| Revision as of 05:30, 3 February 2008 editVigilancePrime (talk | contribs)7,864 editsm →User:SqueakBox/right to vanish: edit conflict← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:32, 3 February 2008 edit undoSwatjester (talk | contribs)Administrators27,166 edits Blanking my page. In about 12 hours, I'm going to decide whether I'm going to continue to work on this project. Maybe I'll lie a bunch of times, make vague allegations of death threats and come back!Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| Φ{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 100K | |||
| |counter = 14 | |||
| |algo = old(3d) | |||
| |archive = User talk:Swatjester/archive%(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| == ] in st pete-- seeking consensus == | |||
| Hi, Swatjester. | |||
| Is this sufficiently notable for an article of its own? Do we have articles on sections of St. Pete?? Lived in Pinellas for 30+ years and never heard of it. Cheers, ]] 02:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : but I've never heard of it either. A better person to ask would be ] who has lived in St. Pete, and ] who has lived there as well. ]] ] 17:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Godd idea, thanks.]] 23:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Yyyeah. == | |||
| How many barnstars for userpage design do you have, and how many do you want? --]<font color="black">]</font><font color="green">]</font> 21:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::None that I know of, I didn't design the page myself, Gurch did. If you're going to give me a barnstar (which I'm totally ok with), please make it some sort of article related one, or an OTRS barnstar or something. ]] ] 04:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Undue Weight? == | |||
| A school being unaccredited is far and away the most important thing to to say about an unaccredited school. ] (]) 16:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, CMU has a history of legal troubles, and litigation in its previous incarnations. Per legal complaints to the foundation office, the particular article is heavily scrutinized to ensure that undue weight is not given to those problems. Making the first thing in the article it's accreditation is inappropriate. ]] ] 17:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::The lead is supposed to include a summary of what the article is about. "The lead section summarizes the article." ] Not putting the most notable things about a subject in the lead is bad writing. You mention not putting legal problems in the lead (contrary to ]). Yet what you deleted was the simple fact that CMU is unaccredited. Which is not even the legal troubles or previous litigation. ] (]) 17:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC) ] (]) 18:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You are begging the presumption that CMU's unaccreditation is the most notable thing about the subject. It is far from that. ]] ] 18:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::An unaccredited distance learning university is what the Misplaced Pages article ] is about. Please review the ] description. "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." Unaccredited is not a reference to the CMU history of legal problems as you erroneously implied. Regards, ] (]) 18:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No, a "distance learning university" is what the article is about. The article would not be substantively different if it was accredited or not. Regardless, due to the only "temporary" restriction of the WP:OFFICE protection on the article, it's not an issue for debate. On this article we always err on the side of caution. ]] ] 19:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Being unaccredited is notable. Stating that it is unaccredited is a simple fact. It is not undue weight for past legal troubles or litigation. Not following sensible Misplaced Pages guidelines, bad writing, and poorly formed articles is not erroring on the side of caution, rather it seems more likely to be ]? May I suggest that you either keep it locked down or let it go, perhaps have a little more faith in the usually well working Misplaced Pages process which usually results in improved articles. If it gets locked down again because of irrational litigation threats, so be it. I think we should fear more the warping of the Misplaced Pages process than someone's irrational legal threats based on a good Misplaced Pages article. Take care, ] (]) 18:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::No, the lack of accreditation is not notable. That's not the most notable thing about the school, it's one minor fact about it. Do No Harm. Think about it. ]] ] 20:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == World Policy Council == | |||
| It's difficult to copyedit oneself, so I want to thank you for your review of the article thus far. My hope is to eventually nominate the article for Good Article and Featured Article. I know that whatever copyedit survives will be a great article and hopefully will not receive many challenges from other editors who may not review the article as thoroughly as you have and hopefully will continue to provide. regards.--] (]) 01:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Here's some advice then. Reference EVERYTHING. That's like the biggest thing in order to get it to a FA. ]] ] 06:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I do know that; however, sometimes in writing one forgets to provide the reference and a second pair of detail eyes is excellent for finding things that slip through. I like cquote and used it in the Alpha Phi Alpha article, but I read something a few months ago that said never to use cquote, instead use bquote, so I removed the template and replaced with bquote. I cant' locate where I read this; but, cquote is fine with me. thanks.--] (]) 15:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, IMHO cquote is better for an actual quotation, whereas the main quotation template is better used to offset things into a box. So, I only changed half of the quotes to cquote because the other ones looked better in boxes. ]] ] 18:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == AfD nomination of 2K Sports Mixtape (Hosted By Clinton Sparks) == | |||
| ]An article that you have been involved in editing, ], has been listed for ]. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:adw --> ] (]) 17:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==POV pushing== | |||
