Revision as of 16:47, 24 December 2009 editSkagitRiverQueen (talk | contribs)5,856 edits →Route description on WA 20← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:49, 24 December 2009 edit undoSkagitRiverQueen (talk | contribs)5,856 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
Line 263: | Line 263: | ||
::::Apology accepted. I over-reacted. Have a nice day. ] (]) 03:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC) | ::::Apology accepted. I over-reacted. Have a nice day. ] (]) 03:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
⚫ | == Route description on WA 20 == | ||
== ] == | |||
⚫ | ''Please read ]; a substantial route description is expected in a road article. See ] for an example. I do agree that some of the details were unnecessary, and the formatting was a bit off, but it should have been revised, not blindly reverted. --] (] ]) 06:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)'' | ||
''I'm concerned that this archive page could be considered a violation of ]. Rather than being a mere archive of old discussions from your talk page, it rather seems to be a collection of other users' statements that you view negatively, taken from several sources.'' | |||
''I'd like to point out ], which states:'' | |||
*''10. "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided the dispute resolution process is started in a timely manner. Users should not maintain in public view negative information on others without very good reason."'' | |||
''Please address this issue soon. If you don't, someone will likely nominate the page for deletion, and will probably be successful. Thanks. <font face="Century Gothic">] <small>]</small> 13:05, 22 Dec 2009 (UTC)</font>'' | |||
:I don't understand why you are targeting me specifically on this matter. From what I have read and understand, Misplaced Pages recommends that talk pages be archived, not deleted. Other editors keep everything from years ago - good, bad, and everything else. The quote you included was regarding user pages, not talk pages. Currently, I have kept nice stuff on my active talk page, and archived the not so nice stuff. I used to delete stuff from my talk page (there was never really that much to keep), but since the JoyDiamond and Karel incidents, I realized it would be a good idea to keep everything. Other stuff I have included is there to tell the entire story - especially when there has been conflict - if, indeed, the entire story needs to be told. This is especially true in the case of JoyDiamond and the Karel article. When the article opens back up in February, I expect things will once again be status quo with Joy (and that's not a good status quo based on what my past experiences with her have been like). Personally, I have a hard time believing that any administrators will decide to have my archive page completely deleted - especially since Misplaced Pages states "Archive—do not delete: When a talk page has become too large or a particular subject is not discussed any more, do not delete the content—archive it." | |||
:--] (]) 16:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
::''If this were a simple archive then it wouldn't be a problem. The page seems to be arranged as a record of events, and contains comments that were posted on other pages, your thoughts on them, warnings issued to other users, and most importantly, titles referring to other editors as "whiners". I'm not targeting you. I'm just pointing out a problem that I think you will probably need to deal with. <font face="Century Gothic">] <small>]</small> 17:09, 22 Dec 2009 (UTC)</font>'' | |||
:::Fine, I'll get rid of the "whiner" comment(s), but the rest of it is staying as is for now. --] (]) 17:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::''Everything under the title of "The Karel and JoyDiamond Chronicles" is a problem, though, for the reasons I stated above. ] states that maintaining a record like this long-term of other users' perceived misdeeds isn't acceptable for userspace pages. You'll need to do something about that. I was going to leave this as friendly advice, but your stonewalling response telling me it's "staying as it is" is tempting me to nominate it myself. I've defended you on several occasions in the past, and would have expected better than this adversarial stance. The page in its current state violates policy, and I would've thought you'd appreciate being informed of that by someone who doesn't have an established beef with you. <font face="Century Gothic">] <small>]</small> 17:25, 22 Dec 2009 (UTC)</font>'' | |||
