Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:45, 5 July 2009

Archives

1: August–October 2008 2: November 2008 3: December 2008 4: January–February 2009 5: March–April 2009 6: May–July 2009 7: August–December 2009 8: January–May 2010 9: June 2010 – present

Ashley92995

Sorry that i didn't respond to your messages for a while. I'm having a hard time editing the references the right way, I don't know how to set them up right. I don't want to ruin the page or make it a bad article but the fact that I can't fix the citations right is negatively effecting the page. So if could, could you try to help me fix the references or show me how to because I'm very confused on how to do them correctly. Sorry for any trouble that I have caused you or the articles page. - Ashley92995

Thanks for the example on how to create a good reference, I think I understand how to do it now, I just edited and corrected all of the refs in Albas Charites and Politics section in the her personal life section, so if you could review it and tell me if I did it right it would be helpful.

What if i revert my edits that I've recently done to Alba's careen section, could you leave other edits, because I agree a majority of my edits aren't to very important to the article (adding non-major things), but some are, so If I remove things that are unnessisary on my own, and you review the page after I'm done and like it can you leave my other of my edits alone, or you can tell me what you don't like and I'll remove it.

Im going to re-edit and undue a majority of my edits, If you like the way the page is when I'm done could you not un-due my other edits.

I just edited, and finished the article. I compared the article before I edited it and after I finished editing it and It does look the same, thou some notable differences are that I added a qoute box in Public Image section, minor edits to Early Life, and relationships, a photo to Career Section, added a Other Awards Chart to Awards section, added The Killer Inside Me, and Valentines Day to career section, and added the the shark incident, and her offer to act free for the aids foundation to the Charity's section.

Also, thanks for being understanding, and for helping me. - Ashley92995

Re:

The refs look fine. I couldn't find any obvious errors, everything looks ready. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Would we be able to find a CC or GFDL image, or request permission for one, to improve the article? There are a number of places to search, such as flickr, where amateurs may have photographed people in public. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I searched flickr for a while and found nothing free; for some people I searched (like Stephen Chow) there were nice non-free images that I could request permission for, but for Zhang Yuqi I don't remember (most of it was just images people copied from somewhere on the internet). Not surprisingly, we are short on pictures for most Asian celebrities, since most en-wiki users aren't from there...even pretty huge ones like Cecilia Cheung and Xu Jinglei are missing photos! rʨanaɢ /_contribs 11:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I got some permission, and have an image up now (and a couple new photos of Stephen Chow came free with the package!). rʨanaɢ /_contribs 05:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Modified your block

Hi, just a note to let you know I modified your block of Fhue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to indefinite. I'm not questioning your block, but there's a pretty big wp:username issue that it took me a moment to perceive. Toddst1 (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

IMO, a username block seems somewhat harsh. I'm aware of what you are concerned about, but I am unconvinced whether a straight up block was the right idea, especially since the user has been communicative? \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Indef is fine with me—assuming that "indef" means "until he changes his name", not "forever". The user, while being a bit of a dick, looks like he's starting to be ready to work cooperatively and follow guidelines, and could be a constructive user, so once the username is changed I think he should be allowed to edit again. Also his argument about the talk page guidelines and stuff made me aware that the guideline page really doesn't say anything about how we shouldn't edit archives (I'm going to suggest an addition this afternoon when I have some free time), so in a way he has already done something constructive. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 18:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Toddst1 (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Question about DYK hook length

Hi, I have a question for you regarding DYK hook. The required hook length should not be over 200 characters, but does it include "*...that" or "(pictured)?" ?--Caspian blue 23:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Technically, I think usually "that" and the question mark are counted, "..." is not, and "(pictured)" is debateable; I usually count it because it's a pain to leave it out of the count, but if a hook is borderline I might leave it out, or if there is extra text inside the parentheses (for example, (flag of Kazakhstan pictured) ) then I'll count the extra. Also, you count the characters in the actual text, not the wiki-text in the edit window (so you don't count formatting like ]). The easiest way to count is to paste the hook into this counter.

I'm not sure which hook you're looking at, but as far as I can tell the Zhang Yuqi hook is 142 characters (including (pictured)) and the Psycho Donuts one is around 160. Oops, I just realized you're not necessarily asking about one of my hooks. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 23:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag's mostly right, but I'd say DYKcheck is the easiest way to calculate hook length. :P Shubinator (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thanks Rjanag for the detailed reply. I reviewed Hyperion (Longfellow), and if I exclude "(pictured) and "...that" from the alternative hook suggested by the nominator, the hook characters are counted as "195", if not, it has 214 characters, so I needed a correct rule on hook. Shubinator, you have a very good tool for that!-Caspian blue 00:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Auto archiving

Hey Rjanag, I thought you may be interested in this:

{{User:MiszaBot/config |maxarchivesize = 125K |counter = 6 |minthreadsleft = 0 |minthreadstoarchive = 0 |algo = old(48h) |archive = User talk:Rjanag/Archive%(counter)d }}
Just add it to the top of your page and it'll save much time. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 06:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. I've thought about doing this, but I also kind of like having control...specifically, it allows me to avoid archiving threads that I haven't dealt with yet or have been procrastinating about (for example, the Ashley thread at the top of this page has been sitting there for a week or two waiting for me to do something about it). rʨanaɢ /_contribs 06:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarence Thomas

Thank you for reviewing the 3RR complaint. I trust I can come to you if edit warring continues. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 06:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