| Come on, you know better than to POV push, you simply cannot defend attacking PJ. Or iof you think you can, i suggest you do because to accuse them of harassment in the first sentence is a blatant POV and BLP violation, but you know that already. Thanks, ] 22:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not the one POV pushing. A United States District Court Judge found that PJ engaged in harassment, see for source. Sorry, but that's as neutral as you can possibly get. ]] ] 22:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Please redelete this per ] - "''User request. Personal user pages and subpages, upon request by their user.''" There's no need to keep the history of his userpage, and many users delete this periodically. ] 03:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::He wanted it deleted per right to vanish. He chose not to exercise that right, and admitted he lied to trick the deleting admin into removing the page. There is exactly a reason to keep that page. ]] ] 04:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::There is no reason to keep the page - he doesn't want it there, and he has specifically stated that he has been subjected to a death threat because of it in the past. It's a clear U1, regardless of what reason he acutally used - please re-delete the page. ] 04:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, as a matter of fact, it's not a clear U1 to me. I see an administrative reason to keep the page; to document his actions that led to that above deletion. ]] ] 04:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Fair enough, I've taken it to ]. ] 04:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| You may want to look at this edit also. ] (]) 04:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Ok everyone hold on and stop moving stuff while I figure this out, because otherwise something's going to get lost or permanently screwed up. ]] ] 04:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Unlock my page and delete it, thats allt hat needs to happen. Thanks, ] 04:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Ok, looking at ] and U1, it's not actually a valid speedy in this case, due to the evidence of his conduct. He'll need to go through the MFD process to delete it. ]] ] 04:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Of course it is, he just wants his userpage deleting. ] 04:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Per ] he cannot have it speedy deleted under U1 if he has significant conduct issues. That's the "admin reason to keep" clause in the U1 speedy. WP:USER is very clear about that: He MUST submit it to MfD if he wants it deleted. ]] ] 04:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I have no conduct issues, I have received death threats for working here and you want to help them identify me. I think arbcom is a better place to go if we could get a quick decision, my uiser page gpone and Swatjester desysoopped. Thanks, ] 04:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Show me the death threat diffs and I will individually delete those. ]] ] 04:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::The death threats are off wikipedia but concern my editing pedophilia articles and I wouldnt dream of showing them to you. Are you serious? I don't trust you at all. Thanks, ] 04:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Why is it that '''ANY''' time an admin doesn't blindly do what SqueakBox wants them to do, under threat usually, he '''demands''' that they instantly be de-admin-ed? | |||
| ::: Swat, I volunteer to house the edit history... you can restore, move to ] and then delete the redirect pages if you'd like... comments of his like "I will not be part of a hate website" pose not only a personal attack on the editors who '''dare''' to disagree with him, but on the entire community. | |||
| ::: ] (]) 04:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC) ''''':-)''''' | |||
| I don't think that's necessary. I think we can resolve this other ways. Lets let Ryan, Myself, Squeak, and the AN/I talk this out, hmm? ]] ] 04:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Woah, there's no need to escalate this squeak - there's other ways to sort minor disputes out than arbcom - this is a minor issue really and I'm sure we can resolve it amicabally. ] 04:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ryan, if you wouldn't mind getting on IRC so we can speed this up, and since the AN/I thread is moot now, please archive that too. ]] ] 04:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::SWAT, I understand your strong feelings here, especially after being called on to be de-adminned. But consider the source of that demand. Your interpertation of the rules is not one shared by many, please, take a couple deep breaths and lets de-escalate this? ] (]) 05:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I'm going to bed for the night. I'll deal with this in the morning. Let me say though, that the rules are on my side. He wanted a U1 speedy. U1 has an exemption, which WP:USER explains is conduct issues. He has those clearly. WP:USER specifically says that you undelete and take it to MFD in those situations. That's exactly what I did. I followed a Misplaced Pages guideline to stop a long time disruptive user with 14 fucking blocks from being further disruptive, and this is the kind of repayment I get? No wonder long-time contributers are leaving this project left and right. Of course, we'd rather protect a long term trouble user with a repeated history of lying because of a naked assertion that he made, and refuses to back up when asked. Yeah that's real comforting to me. ]] ] 05:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : FWIW, Swat, there are some of us who do appreciate your efforts and exacting adherance to policy. We need more like you. The only problem is that you made Squeak's hitlist, apparently. Welcome to the club. Good Luck and Best wishes. ] (]) 05:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC) ''''':-)''''' | |||
| ::::I guess we'll agree to disagree, but considering an arbitrator and most users in that discussion disagree with your interpertation, I hope that you abide by it and not push things further in the morning. Have a good night. ] (]) 05:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||