User talk:Sapphic: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:04, 15 April 2009 editSineBot (talk \| contribs)Bots2,555,334 editsm Signing comment by Wclark xoom - "→Ryan's abuse of power: new section"← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:16, 15 April 2009 edit undoRyan Postlethwaite (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users28,432 edits revertNext edit →
Line 229:		Line 229:
	You graciously apologised to me a few days ago, something we said set you off again, and I'm still a bit at a loss. I'm not saying you shouldn't feel the way you do, whatever that is, but I believe you remarks just now on ] were a bit out of order. To let you know I'm not offended, but it's not well-regarded all round to have a comment-countercomment-blowout-apology cycle. It might be an idea if you just withdrew your rude remark when you're ready, it shows at least you are back in control. Not much you can do about the edit summary, though. ] (]) 08:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)		You graciously apologised to me a few days ago, something we said set you off again, and I'm still a bit at a loss. I'm not saying you shouldn't feel the way you do, whatever that is, but I believe you remarks just now on ] were a bit out of order. To let you know I'm not offended, but it's not well-regarded all round to have a comment-countercomment-blowout-apology cycle. It might be an idea if you just withdrew your rude remark when you're ready, it shows at least you are back in control. Not much you can do about the edit summary, though. ] (]) 08:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
	: was out of line. In lewe of blocking you, I'm simply going to restrict you from the poll or talk page for one week for strong incivility. Should you edit the page, you'll be blocked. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 08:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)		: was out of line. In lewe of blocking you, I'm simply going to restrict you from the poll or talk page for one week for strong incivility. Should you edit the page, you'll be blocked. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 08:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

	== Ryan's abuse of power ==

	Sapphic, please see and , and then prepare to have your privacy violated, since I think Ryan believes you're editing from my IP. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Revision as of 23:16, 15 April 2009

Older messages:

NOTE: I am in the process of cleaning up the Pseudoscience category so that it all fits on one page. I am doing this by removing redundant categories from articles, for example: Category:Divination is already a sub-category of Category:Pseudoscience so an article should not be listed in both. I am human and make mistakes, so please feel free to point out these mistakes on this talk page. --Sapphic (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. I guess that also means all New Age has to be pseudoscience. I'm not 100 % sure it's true, but personally I have nothing against thi idea, and if this is the Misplaced Pages categorising/linking policy, let's keep it that way. Sorry about the inconvenience ;) Piechjo (talk) 10:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Bushrod Washington James

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Bushrod Washington James, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not and Misplaced Pages:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 04:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:MWA query

Hi Sapphic! Is the SQL query you use to create WP:MWA public? I'm trying to do a similar page for huwiki (and too lazy to write my own :) --Tgr (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Misplaced Pages Backlog

Hey. Your edits as categories being no longer backlogged are confusing. I went and checked them and they're still clearly backlogged. Can you explain them? Wizardman 01:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The {{backlogged}} template had been removed from them all some time ago. If they're still backlogged, they should have the template. --Sapphic (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I reverted those edits and will be adding the template the cats.--BirgitteSB 03:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be interested in seeing the analysis when you are done. Please keep me informed and good luck.--BirgitteSB 20:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Abandoned Articles

Thank you for your offer; I didn't realize that you could do those things with the database dump. I'm going to hold off on your offer because this WikiProject is essentially inactive - that is, all the editors who were working on it seem to have quit participating in Misplaced Pages. But if I do see any signs of interest, I'll get back to you. And I may have some other things to ask if you can do - you do indeed seem to have a resource worth using. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 10:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:Phony orphans

Hi, I was wondering how your script calculates how many incoming links the articles listed on the Misplaced Pages:Phony orphans page have. I've come across a couple that have fewer parents than are listed, and this one which is actually still orphaned, although it is listed (at #54) as having 10 parents.--Aervanath's signature is boring 00:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It bases the numbers on the contents of the 2008-03-12 database (XML) dump of the English Misplaced Pages, so probably there were some links removed between then and now. I'm currently extending my script using Perlwikipedia to do some checks against the current versions, which should correct for changes made since the database dump. --Sapphic (talk) 01:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

re: Misplaced Pages:Phony orphans

Thanks. I'll look into using that. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No content in Category:AIDS reappraisal

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:AIDS reappraisal, by another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:AIDS reappraisal has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:AIDS reappraisal, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 06:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