:::::It's an ARCHIVE, for heaven's sake. When someone doesn't want stuff on their talk page anymore, it's archived - how else am I supposed to keep it? The policy you keep quoting is in regard to userpages, not talk pages and talk page archives. Until the JoyDiamond issue is completely resolved in my estimation (and we will see after the Karel article is unlocked whether or not it is actually resolved), I'm keeping everything surrounding all of it AS IS. I appreciate your opinion(s) and assistance - but in this case, I simply don't agree and feel you are overstepping a boundry and butting in to something that really isn't any of your concern. --] (]) 17:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::::The problem is that it's ''not'' an archive. Just because the page is named that way doesn't make it a simple archive no matter what you put into it. Sorry to have to do this, but I've nominated the page for deletion. Hopefully other people will be more successful in explaining to you what the problem is. See ], where you're welcome to comment. <font face="Century Gothic">] <small>]</small> 17:49, 22 Dec 2009 (UTC)</font> | |||
==Archives== | ==Archives== | ||
Talk page entries that took up waaaaay too much space have been archived ] and here ]. | Talk page entries that took up waaaaay too much space have been archived ] and here ]. | ||
⚫ | == Route description on WA 20 == | ||
⚫ | Please read ]; a substantial route description is expected in a road article. See ] for an example. I do agree that some of the details were unnecessary, and the formatting was a bit off, but it should have been revised, not blindly reverted. --] (] ]) 06:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:49, 24 December 2009
edit count | edit summary usageCurrent discussion | ||||||||
Always remember - first assume good faith... sometimes pigs do fly... and...Jimbo is watching you! The hows-and-whys of this talk pageBecause this is my own user talk page, I have certain rules and standards as to how I like to maintain it.
Thanks for your understanding - may your Misplaced Pages edits be correct, well-referenced and relevant and may you have a great Misplaced Pages day! Barnstar
Userboxes
Mantle décor
Glenn BeckAppreciate your edits Kelly, but perhaps you could read through this talk section and this talk section and comment on your changes. We went through several days gaining some consensus on the section you're rewriting. Not to say that your changes will not be accepted, but they should probably be discussed as a bit of discussion went into the current writing. This was the reason ObserverNY reverted your change earlier. Morphh 19:29, 03 October 2009 (UTC)
Random commentGotta say, I'm impressed by your userboxes -- there are a few in there I wouldn't have expected to see on the same page. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
BickeringNo, I have been jerky. I also added info that was sourced but the inline citation was in the wrong place. I don't recall ever adding unsourced info on a BLP since it is a guideline that cannot be dismissed. Most important, I have admitted to my mistakes and tried to correct them. I don't even mind apologizing to another editor when it is due. Your last comment at the Glenn Beck talk page pretty much summarizes the difference. If you want to continue to bicker about it we should do it on the talk page. Cptnono (talk) 00:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC) MessageMessaged the user regarding his harassment. I've also reported the incident to be reviewed by other editors. Happy editing! Netalarmtalk 06:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
WQAI dont like Eusebus (or whatever his name is) and how he treated you or how he closed out the discussion. If you think it needs further looking into, or would like Equazcion or myself to mediate there with you and whatever other party you would like, I will reopen it. In fact I'd love to reopen it just because of Eusebus' rudeness on my talk page after I asked him on his talk page to apologize to you for his dismissive attitude. Your call, but I think, whether you were really wronged per Misplaced Pages policy or not, you feel hurt and aggrieved, and I will help you get closure (especially if it means pissing off Eusebus).Camelbinky (talk) 04:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank youI was going to message you to thank you for taking a stand with Eusebeus. Thanks for coming to me and expressing your thoughts regarding this chain of events. Yes, I feel wronged. All the way from the admins at the AN/I board today (about which Bwilkins later stated to SarekofVulcan on Sarek's talk page that they should all be ashamed of themselves, BTW) to the treatment I received over this civility issue. I just don't get why admins think they can behave this way and get away with it (maybe because they've been allowed to get away with it?). Anyway...yes, I would like some mediation/arbitration, whatever - in good faith I went and asked for someone to look into the civility issue (at the advice of Bwilkins, an admin) because I would like for the issue(s) JoyDiamond has with me to stop. I don't see her stopping, and someone obviously has to make it stop - one way or another. Thanks for being the adult here - I was starting to think that no one around here is anymore. ;-) SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC) Hello, SkagitRiverQueen. I have left a message that you may be interested in at JoyDiamond's talk page.You can remove this notice at any time by removing this section. