Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:01, 6 February 2008

Project Chanology

I'm just wondering, where has this "offwiki call for edits" occurred? BJ 01:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Thanks, much tamer than I expected. BJ 01:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the semi-protect (second time on the article). I was just about to request another semi-protect actually, so your judgment and timing is appreciated. Cirt (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry.

I did not mean to bother you or dredge up old nonsense. And I don't mean that sarcastically or cynically. I mean it, genuinely. You must get a lot of random trolls bothering you about it, I guess? Anyway, sorry. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 08:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Office Open XML

Hi, I've always been impressed by your fairness and hard work. How would you like to take a look at the long-term participation of User:HAl in the Office Open XML article? He has been involved in countless controversies since the first half of 2007, and has made one-sided deletions and reversions dozens or hundreds of times over that period against the opinion of others. There has even been suspicion of a financial interest at play, but never any full disclosure.

Unfortunately dealing with this properly means reading through 4 archived talk pages (see most recently my own comments at the end of the current talk page) and a long edit history for the article itself. If you have the time please take a look at it, and if not could you suggest another admin who might be interested? Dovi (talk) 10:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

		My RfA
		Thank you very much for your support in my RfA which I really appreciate. It closed at 83/0/0. I was surprised by the unanimity and will do my best to live up to the new role. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES  16:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC) The patio at the Partal Palace in the Alhambra, Andalucia.

WP:NORN

People engaging in original research would either be doing one of two things:

• Using unreliable sources to prove an original theory
• Using reliable sources to prove a fringe theory

The first would be covered under WP:RSN, the second would be covered under WP:FTN. So, WP:NORN just seems to detract from dealing with the problem, though I appreciate the thought. Most Wikipedians don't seem to care about Misplaced Pages quality. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

A fair summation of a pointless idea that will encourage forum-shopping. And if you could please stop mucking up how the big template of links looks on most displays, it would be a plus. And try and stop trying to do everything yourself at one go before people have even noticed. Consensus is a good thing. Relata refero (talk) 07:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Editabuselinks

Any idea how we can balance this out. I've tried one way, but would always appreciate a second opinion or feedback. MBisanz 07:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, for the life of me I can't figure out how to fit all the noticeboard on one line that isn't much much longer than the editabuse line. But since AIV and 3RR noticeboard are already there, and BLP usually involves some form of editabuse, I'm hoping no one will mind. I really must find some way to track how many people click through each link in the template to see which are needed and which aren't. MBisanz 08:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)