May I ask you why you put the {{hangon}} tag on the above cat. It meets WP:CSD#C1 pretty clearly. I have not removed the tag, but I ask you to do so. Thanks Lego K TM 01:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The category was only empty because another editor created a replacement category and moved all the members of the original category, rather than renaming the original category as would probably have been better. I believe somebody else is planning to take it to CfD, which I think is probably a good idea (it's one of the controversial topics people always fight about, so better to go through the whole routine for every little change rather than have revert wars I suppose) and it'll most likely be deleted that way. I originally opposed the move/rename-delete but my main reason turned out to be wrong so I've (mostly) changed my mind, and I don't think anyone else really cared about keeping it. I still don't think it should be speedy deleted, though. --Sapphic (talk) 06:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That was me. I didn't see a "rename" button on the category, so if it's there and I missed it, my apologies. Antelan 15:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Renaming of categories happens through the WP:CFD process, which is where the category is now anyway, so no harm done. I'm not sure whether admins can move/rename the category directly, or if it's just done in precisely the same way you did (create replacement, transfer articles, delete original) but in any event, I don't think it's a big deal. --Sapphic (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Proposed deletion of Taylor algorithms (fiction)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Taylor algorithms (fiction), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? ~~ N (t/c) 15:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Chill out

You should probably take a break from the discussion about Date Autoformatting. While I happen to agree with many of your points, I don't think your.. uh.. enthusiasm for the topic is helping things. Please don't take this as an indication that your help in other areas (generating stats from DB dumps, etc.) isn't appreciated — it is. Best, --UC_Bill (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments here Sapphic. So many students rely on the clickable dates, etc. in order to browse for timeline information or related research. With this in mind some sense and accountability has to be made for what is happening to Misplaced Pages by removing the autoformatting. I was told here "they can tap four keystrokes into the search box to find a year article." but I doubt that would keep Misplaced Pages very useful or popular. They can do that with Google but Misplaced Pages is much more convenient. I just hope the Big Guns get involved with what is going on. Anyway thanks again. Daytrivia (talk) 02:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you, for different reasons. --Sapphic (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have started a RFC on Tony1's unlinking. Since you have also asked him to hold off on unlinking, it would be good if you signed the RFC as well. If you'd rather not get involved (any more than you already are) that's fine too, but the RFC will be deleted unless at least two people sign.

I think I'm going to suggest a discussion on disabling date autoformatting altogether, since that should bring the whole debate to a point more quickly than anything else. If the community really wants to get rid of DA, then disabling it in the software should happen ASAP, and if they want to keep it then the unlinking should stop and MOS should be changed back to the prior version. I'd like it if you could be involved in that discussion as well, but again, that's up to you. --UC_Bill (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I second Bill's call for a chill-out. See my comment below, in which I believe the community would be well served by Sapphic's resignation from adminship, to keep the process transparent. Concerning Datrivia's comments, I think "reliance" on clickable dates is an odd concept: dates are linked only because of a disastrous programming decision in 2003 to entangle the linking and autoformatting functions. The debate on the linking of date fragments (solitary years, decades, centuries, months) has been resolved in the negative after a long period of debate. Please let me know if you need links to archives that represent such debate. Tony (talk) 09:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

date type of template

Hi - I'm interesting in your comments on User:Dmadeo/DA which I've been noodling with. Take a look if you're interested, please leave brief, civil and constructive feedback if you'd like. I think it addresses all the concerns I've seen brought up, but I could use some other opinions before I point it out to a larger audience at MOSNUM Thanks dm (talk) 05:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

ANI

In response to this comment. RfC does not mean that anyone has to stop their actions while in the middle of it. There is no "binding" that prohibits anything. Your expectation is strange, and consensus has already supported Tony there, so I can't see how you can rationalize or justify. If you take it to ANI during the middle of an RfC, it could be construed as either point or not following the RfC process by trying to have another forum act upon an individual. So, ANI is probably not what you want. Jimbo has already expressed his disinterest in the situation. The community seems to have supported Tony en masse. What do you expect to happen? Ottava Rima (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC isn't about "supporting" anyone, it's about getting comments. The only relevant comments on the page came from Dm and basically "supported" my position anyway. The RFC was about Tony1's behavior in refusing to call a truce with his script-assisted mass unlinking. The "support" for Tony1 had to do with whether or not date autoformatting was a good idea — which (as Dm pointed out) is completely irrelevant. You're right that ANI isn't the next step — mediation is. Now that it's been made clear (on the talk page for the RFC) that date unlinking is harmful, I'm planning to simply start linking dates en-masse, as a counter to Tony1's actions. If Tony1 refuses to stop his actions while we discuss this, then I'll stop trying to discuss it and act according to my preferences, which are just as valid as his. --Sapphic (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"Users who endorse this summary:" Under SandyGeorgia, 20 people agree. There is no need for mediation. There is only you and another with a clear problem with it, and your actions are starting to seem inappropriate. Your claims about a "truce" also do not seem in line with fundamental Misplaced Pages policy, and you seem to be treating this as some kind of war or battle. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the time has come for Sapphic to resign from adminship. Has she read the rules she agreed to? Pre-eminent among them is the matter of avoiding conflict of interest situations, by not taking administration actions when s/he has a personal stake in an issue. One could not find a more blatant example of such a CoI issue. I call on Sapphic to resign forthwith. Tony (talk) 09:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Put down the crack pipe, my son. I'm not an admin; never was. --Sapphic (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank god for that: it would degraded the system. Now you can simply put a stop to your urge to attack me personally, as in the previous comment. Tony (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Dusty

