Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:06, 22 April 2009

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97

Jim Baxter

I think we need to discuss the lead, at the article's Talk page. I like some of what you've done, but removing Slim Jim's interational career from the lead was a mistake. --Philcha (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the old version assigned rather undue weight to that one game, but I'm not adverse to adding another sentence on it. I'll make sure to watch the talk page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I've just posted comments at Talk:Jim Baxter. If by "undue weight to that one game" you mean 1967:

• The article says Baxter thought 1962 was his best.
• But Scottish fans / commentators most strongly remember Baxter toying with the world champions. --Philcha (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Meh. I still think it's undue weight. Archie Gemmell's single most memorable moment in football might have been in Argentina, but you could write pages on the rest of it. I think the same applies here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Gemmell was also the driving force behind Forest's 2 European Cups. Rangers never won a European comp in Baxter's time, so his fame rests on his internationals - against the world champions. And it's what the sources say. If we continue this, let's do it at Talk:Jim Baxter. --Philcha (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Do you mind reformatting your last comment to place the whole lot after mine rather than segmenting, though? By interspersing comments it becomes very hard to follow who said who in the future. I'll reply once that's done. Cheers for the dialogue by the way. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The nested format seems to work rather well at GA reviews, that's where I got into the habit. But I sign every item, addition, so it's obvious who said what. --Philcha (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this

You said to continue the discussion on your talk page. Since your RfA, you have referred to me by something other than my currently and only account (as any checkuser can confirm)'s username, made accusations against me in the above cited thread and now an AN/I. What gives? When I opposed in your RfA, I tried not to make it overally mean, and afterwards I even tried to make an encouraging post on your talk page. I certainly am not just showing up in any discussions in which you commented or started first and so why the aggression against me in these other venues? I don't expect us to just agree on everything, but why when I am trying to be nice or politely disagree are you still acting confrontational to me? I don't know if I just can't win or what, but I really thought with the whole natural horse thing we were at least coming to an understanding and that by not making a big fuss at your RfA (i.e. opposing while pointing out some positives and not going back and forth with other editors as I have done in other RfAs) it would have been received far more favorably. I cannot tell how frustrating it is when I try to be nice or fair to just be rebuffed and against regarding me going on breaks, please note what the talk page templates say, they clearly both allow for occasional breaks from the break and again as well when I last did break around the time of your RfA, I really did not edit for a whole week. Anyway, I am just distressed that things have deteriorated between us again, and I don't understand why, and I really hope that we can patch things up and yes, once that AN/I thread is done, I do hope to take much of the coming months of as much as possible. Sincerely, --A Nobody 23:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's lay this out flat. You socked under the account Elisabeth Rogan while you were vanished. This was so obvious that several editors guessed it independently; more than one checkuser was run on it, and it came up as likely (bearing in mind that checkuser is an inexact science, the degree to which the editing matched your own style makes this either an open and shut case or the greatest WP hoax since EssJay). The original thread, which is the very best place to examine the evidence as it was at the time, is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive169#Right to vanish and not vanished. For you to continually and hypocritically pursue editors you are ideologically opposed to for past sockpuppet transgressions while denying this is an indelible mark on your trustworthiness and your creditability. From what I'm led to believe, your were allowed back on following this (which required multiple administrative actions) after making promises (presumably off-wiki) to reform, or at least not to go down the exact same path again. I look at your actions right now (repeated, barely-provoked soapboxing in any venue, vilifying opponents, taking the earliest possible opportunity to poison the well in any editing or ideological dispute, and an utter disregard for advice given you) and see exactly the same editor who burned out and decided to leave six months ago. This is not good news for anyone. Regarding my RfA, I did not expect anything other than an early and strident oppose from you and said so months ago. I acted in grace during my RfA because it was the right thing to do. I don't consider RfA to be a back-scratching parlour; since then I've supported BOZ, who didn't support my RfA, and opposed Cyclonenim who did. For what it's worth, I've disengaged almost completely from AfD since then for reasons including those raised in my RfA, so I do take comments to heart. If you would like relations between us to improve, then I would advise you to take the same approach as I would to your re-engaging other editors: stop soapboxing, stop vilifying editors who disagree with you, stop being brazenly disingenuous when it comes to judging the behaviour of others and consider whether your continued denial of your last indef is worth the mistrust it generates from editors in good standing who were there at the time (and there are a lot of them). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You really need to stop mischaracterizing my edits. My limited AfD contributions are nothing like from last year and in all cases since my rename, every article I argued to delete was deleted and every one I argued to be kept at worst had its edit history undeleted upon deletion review. I have therefore been remarkably successful in that regard, i.e. much more so than last year. I don't villainze editors who disgree with me; I respect many editors who disagree with me. What I do take issue with are editors who mockingly refer to me by anything other than "A Nobody" my current username. If you think I "villainize" anyone it is solely those who have done incivil things like that or who come at me hypocritically, i.e. who tell me not badger when they badger others or who give me guff over arguing to keep when they argue to keep less frequently than I argue to delete. I am willing to be held accountable for my edits, but not to be bullied and anyone can plainly see that those I tend to challenge have indeed done their share of mockingly referring to me by other usernames, etc. Those who don't pull stuff like that, I treat fine and as my starting this thread suggests, I still try to give some editors a chance to reconcile even after they have already done that. Sincerely, --A Nobody 00:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not say one single thing about your AfD contributions in my last reply. It is telling that the very first thing you did here was try to poison the well again by making out that this is a dispute over what we argue in AfDs. As for the rest of your reply, it is precisely this kind of boilerplate gainsaying which earns you no favours. I've said my piece. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't get the "boilerplate" as the above is hardly a copy and paste from anywhere, but, anyway look, as with the natural horse thing, I am always receptive to good faith colloboration. My mere hope is that there is no needless escalation and antagonism. I will not refer to you by anything other than your username. Please do the same for me and anyone else. Doing otherwise accomplishes nothing worthwhile. Otherwise, whenever I do return after today's uproars, I hope to resume colloborating with Ricardiana and others on GAs and DYKs. I have no desire to escalate any disputes and so long as people aren't going around badgering my comments or mockingly referring to my old username, I will 1) not refer/reply to their comments in AfDs or RfAs and 2) have no need to start AN/I threads. If people leave me alone, I will be sure not to even create a perception of antagonism of them. If beyond today, anyone escalates things, it will be their doing so, because my goal is to rescue articles that can become DYKs or to help with some GAs. Otherwise, I am tired of the tensions here. Take care. Sincerely, --A Nobody 00:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:External media