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC) Re: SpencerAh...gotcha. I didn't even bother to check the user's history, I just figured they were new and thought the talk page was there for complaints. I didn't mean to get snippy with you, I just get rather irritated by those "delete this because I don't like it" type of comments. Pinkadelica 04:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC) WP:WQASomeone called User:Regisfugit has opened a Wikiquette Alert regarding you. Crafty (talk) 04:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC) ANI noticeHello, SkagitRiverQueen. 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. GiantSnowman 11:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Beverley Jean MorrowI have removed the entry for Beverley Jean Morrow in the article Mount Vernon, Washington. Misplaced Pages has no article on her, and the entry doesn't even say on what grounds she was considered for the peace prize (those grounds, not the mere fact she was being considered, is what the entry should have stated). In lists of notable people from such and such place, we expect every entry to have an article, and when an article about someone on such a list is deleted, we expect the entry to be removed as well. -- Blanchardb -- timed 15:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletionsJust a note: Other editors are allowed to remove speedy delete tags, as long as they aren't the article creator. If someone removes a speedy delete tag it's best to then nominate the article for AfD (regular deletion discussion). Speedy deletion is only for the most obvious and uncontroversial cases, so if there's disagreement over whether or not a page should be deleted, it generally needs to be discussed at AfD. ANI is not the place to go. WP:POLITICIAN states: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." I'm not taking sides myself, but from the above, there are at least reasonable grounds to argue against deletion, so it's not an obvious enough case as to warrant a speedy. I would take this to AfD if I were you. If you'd like to do that and need help, let me know. Equazcion (talk) 21:22, 25 Nov 2009 (UTC)
WashingtonThanks for your post. I wholeheartedly agree that Washington is one of the most beautiful places on earth. There are some pretty nice parts of the East, like the White Mountains in New Hampshire, but they don't compare. I've been to Israel, too, and that's another one of my favorites :). When I was in Washington I took a whale watching trip that specifically went to the places the Orcas like to go. They are amazing animals. I take it that you also like watching birds. I wish I knew more about birds than I do, given that Central Park and other parks in New York are major stops along the bird migration routes and we get some very interesting ones. And BTW, I think you were right about "incensed" and "posited." Take care, AFriedman (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Happy Monday! --AFriedman (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC) has extended an olive branch of peace.
Ted BundyHi, I am trying hard to get everyone to focus more on improving the article than arguing or just revert warring. First, I saw the 3RR notice board comments so I went to EdJohnston's talk to clarify. I needed to know what was agreed upon about taking a week off from editing the Bundy article and if you were still able to contribute to the talk page. Ed said yes to the talk page so here I am. I answered and asked questions on the recent conversations going on there. I have a question for you under the title 'Judges comments' that I wwould appreciate you taking some time to answer if you would. I made three different comments there which shouldn't be hard to locate. Sorry but I am really trying hard to type more but my hands are really tired right now. If you have any questions about what I've said please don't hesitate. I am about to go off line for awhile but I will try to keep a look out for any comments. You can also ping me at my talk page if I miss something. Thanks, --CrohnieGal 16:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
QueenA) How long have you been a queen, dearie? ;-) (the response below was left on B.Fairbairn's talk page)
Route description on WA 20Please read WP:USRD/STDS; a substantial route description is expected in a road article. See California State Route 78 for an example. I do agree that some of the details were unnecessary, and the formatting was a bit off, but it should have been revised, not blindly reverted. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC) ArchivesTalk page entries that took up waaaaay too much space have been archived here and here here. |