Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:52, 4 May 2011

For future reference: Links to resources and archives

Archives 2005 Archives 2006 Archives 2007 Archives 2008 Archives 2009 Archives 2010 Archives 2011

• Antandrus's good-humored, funny, and charming list of Misplaced Pages behaviors and pitfalls
• My sandbox
• My code snippets
• My Wikimedia stuff
• WP:EITW : Resources for editors
• WP:G : Misplaced Pages glossary
• *******************************
• WP:NOTVAND : Page discussing what is and isn't vandalism
• WP:DIS : Dealing with disruptive editors
• WP:NPOVD aka WP:DRIVEBY : Essay about NPOV disputes, a useful supplement to the guidance at WP:NPOV
• WP:AIV : Page to report vandalism
• *******************************
• FeydHuxtable: Search Techniques
• Misplaced Pages:Userboxes : Userpage templates!

Your post to Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know about misuse for political gain

Hi Betsy. Thanks for the thread you started about the misuse of the DYK process for political gain. I hope you don't mind that I re-named the section in a way that I think is more descriptive, and more likely to draw attention and comment. I provided an anchor to the section, under the name that you gave it, and verified that the link you provided on Gatoclass' talk page still works. But you started the thread, and if you disapprove of the change, I'd have no objection to a revert. Will probably comment there soon. Thanks for your attention to the problem: it definitely needs much more "sunshine", much braoder exposure and comment from the wider community, imo ... I don't suppose people will try to change the policy page now that you've raised the issue there? I'll have to watchlist that. ;-) If you'd like to reply, you can do so here, as I've temporarily watchlisted this page. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. I changed the link from Gatoclass's page to a diff for what I actually posted. I also tweaked the new title (removing quotes) and readded the old in text, just for clarity. I hope that the discussion there will focus on the policy rather than attacks on people for calling attention to the policy. betsythedevine (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No longer sorry

Hi Betsythedevine, I'd like to let you know that I am no longer sorry for what I told you. I am afraid my first impression about you was absolutely right. Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this impressively elegant notification. You actually made your renewed hostility clear three weeks ago, after I did something else that met your disapproval: . For anyone eating popcorn at home over this, the story of Mbz1's brief "sorry" is here:

FWIW my objection to the politicization of DYK is not aimed at you personally. I really think letting people -- any people -- turn DYK into a propaganda weapon is a bad thing for DYK and for Misplaced Pages. betsythedevine (talk) 04:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Betsythedevine, I am very sure you declined DYK not because of me personally, but it does not mean your decline is a valid one. This article promotes nothing. It is a review of a book, and I used both positive and negative reviews. You are absolutely, more than welcome to add any review you want, but from RS. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

You made many more that 1 revert in less than 24 hours, and besides you added POV tag against clear consensus. The source you used was found to be absolutely unreliable Please revert yourself.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That source, which you yourself added to the article, is alleged to be unreliable by Rym Torch. The article has many problems with neutrality, the fact that several editors under ARBPIA sanction have flocked here to keep it non-neutral is not what Misplaced Pages has in mind as "consensus." The NPOV tag states "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." Please discuss issues with the article on the article talk page, not here. Please discuss issues with my behavior at some appropriate noticeboard, and be sure to include diffs of my alleged edit-warring when confronted with you and Broccolo tag-team removing the NPOV tag. betsythedevine (talk) 05:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually Broccolo has never removed the tag, so I am not sure what are you talking about, and a warning about edit warring should be placed at a user's talk page, and not at an article's page.

There's no dispute about the article. It is only you who claim it should be tagged.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You are right that Broccolo did not remove the tag, instead he repeatedly removed something else he considered POV. My mistake. But that being the case, I don't see any reverts by me in 24 hours other than putting back the POV tag that you inappropriately removed. betsythedevine (talk) 05:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaking about the reverts. I know it is very confusing, but actually each and every change of the article could be counted as a revert. For example this is a revert and of course there are quite a few more like those.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

<--So every time I edit an article it "could be counted" as a revert? I have been editing Misplaced Pages for years without knowing this ... fascinating. betsythedevine (talk) 07:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Here it is--Mbz1 (talk) 07:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1, the fact that you wrote the entire article in your talk page before posting it does not mean that nobody else can try to improve said article 3 times in one day, even though in a sense every edit involves changing "your" work. But you better caution Gilabrand, who has made many more changes in the last two hours than I made in 24. betsythedevine (talk) 07:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I have never said nobody could edit it. Just the opposite. I asked you and Gato, and everybody else to edit it, and to add more reviews but only from RS. I am still asking you to do it. It is much more productive approach than creating dramas. Gila did not violate revert because another rule states that a continues edit of the article is consider to be a single revert, in other words, if you go ahead, and change a few sections in a few sessions followed one after another it is one revert. I cannot find the rule to link to, but you could ask any admin, and they would confirm it.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Q

I got a kick out of this. I really envy the lucky guy who got Q. Qrsdogg (talk) 05:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There are probably 26 lucky old editors somewhere ... and wasn't Q the boss of James Bond? So make that 25 lucky old editors and 1 extremely lucky one who is your namesake... betsythedevine (talk) 07:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I grew up watching Star Trek, so this Q was always my favorite. Qrsdogg (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

A false acusation = personal attack

You complained about my three recent articles at DYK talk page, and then made an accusation at User talk:Qrsdogg. you said they got promoted by my friends. If it is not so much to ask for, could you please provide the differences of my "tag team" that promoted my articles you mentioned on DYK talk page, and, if you cannot provide such difference, would it be to much to ask you to strike out the comment, and give it another thought before making a false accusations against me ever again?--Mbz1 (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)