This template is nominated for deletion. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I know; I already commented at the TfD. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

merging templates

I suggest to merge Template:YouTube user with Template:External media. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Where would you like the discussion to be? You've posted messages on both template talk pages; it would be better to keep it in one place. For what it's worth, I don't think this is appropriate; {{YouTube user}} is an inline template intended to be used in the "External links" section, while {{external media}} is usually used in the article body. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Blocci.

As you are involved in the dispute at Giuseppe Rossi, you should know that I've opened a case against the accounts Tesaux (talk · contribs) and Blocci (talk · contribs) at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Blocci. – Toon 12:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:External media

I noticed some time ago that you were rejigging this template to reflect the type of media that was linked. This seemed to me useful. I didn't follow the process, but I notice your changes have been reverted. Are you intending to complete those improvements in the future? --Geronimo20 (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

They haven't been reverted; my changes are still live. Is it not working somewhere? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you revert your edit to show the references again. It's part of leading by good example. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Done, although I don't particularly see the need to show these refs (as they don't actually pertain to the documentation). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The refs are for completeness to show everybody we can cite. I'm following the discussion about the deletion of external media. There's currently a debate about deep linking. I suggest we write a comment in the documentation that it's a nice thing to contact the administrator of a page we use content from, tell him that we are deep linking and how he can avoid it. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Or, even better, asking that he relicenses his media so that we could host it as free content. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Forget that. People are very possessive. I did a lot of negotiating and the reason I inititated this template was the impossibility to get accurate free license material. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Joomla! and Joomla

I noticed your {{db-move}} and have removed it for now. While MOS:TRADE does say avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words, I would say an ! is in a bit of a grey area, as it does change the way the word is said, in a way. That and the fact that the article has been at Joomla! since 2005, I think it would be wise to get some consensus about the move before it takes place. Happy editing! ~fl 09:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you mean like the discussion here, from eighteen months ago? It's a housekeeping speedy. It can be easily reversed. Adding new comments to the talk makes it harder for me to do the talk page refactoring that I'd be doing right now were I not having to argue a housekeeping speedy with you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for linking to the discussion, if a link had been provided sooner (like in or with the CSD tag), I would have been able to complete the move faster; perhaps a suggestion for the future :). The move has been completed. Happy refactoring! ~fl 10:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Cheers Mate!

I would like to ask you if you would like to look and give your opinion on the new Articles for deletion proposal for FreeOrion. I wrote a new version article from scratch and I would like to ask you if you could comment on it FreeOrion and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/FreeOrion (3rd nomination). Thank you nice! Peer-LAN (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)