| Revision as of 19:44, 22 May 2009 editWizardman (talk | contribs)Administrators400,514 edits double header← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:47, 22 May 2009 edit undoKoavf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,174,994 edits →Red Sox template: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 121: | Line 121: | ||
| Thanks for that. I notified the author in April by writing on his/her talk page that I did a review. I'm beginning to wonder whether there'll be a response. The article is decent, so I don't want to fail it, but it's been a long time on hold with no change - and my talk page message even linked to the review page so... Do you think I should fail it? ] (]) 19:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC) | Thanks for that. I notified the author in April by writing on his/her talk page that I did a review. I'm beginning to wonder whether there'll be a response. The article is decent, so I don't want to fail it, but it's been a long time on hold with no change - and my talk page message even linked to the review page so... Do you think I should fail it? ] (]) 19:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == Red Sox template == | |||
| '''Hello''' It certainly ''can'' be done, but not in anywhere near as easy a way as I'm doing it now. You point out that this leaves two templates on one talk page - which is true, but this is already true anyway, so it's hardly compounding the problem. Also, most of these are unassessed anyway, so presumably, someone should go into ] and add assessment ratings at which point they can combine the templates. I agree that having two of them on the same talk page is not desirable, but it is slightly more desirable that at least one of them isn't deprecated. —]❤]☮]☺]☯ 19:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:47, 22 May 2009
Status: Unknown 
To those leaving messages: Try to keep them brief and to the point. Posts that are too lengthy may not get a timely response. Thank you. Wizardman
| This talk page is automatically archived by User:MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived. |
|
Personal attack in his abusive report? Come on.This is ridiculous. Now he says "ChildofMidnight is a long-term problem editor who attacks me and other editors regularly in support of some partisan and sometimes fringe conservative political issues, and attacks me with particular determination whenever he/she is here at AN/I." This is a personal attack. I would never get away with calling him a long term problem editor like that. Make him refactor that bullshit. I've never worked on any of the right wing radical stuff. I've simply asked that editors be treated respectfully that guidelines be followed and the the focus be on content instead of other editors. I spent a lot of time providing diffs of the abuse from Wikidemon and others. The obvious personal attacks. It's a waste of time. I just want to edit the encyclopedia and have some Admin put a stop to this abuse. H eneeds to stop attacking me and stop refactoring my comments. Period. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Oksana GrigorievaYou deleted this listing today due to lack of notability. Ms. Grigorieva is currently the pregnant partner of actor Mel Gibson and is very much in the current events news, due to her involvement in the Gibson divorce matter. (see here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30629966/ scroll down to third section.) She reportedly was involved with Timothy Dalton in the past. She is also a composer. One notes that the discussion of whether to delete her article was decided in only one week without much meaningful input from the discussants. Perhaps this decision to delete should be reconsidered? NDM (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
|
| My RFA passed today at 75/2/1 so I wanted to thank you for your participation in it. Special thanks go to GlassCobra and FlyingToaster for their nomination and support. Cheers! --Rosiestep (talk) 02:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC) |  |
RfA Thanks
| Thank you for supporting me in my recent RfA, which unfortunately did not pass with a final tally of (45/39/9). I plan on addressing the concerns raised and working to improve in the next several months. Special thanks go to MBisanz, GT5162, and MC10 for nominating me. Thanks again, -download ׀ sign! 03:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC) |  |
RfA friendly reminder
In my RfA you stated "Leaning support, but we'll see". The !vote is almost over, so here's your last chance to move from neutral to support or oppose! — BQZip01 — 23:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Question
Why I'm being lump togeter in this group? . I'm in the military stationed in Japan, I have never used or being associated with this IP sharing group. I have never engaged or being accused of edit warring or any incivility. On what basis I'm being lump in this group? Bravehartbear (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I have three questions
I made an edit today--one edit--to the article Carrie Prejean and have not made an edit to the article in days, but yet another editor reversed my ONE edit and then reported me on the 3RR notice board. I find this to be a clear use of Misplaced Pages to win a debate about article content and direction. Prejean was called a series of negative things by Perez Hilton, most of the words are contemptuous and vile, such as the b-word and c-word. There are editors that believe that each and every one of Hilton's use of those words MUST be included in the article about Prejean. Now, I don't see the need to have an article about Prejean dominated by the words and comments of ONE individual (highly negative words at that) dominate the life story of Prejean. It is tantamount to having the words of Saddam Hussein concerning George W Bush dominate the Misplaced Pages article about Bush. It violates Misplaced Pages avowed goal of NPOV and it violates BLP. Now, I know that consensus in Misplaced Pages editing is one of the goals, but consensus does NOT override other valid Misplaced Pages ideals such as BLP. There can be a compromise made where the gist of Hilton's highly negative opinion is included in the article, but at the same time it does NOT dominate the life story of Prejean. Prejean is notable for many, many reasons, not just her public fight with Hilton. She is notable for being a successful model; she is notable for participating in Deal or No Deal; she is notable for being the current Miss California USA; and she is now notable for being a TV personality. My first question is: Can you at least review the article and see if the second, third, fourth, and fifth repetitions of the b-word and c-word violates BLP? I believe that it does. And my second question is: Is it appropriate to make a report on an editor for violating 3RR even though that editor has only made one edit? And my third question is: Is misusing 3RR to win a debate on the proper interpretation of BLP appropriate? I don't think so.--InaMaka (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your support
 |
Unfortunately, my RFA was closed recently with a final tally of 75½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your support and I hope I can count on it in the future. Even though it didn't pass, it had a nearly 2 to 1 ratio of support and I am quite encouraged by those results. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns that were brought up and resubmit in a few months. If you would like to assist in my betterment and/or co-nominate me in the future, please let me know on my talk page. Special thanks go to Schmidt, , TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 — |
GA Sweeps invitation
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are listed as a GA reviewer. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.
We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Joey Hamilton
Anything you can to help me out with that article would certaintly be welcomed, and the only reason I stopped expansion is because most of the sources I found required registration or payments and such to be able to read the article.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 20:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Double vote
- FYI, you voted oppose twice on this one. Nathan 14:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages Signpost: 18 May 2009
- From the editor: Writers needed
- Special report: WikiChemists and Chemical Abstracts announce collaboration
- Special report: Embassies sponsor article-writing contests in three languages
- News and notes: Wiki Loves Arts winners, Wikimania Conference Japan, and more
- Misplaced Pages in the news: Arbitrator blogs, French government edits, brief headlines
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Opera
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Question concerning closure
Would you agree that the closure doesn't prevent my second suggestion? (As the discussion was about that particular redirect, and not about the content.) - jc37 06:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Transclusion Matthew Butler
Thanks for that. I notified the author in April by writing on his/her talk page that I did a review. I'm beginning to wonder whether there'll be a response. The article is decent, so I don't want to fail it, but it's been a long time on hold with no change - and my talk page message even linked to the review page so... Do you think I should fail it? Hekerui (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Red Sox template
Hello It certainly can be done, but not in anywhere near as easy a way as I'm doing it now. You point out that this leaves two templates on one talk page - which is true, but this is already true anyway, so it's hardly compounding the problem. Also, most of these are unassessed anyway, so presumably, someone should go into Category:Unknown-importance Boston Red Sox articles and add assessment ratings at which point they can combine the templates. I agree that having two of them on the same talk page is not desirable, but it is slightly more desirable that at least one of them isn't deprecated. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)