Hi, I'm looking into updating WP:DUSTY. Any advice? Wronkiew (talk) 03:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm downloading the latest database dumpfile now. I'll re-run the processing script, fix it up a little, and post the analysis results and source code. --Sapphic (talk) 08:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I settled on a two stage process, explained at Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/DustyBot, to update the page automatically. The initial database processing does take a few days. If you have some spare cycles and the ability to run PHP scripts, it might be helpful if you could regenerate the initial list for me. The second stage runs nightly, and only takes a few minutes and a few MediaWiki API calls. Hope you don't mind my rewiring of your page. Wronkiew (talk) 01:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind at all; in fact, I greatly appreciate it. I'll reprocess the latest dumpfile this weekend, if I get a chance, and will try to incorporate some of the suggestions you've elicited on the dusty articles talk page. --Sapphic (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks

Please stop making personal attacks, as you did here. Policy requires us all to be civil at all times. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. Sorry about that, Sapphic. I made the mistake of complaining about Tony reposting some comments of mine from bugzilla, and now the admins are apparently hunting down anyone I'm friendly with. And they wonder why people hate them so much. It's funny.. I didn't even realize what you were calling him, until that SheffieldSteel person translated it for me. You've been brought to the attention of the other members of the cabal now, so you should probably be extra special nice until they see something else shiny and leave you alone. Sorry about that. --UC_Bill (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries; at least now I get why that dude came out of nowhere like that. That sucks about the Tony nonsense... and about the mocking unhelpfulness of some of those admins. Any of them up for recall? :) --Sapphic (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I am open to recall. See my user page for details. However, I have to say that you'd have an uphill struggle, given that I haven't used any admin tools in regard to either of you. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 01:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Sapphic. You have new messages at SheffieldSteel's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TfD nomination of Template:Voting system criteria

Template:Voting system criteria 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Need your input

Hi Sapphic couldn't find anything by you here. I do not mean to be presumptuous, but I would like to see your input if you have time. Daytrivia (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Date delinking arbitration

I've started a request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Date delinking which you may wish to comment on. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sandwich?

I will not be so easily bribed. I will also not turn down a free sandwich. BTW, how soon do you think you could have statistics on date range formats (and prefixed and piped dates) ready? --UC_Bill (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Elfquest Bearclaw.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Elfquest Bearclaw.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Elfquest Cutter.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Elfquest Cutter.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Orphaned non-free media (File:Elfquest Freefoot.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Elfquest Freefoot.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Orphaned non-free media (File:Elfquest Goodtree.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Elfquest Goodtree.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Orphaned non-free media (File:Elfquest Huntress Skyfire.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Elfquest Huntress Skyfire.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Orphaned non-free media (File:Elfquest Joyleaf.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Elfquest Joyleaf.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Orphaned non-free media (File:Elfquest Mantricker.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Elfquest Mantricker.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Orphaned non-free media (File:Elfquest Preypacer.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Elfquest Preypacer.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Orphaned non-free media (File:Elfquest Rahnee.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Elfquest Rahnee.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Orphaned non-free media (File:Elfquest Tanner.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Elfquest Tanner.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Orphaned non-free media (File:Elfquest Timmorn.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Elfquest Timmorn.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Orphaned non-free media (File:Elfquest Twospear.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Elfquest Twospear.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Kicking dogs?

Okay that was totally inappropriate. Funny as hell, but inappropriate. Cut it out, mm-kay? --UC_Bill (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sapphic, I respect you as an editor but your comments to Greg were totally uncalled for. Perhaps a Wikibreak is in order? This edit summary was unacceptable. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Sapphic. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Incivility

This comment is unacceptable. Please refrain from personal attacks and incivility in the future. Thank you. –Juliancolton 22:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, after reviewing your recent contributions, I've blocked you for 12 hours for the reasons listed in my previous post. –Juliancolton 22:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Banned?

I go home sick for one day and you get yourself blocked? Moron. At least you probably slept through the block. :)

Some people simply aren't worth arguing with, so don't bother. As we discussed the other night, you should definitely stop participating in this whole date fiasco entirely, and I'll limit my posts to non-conversational aspects like posting documentation and code announcements.

