Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:54, 17 July 2009

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 (Nov-Dec 2007) Archive 5 (Jan-Mar 2008) Archive 6 (Apr-Dec 2008) Archive 7 (Jan-Apr 2009) Archive 8 (May-Jun 2009)

Short paging disambiguation pages

Explain to me please why that even needs to be done... Sadly many disambiguation pages will be shorter than you want, they're disambiguation pages not articles. Why don't you set something up so that the short article list avoids pages that (are properly) marked as not being articles instead? You don't short page redirects, do you? 03:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just taken a look at the category that you are adding DAB pages to and it says this: "as they meet a minimum level of quality, but that still could benefit from attention and fleshing out." Disambiguation pages, as I said above, are not articles and therefore do not need to be "fleshed out". You yourself shortened the pages further at the same time you added the longcomment template to them. I'm removing your changes, and I'll watch that category for other DABs. If you have a problem with this you can start an edit war or come up with something more convincing that makes what you're saying valid. 04:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Myself! Are all 8,000 pages in that category DABs??? 04:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Further proof that editing Misplaced Pages turns people into a powder keg. I have been editing DABs for a year now, the two articles you marked as short is the first time I've even seen that template, and you are the first to proclaim the inevitability what you do. Veiled threats from one established user to another aside, what is your response to the information I've shown you that makes it look as if short paging a DAB is going to far? When you can respond to THAT we can go somewhere. 05:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you've been silent for two days I'll assume that the issue is resolved between us. I agree that DABs do not belong on the Short Pages list, but equally do not belong on your watch list or need a template reserved for articles. A bug for this problem already exists on Bugzilla so at Mannings suggestion I bumped it and commented on the nature of the bug. Hopefully you won't continue applying that template and allow time for a MediaWiki update, because once it takes place however many DABs are on your page will have to be manually removed whereas all DABs on the Short Pages list will simply disappear. 04:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie at DRV

Why do you close the DRV discussion for Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie here so quickly? I'm also concerned about the very short AFD discussion and wanted to follow up on the closing at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 27. Would it be ok for me to start a new discussion? -- Ricky28618 (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that certainly discourages frank and open discussion. Should I ask the users who had similar concerns in the past to do it instead? -- Ricky28618 (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that it's so controversial is why I'm switching to this sock temporarily. It's all in accordance with policy. -- Ricky28618 (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ridge, Robertson County, Texas

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Ridge, Robertson County, Texas, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Unnotable unincorporated community.

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. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Ridge, Robertson County, Texas

I have nominated Ridge, Robertson County, Texas, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ridge, Robertson County, Texas. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Surnames by language

Excellent idea on adding exclusion parameter! I've made it optional, and reworded a bit to allow more extensive exclusions. See Category:English-language surnames for the most (so far). Thanks for making the effort to update all of the existing categories. I've added documentation, so hopefully folks will take the time to follow the examples in the future.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Your wording is better than mine, good job! Templates are way under-used around here, but that's a long story. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm sure we'll need to watch it like a hawk.... Yeah, templates are starting to resemble fixed categories and lists, instead of their original purpose. And few categories have good descriptions.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

NOTP

IS not worth a redirect. It is a multi band performance not for TOTO alone. Re direct in any case (in my view) is a silly function.Foxhound66 (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Monterey County template

Would you please join the discussion at Template talk:Monterey County, California? Nyttend (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Highspeed

I've seen the vandalism that Highspeed did to your talk page, but where are the personal attacks? An IP claiming to be Highspeed has posted at my talk page, asking for a review or at least the ability to post an unblock template on the talk page. As well as explaining the situation, would you be willing to let me block/decide not to block the IP instead of doing it yourself? Nyttend (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you show me diffs for the personal attacks? Nyttend (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I was confused by the situation (indeed, I still am), so I had no idea what to do. One more question: why did you protect Highspeed's talk? Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

As you seem to be involved in a dispute with this user, I'm gravely concerned not only that you blocked them, but that you attempted to stifle their ability to seek independent review of your action. As is mentioned very explicitly both in the blocking policy and at Special:Block, that option should generally not be used without careful consideration. Now, I do see this very unusual edit, but given that I see no warnings in the history of Highspeed's talk page history, and this user has been with us since 2006, I simply don't see how an immediate and indefinite block, with zero warnings and no obvious history of disruption, set by an involved administrator two days after the fact, can be justified, let alone the talk page lock. Please be mindful of the chilling effects your actions may have on impacted users and wield your tools carefully. In the meantime, some comment on the user's current unblock request would be very much appreciated. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)