Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:36, 2 May 2008

User:Dorftrottel/talk header

streams of insults

Regarding this (now-removed) comment: (i) What precisely is the issue, iyo? (ii) I'm not "throwing insults against articles", I'm simply noting that pure plot summaries are not encyclopedic articles by any stretch of imagination. If you think otherwise and believe Misplaced Pages should allow this (which it currently does not, to my understanding), you might want to address this at e.g. Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not or WP:VPP. (iii) So what should I stop? Repeating what Misplaced Pages policy says about the issue of pure plot summary articles? Dorftrottel (warn) 11:09, April 29, 2008

I removed that comment to phrase it better, but since you ask: (i) The issue in that particular section is the idea that we should take far-reaching action on the basis of the legal fears of laymen. This pops up every now and then, and it is best addressed promptly. Derailing the topic for any reason sucks. (ii) That is what you were doing, but I figured you would not object to my description considering that in doing so you went well out of your way and off-topic to belittle such things. Those enormous quotation marks looked nice, though, thanks for that. If I was wrong, then I apologize. (iii) I think (i) covers this. HTH. --Kizor 12:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

the idea that we should take far-reaching action on the basis of the legal fears of laymen — If I'm not completely mistaken, we do indeed agree that it is generally a bad idea to plunge into blind actionism without awaiting an expert opinion. OTOH, a court case is not a good reason to defend crappy articles, either. What I (and e.g. also Ursasapien) are trying to establish is that disproportionate plot summaries are a matter of purely encyclopedic concern, entirely regardless of that court case. To make it very clear: No blind actionism does not equal No action that goes, even it's for only indirectly related reasons, in a similar direction (i.e. stubbifying/AfD/etcpp). Dorftrottel (ask) 12:17, April 29, 2008

Jaina Solo AfD close

Thanks, I was waffling between closing as delete and no consensus which ultimately led me to believe that I should go with the latter. If there is no significant improvement to the article in the future, it will be much more difficult to make the case for keeping next time around.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Matthew Shepard

You're right. It just looked ugly! Should put in alias. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

yup, same thing. I did it within the text as the see also template doesn't allow it (as far as I can tell). Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Physical attractiveness

Sorry for not using an edit summary. I removed the link to cuteness since it is linked in the same section and not needed there. Thank you, --70.109.223.188 (talk) 13:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Martha Logan

Hi Dorftrottel, I made the change I did because that sentence makes no sense as it stands. Was she married to the first lady for a time? That is how the sentence read? Maybe we should take this to the talk page? Thank you, --70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Quit deleting blank spaces in a section header on my discussion page

You've done it four times: 1, 2, 3, 4. Vandalism of my discussion page is neither welcome nor clever. See, among other things, WP:HUSH. Tennis expert (talk) 05:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Acquaint yourself with what vandalism is and what vandalism is not. Dorftrottel (canvass) 05:56, May 2, 2008

Response

That was not an attack on you. It was attack on the logic you used, and then my response to that logic. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't template the regulars - Most editors that have been around for a while are familiar with the rules. If they break (or are about to break) one, it is frequently the result of some dispute, or temporarily heated tempers. In such situations, sticking to "did you know we had a rule against this" mentality tends to be counterproductive in resolving the issue, as it can be misconstrued as being patronising and uncivil. regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And while we're here, edit summaries such as this are pretty uncivil - diliff was debating issues with you, which your rather delicate sensibilities seemed to take to heart - but he did not use abusive language - calling someone a 'prick' in an edit summary, really isn't on and as you are happy to run around the place threatening blocks, this may result in you being blocked. --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)