Anyway, have fun while you're away, talk to you when you get back. --UC_Bill (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Read my comments on Ryan's RFC proposal page. I struck yours out (what the hell were you thinking?!) and suggested that a bunch of us take a Wikibreak. I seriously doubt Tony or Greg will, and that somehow my suggestion will be twisted into "Since UC Bill has admitted that his posts are disruptive and abandoned his lone crusade against consensus..." but so be it. Learn to just accept that kind of crap, because there's nothing that can be done about it. http://xkcd.com/386/ --UC_Bill (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible canvassing

It has come to my attention that you may be attempting to influence the voting at WP:DATEPOLL, and may be in breach of WP:CANVAS. Please be informed that a complaint has been filed at Misplaced Pages talk:Date formatting and linking poll‎#Suspected canvassing by User:Sapphic. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

On my reading, WP:CANVAS only applies to notifying editors about a poll who haven't already participated. However, even if you want to try applying it to what I've been doing, it's still okay because I'm attempting to "improve rather than to influence a discussion." I've been contacting only those people who have justified their opposition !vote by some inappropriate (a.k.a. "confused") manner — something along the lines of "I'm against autoformatting because I hate all the bluelinks" or "I support autoformatting because I click on date links all the time" which clearly show a lack of understanding of the question being asked. It just so happens that there are no examples of the second kind, and I've only been contacting people on the "oppose" side. Maybe I'm just not reading closely enough and have missed some in the "support" side, but out of over 200 replies (at the time) there were only a dozen or so in total that seemed to be genuinely "confused" about the question. Most of them have now expanded on their reasons for their opposition (on their talk pages, but perhaps they could still be persuaded to do so on the poll page too) so if anything, I've done a favor for the opposition. But I've also eliminated one possible source of contention in interpreting the results, which was my actual goal. So will you please just cut me some slack and have a little faith? Jeez. --Sapphic (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Here's for making me laugh in the middle of this heated debate. I had wondered why an established user would announce being a sock puppet. Calling yourself a rude bitch and defending your intelligence put a smile on my face. Best of luck keeping cool in the face of wikidrama. Ost (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

Hello Sapphic. I've just been taking a look at your contributions and the mass notice you posted to a number of opposers of autoformatting could be considered canvassing to get them to change their opinion. I'm therefore going to ask you not to contact any user about the poll on their talk page. If you have a concern about a particular set of votes in the poll, please leave a note on the poll talk page or ask me directly. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Blanking of Misplaced Pages:Date formatting and linking poll

Was that being disruptive or was that just a mess-up? Wizardman 02:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Both, in a way. But the disruption wasn't the one I intended. I didn't mean to blank the page, but I was about to post another angry post to the talk page, which I guess is disruptive enough. Then I thought better of it, but deleted (control-a control-x) the entire page instead of just my comments. Then I tried to fix it from the text I had open in a different tab, which turned out to be the poll page rather than the talk page (I have way too many tabs open, often to the same page over and over so I can cut-and-paste direct quotes and such) and did the same thing.

My fingers don't act right when I'm angry. I thought I "undid" everything correctly, but if I still screwed something up I'm sorry. Since you're an admin (don't remember what your position on the date issue is, but all the better for me to ask you then) please reassure me that nothing drastic is going to happen as a result of a 41-59 split decision in a poll... right? As long as I don't have to worry that Misplaced Pages is abandoning the principle of consensus, I can walk away from the discussion contented. --Sapphic (talk) 02:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, nevermind about that last question.. somebody else already addressed it on the talk page for the poll. Greg had me worried that the admins were going to declare consensus on the existing results, and I was doubly worried that that would mean sanctioned mass delinking while leaving the autoformatting itself turned on, which is the worst possible outcome I can imagine (MOS guidance would be like "Only relevant links should be linked, but due to some weirdness in the software, such links must look like ] or ] to avoid activating the old date autoformatting software module that's still turned on for some reason.")

Sorry for my tantrum.. since we're back to "wait through more rounds of polling and keep the injunction in place in the meantime" I'm fine with just waiting. I'll stay out of this until the next round, I guess. Cheers, --Sapphic (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You graciously apologised to me a few days ago, something we said set you off again, and I'm still a bit at a loss. I'm not saying you shouldn't feel the way you do, whatever that is, but I believe you remarks just now on WT:DATEPOLL were a bit out of order. To let you know I'm not offended, but it's not well-regarded all round to have a comment-countercomment-blowout-apology cycle. It might be an idea if you just withdrew your rude remark when you're ready, it shows at least you are back in control. Not much you can do about the edit summary, though. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This was out of line. In lewe of blocking you, I'm simply going to restrict you from the poll or talk page for one week for strong incivility. Should you edit the page, you'll be blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 08:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)