As to "Since the reverting has stopped, I see no reason to block anyone"- The reverting stopped because I didn't want to break the 3rr rule. Apparently that was error, because you now tell us, in effect, that 3rr is merely advisory: it won't be enforced if it would "prevent from participating in the discussion." The practical effect, whether you think you're endorsing it or not, is that the version preferred by an editor who broke the rules trumps objections to it made by those who make a good faith effort to stay within the rules. What is the process to appeal your call? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've raised this at AN: - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Zhang Yuqi

On July 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Zhang Yuqi, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC) 14:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me

But is Jimmy Wales the fouder of Misplaced Pages?Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 18:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

That is what I have been trying to tell him, but he keeps accusing me trolling.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 18:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

He just did the same thing to your comment.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 18:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care what he does on his own talk page. Just ignore it. The issue here is the article, not his talk page. What you need to do is start a section of the talk page explaining why you disagree with his edit; continuing to revert at the article is useless. Once that talk page discussion is started, both of you should be going there rather than reverting; if people continue reverting instead of discussing, either or both of you could be blocked. I have no reason to block the other user, th ough, if you haven't started a discussion at the talk page. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 18:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to say that I now see his point.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 18:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. In the future, please don't canvass other editors in a dispute like you did here. If you are having a content dispute at some article, go to one of the appropriate pages (WP:Third opinion, WP:AN3, a WikiProject, etc.) to report the problem, don't just leave a message with some random editor. I have not been involved in editing the Jimmy Wales page and I have no idea why you chose to message me; when you left your first message I didn't even know what you were talking about. If you are going to seek input from other editors, you need to at least explain what the problem is. Please keep these things in mind in the future. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 18:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, again I'm really sorry.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 18:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

If there is consensus to include something, but not consensus on how it ought to be included, there isn't consensus on its inclusion. Let me put the question in more functional terms: in what circumstances, or after what period of time, will I not incur a 3RR or "edit warring" block for reinserting the quote?

Just saying "when there's consensus" isn't an answer. Without some quantification of what constitutes sufficient consensus, your claim that I am "free to put the quote back in if that is what the consensus becomes" starts to look like the Obama rhetorical strategy of saying you're for doing X in principle, but then setting up so many caveats and obstacles to doing X that doing X is, in practical terms, impossible. You suggest getting additional opinions, but (mindfull of WP:CANVAS) I have used the 3d opinion process several times before, and it is a crapshoot whether one gets from it little input or no input at all. Weeks can go by before we get additional input.

And even if/when additional input that supports inclusion is forthcoming, you still leave me in an untenable situation. What is the threshold is for having achieved "consensus"? Without knowing where the line is, no matter how many more users endorse my position, I still can't risk putting the material back, lest you block me, citing your decision about Garcia's 3RR violation. The practical upshot is not that "e gets 'the last word' for a day or so while we discuss things at the talk page," but rather, that "e gets 'the last word'" for the indefinite future, unless someone else, by sheer chance or by my (inappropriate) request, inserts the same quote.

It doesn't stop there, either. It isn't clear how broadly your warning sweeps: am I on notice for any reverts (or anything that can be so characterized) at Clarence Thomas, or just for the sections at issue in yesterday's controversy? By imposing this amorphous standard that maximizes your discretion, you have effectively issued me a topic ban on Clarence Thomas for having the temerity to report someone for breaking the rules and lacking the courtesy to violate them myself.

Lastly, it is grossly inappropriate that this issue is being brushed under the rug at a talk page. It amounts to an allegation of administrator misconduct, and whether I'm in the wrong or you are, this is an issue that ought to be aired at AN or one of its sub-boards. Since talk pages are not private fora, I am therefore boldly copying your comment and my response to a subsection of the AN debate.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You originally posted at AN saying you just wanted a third opinion on the AN3, which is what you got. If you are wanting to accuse me of administrator misconduct, you are welcome to do so, start a new thread somewhere, be my guest. You can even insist that I be desysopped if you like. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 21:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Your desire to suspend a sword of damocles over my head and then duck questions about the propriety of that decision or under what circumstances I can avoid it being dropped on me is hardly a good reason to allow you to sweep the question under the rug. Quite the contrary. The more arbitrary and discretion-conferring an administrative action, the stronger the need for it to be broadly reviewed. What's more, your self-evident displeasure at being asked to justify and delineate the application of your decision (for example, telling me to "go fuck self") strengthens the case yet further, since a reasonable observer might think future actions you take against me motivated by spite if these concerns are not resolved ex ante. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I won't be taking future actions against you; admins don't block people they have a history with. Get out of here and find something else to do. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 22:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Note

Since you weren't notified, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Complaint_about_an_administrator.27s_actions. If I were you I wouldn't respond. Shubinator (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice; I won't be responding. On to happier things! :) rʨanaɢ /_contribs 22:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

As an administrator you should know better than telling users to go fuck themselves. It really makes us all look bad when our fellow admins cannot follow Misplaced Pages's basic requirements of civility. Chillum 22:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No, what makes you all look bad is that you'd have blocked or at the very least threatened to block a regular editor for having said that. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)You're a regular editor, and you've gotten away without blocks after saying things just as bad. So we're all potty-mouths, oh well, whatever. I'm not losing any sleep over it. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 02:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Rjanag has demonstrated quite well that he is not quick with the blockhammer and use it only when it is strictly necessary. I also think he knows full well that he crossed the line there and that he won't do it again. So again there is no need for a block, as blocks are not used punitively.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the sig guidance. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)