undesirable users and humbly request that I no longer be referred to by the title of sockpuppeteer. I should also like the aforementioned category to be deleted. Awaiting your response.

YourLord - (seeing as I'm technically not editing as YourLord anymore I don't usually sign myself with this title but I am now so you know who I am) 81.152.188.27 17:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

All these accounts edit the same subjects, and exhibit the same tendentious behaviour, which you show no interest in changing. The reason you are not repeating the exact behavior for which you were banned for is you cannot recreate articles without an account.

Appeal the ban if you want, but really, it would be better for you find another wiki that appreciates your editing more. / edg ☺ ★ 06:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I am perfectly willing to change my "tendentious" behaviour and might I add that those accounts all seem to edit different subjects to me and only two of them are actually mine. Furthemore they're not actually accounts, just IP addresses. I have on numerous occasions expressed remorse for my deeds and have vowed that I will no longer re-create deleted material should I be unblocked. I didn't actually come here to appeal to be unblocked I just wanted to be unbranded a sockpuppet if that makes sense. I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by another wiki? And just out of curiosity how do I appeal the ban?

User:YourLord - 13:22PM - 32 August