Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:52, 18 September 2012

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Markup export from "Top Namespace Edits"

Hi there, would it be possible to at a parameter that allows exporting the list of created pages in wiki markup syntax? Thanks in advance, --Flominator (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you point to which page you'd like that on? I didn't write these tools, I only host them because the guy retired. So it's not clear to me which one you want this feature added.--v/r - TP 17:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I meant this page as a wikilist. Regards, --Flominator (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Created Articles

Is it possible to write a function for an export of the list in Wiki-Syntax #] / Diskussion: ? I would find it great.

Protect on Paul Ryan

The article is already under probation. Topic bans are far more appropriate than yet another "last warning" accompanied by a protection that cuts off the WP:ROPE. And yes, I am advocating a "ban 'em all and let ArbCom sort 'em out" attitude; in my opinion anything (aside from BLP violations, which nobody's alleging here) is better than protecting a probation article. Respectfully, Homunq (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm WP:AGF that some of these editors think that per WP:3RR, the 4th revert is the blockable offense. I don't think they are aware of WP:EW and that they can be blocked for the first revert or even if they are reverting material that was reverted by others. I know I could issue a topic ban, but I'm giving the two that I issued final warnings to a last chance for redemption. My effort is to promote the best possible course for successful collaboration in the spirit of Misplaced Pages that I can. However, both editors are literally on their last chance. The page protection was only 2 days and to encourage discussion. It should expire tomorrow.--v/r - TP 20:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, that makes some sense. But didn't you know you'd end up protecting the WP:WRONGVERSION?

Cheers, Homunq (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

:D The day a sysop protects the right version, Misplaced Pages is complete.--v/r - TP 23:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

"Homunq: Your understanding of WP:FORUM is way off."

What did you mean by that? I mean, how am I off? Homunq (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM is about folks who use the talk pages to discuss the subject itself rather than the article. Anytime the article itself is being discussed is outside of the scope of WP:FORUM. Examples include "Oh my God, Britney Spears is coming to Miami this fall, who wants tickets?" ect. In the case of that, Arzel is discussing the article itself and WP:FORUM is inapplicable.--v/r - TP 09:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI: refusal to use dispute resolution utterly

There was a discussion at WP:DRN on Christian Right.

One editor, calling the process a "cesspool" in that discussion, seems to view dispute resolution as something which he is absolutely free to ignore. Were it not for the fact that this editor has repeatedly shown colours not compatible with collegial editing, this would not be of great import.

His latest edit on the article talk page shows a rather combative attitude, indeed:

Just to be clear, this material from DRN is not a genuine consensus and is not binding upon the editors of this article

Which is rich as he refused in no uncertain terms to participate in the process, brought a prior volunteer for DRN to AN/I etc.

But wait there's more! (Ron Popeil speaking)

I told you so. DRN is absolutely worthless. The moderators don't prevent personal attacks and they don't follow WP:CLOSE.

In short, I would suggest that the leash you are holding might well be shortened an inch (or two). Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I knew the calm could not last:

the Christian right is an informal coalition of formed around a core of evangelical Protestants that draws "support from politically conservative Catholics, Jews, Mormons, and occasionally secularists" who share their goals

(adding "Bob Jones University to a list of uncited "Christian Right" schools)

*Bob Jones University — Protestant Fundamentalist university, founded in 1927. George W. Bush spoke at the school's chapel hour on February 2, 2000 as a presidential candidate

Making a clear SYNTH link to the Republican Party contrary to the Dispute Resolution result. The source he gives for this claim is an abstract for Into the Wilderness: Ronald Reagan, Bob Jones University, and the Political Education of the Christian Right which was clearly google-farmed for the purpose of linking the Republican Party to the Christian Right, and for no other valid purpose at all. The actual article is far different from the use to which it is ill-put here. (The objectionable part is the "George W. Bush spoke here" implying therefore a connection between "Christian Right" and "George W. Bush" which is not made in the actual article at all!). The actual link shows BJU described as a "fundamentalist Christian university" and not as a "Christian Right university", the article is about the IRS case and the Christian Right's poor relationship with Ronald Reagan, and nothing whatsoever about Bush (clear and deliberate SYNTH violation and violation of WP:BLP as an unsourced claim about a living person. Collect (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

OMG - hjere he absolutely violates the entire reason for DRN:

The Christian right plays a "powerful role" within the Republican Party, which it is "intertwined with which is 180 degrees from the resolution at DRN. And places the WP:FRINGE stuff in the lede to boot. Cheers. -- looks like SS247 is off on a spree. Collect (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

OK -- he has gone past the pale:

Merging back, 2RR, see talk for full explanation (edit summary)

The material "merged back" clearly is politically chosen edit war

The Christian right plays a "powerful role" within the Republican Party, which it is "intertwined with"

is absolutely connected with American Presidential politics on its face, the editor has been warned many times for edit war, and this is a clear example thereof. He also readds a claim which is 'not inthe source given, etc. Collect (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

OMG^2 he is on an editing rampage -- re-adding that Fox News has Christian employees (Fox News Channel, which has numerous conservative commentators, has been the preferred news network for the Christian right; as many of the network's key figures are Evangelical Christians), The Christian right has been a notable force in both the Republican party and American politics since the late 1970's, , and so on and on and on. At least he hasn;t reverted the "timeline" stuff whose only purpose was political. Articles ought to be about the stated topic of the article, and not about political POV pushing, conspiracy and WP:FRINGE pushing, and frankly SS-247 is way past those limits <g>. Collect (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I think an RFC/U is in order.--v/r - TP 14:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

He started one <g>. Does WP:BOOMERANG work in such places? Cheers. - but I would like SS247 being given more than just his 20th warning at some point (15 different admins have warned him now). Collect (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

When I issue a topic ban, I want it to stick. Generally, RFC/Us rarely have room for a boomerang and a new RFC/U right now would be seen as retaliatory. Standingstill24-7's behavior, though, is going to catch up to him at some point. He is playing right on the line because he thinks when he gets a block or ban that he can argue ambiguity and blur the lines. He's going to mess up. His behavior is not collaborative and his battleground behavior isn't going to serve him well for much longer. Patience.--v/r - TP 14:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Rtmcrrctr

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Rtmcrrctr (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Rtmcrrctr. -- Homunq (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget to get a second certifier to sign it.--v/r - TP 14:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)