Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:12, 16 November 2007

Archives

≤2007Feb 2007Mar 2007Apr 2007May 2007Jun 2007Jul 2007Aug 2007Sep 2007Oct

TfD nomination of Template:Vandrep

Template:Vandrep has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Bsherr 00:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. After reading the previous discussion you pointed out, I've db-authored the thing... — Dave (Talk | contribs) 17:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Template bloodsports

there are two templates on top and they should both stay there for a record of the discussions. Chessy999 14:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. I disagree simply because the most recent discussion links to the previous one. In any case, your edit removes some of my comments. Please stop doing that. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 14:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Besides that, it looks like a simple case of a botched edit. Happens all the time. Simple human error. -- Fyslee / talk 06:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop stalking

If you keep stalking me through "My Contributions" and reverting my well intentioned edits I will have to report it. Chessy999 15:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me????? What are you talking about? — Dave (Talk | contribs) 16:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm searching for what you might be on about and I think this must be what got your knickers in a knot. Well, whatever. I'll leave it alone but I really don't see any justification for floating the TOC on that article. Did you even read the Help guide I linked to? It gives reasons for not floating the TOC. Hey, the only reason I got there at all was that I was thinking of adding a link to the ] article to the "See also" section of ] but I wanted to read it first. That's when I noticed that the TOC wasn't in the standard spot, that there was no discussion of it on the talk page, and that it didn't, to me, seem to meet the recommendations. Anyway... Other than that, I really can't see anywhere where I even "followed you" onto an article, let alone "stalked" you. Give me diffs, please, and we can discuss. Else... — Dave (Talk | contribs) 17:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I noticed that another editor has come along and made that same change stating that there had been "o legitimate reason provided for not following" the guidelines in the change you made. Let me try to reassure you this time, though. I think it's highly unlikely that you're being stalked by two editors, now. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 17:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"Stalking" is a rather serious accusation which impugns the motives of another editor, IOW a blatant failure to AGF. Misplaced Pages watchlists allow the perfectly legitimate activity of following editing activities related to articles and the edits performed by other editors. I would consider a charge of stalking to be legitimate if one editor followed another editor and vandalized their edits for no explainable reason. Keeping an eye on editors who may be engaged in questionable behavior is, OTOH, a perfectly legitimate (and very necessary) use of the watchlist function. Since the article Polar Bear hunting has been on my watchlist from my Reindeer hunting in Greenland days, I noticed what was going on - a resurrection from the dead of an article that should have remained dead. We don't normally need to delete articles when they have been properly merged and replaced by a redirect. Only a consensus-driven restoration is legitimate.

If the article is substantially improved and brought in line with the title, I would support restoring it. The distinction between conservation (not always related to hunting) and hunting alone, or hunting as a necessary part of conservation (as with reindeer in Greenland), should be developed and included in the article. Then an article entitled (for example) Polar bear hunting and conservation could be developed as a very valuable addition to Misplaced Pages. Until then, the redirect should remain in place. No one is stalking anybody. We are only using our watchlists. -- Fyslee / talk 06:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Fyslee. I appreciate your comments on my talk page, especially given the fact that, I'm sure, you have better things to do than to trifle with these things. In any event, I've once again attempted to build a bridge to Chessy999 by unreservedly apologising, on his talk page for anything untoward I may have done, even if inadvertently. I feel that Chessy999 is potentially an asset to the encyclopedia were he to appropriately channel his energies. I hope to support and encourage that aspect of his efforts. Once, again, thank you for your time and attention. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 06:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that was very wise. You are only doing what is expected here at Misplaced Pages. Sometimes feelings get hurt, typos and editing glitches occur, misunderstandings arise, and then things escalate. That's life. You did what you could to calm the waters. At the same time one shouldn't allow oneself to get bullied. I have previously encountered users who have removed redirects without any consensus. One did it quite a bit and got banned. Occasionally it's a minor matter, but usually it is quite disruptive and shows a lack of respect for other editors, and violates the spirit of collaboration we'd like to see here. Disruption is a serious matter and going against consensus is always disruptive, no matter how "right" one may be. When it leads to vandalism, admins have no mercy, and rightly so. Since this isn't a content dispute, it's even more cut and dried. That's what's great about user space. One can quietly work on article development and improvement without disrupting the community. I have nothing against the idea of an article on the subject. It just needs to be developed, focused, and larger. Concerns about this have been raised and those concerns haven't been addressed, so the consensus behind the redirect should just be respected. It's really rather simple. -- Fyslee / talk 16:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Buzz off -- Chessy999 (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)