Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:49, 29 May 2006

User talk:Phr/Archive-2006-04-03

Hello

Paul: I introduced Sam S. to W. about six months ago. He is a little flakey, and he does add some gossipy stuff to his articles, but he is a smart man, he has an excellent memory and he is mostly writing what he knows. I hope you can find that Misplaced Pages (and the World, for that matter) is big enough for the two of you. I agree with your approach of mostly editing w/o a W account, but I note that some admins now delete IP-based edits without any meaningful discussion. AWM -- 71.139.171.168 08:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought--I do sometimes get a chuckle from reading Sam's writings outside Misplaced Pages, but Misplaced Pages is not the right venue for gossipy stuff and stuff sourced from unverifiable personal knowledge. Also, his reverting and disputing habits are similarly at odds with acceptable Misplaced Pages practices. Finally, I have to take issue with you about Sam's memory. His edits are full of factual errors both large and small, as reviewing the edit history of affected articles clearly shows, and he does not bother to research his assertions before making them. So other editors end up having to do what should be Sam's job, since he's the one making the assertions. Sam should either adapt his style to suit Misplaced Pages's standards, or choose to publish his stuff in other venues that are more suitable for him instead of in Misplaced Pages. Phr 08:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Tawkertbot2 and diffs

I just noticed this on my RfA page (I was looking for questions for someone else) - essentially I don't have nearly enough hard drive space to save all of the diffs, I'm already running with less than 500MB free and starting to save diffs would make it even lower. I guess the point is almost moot now that I do have sysop and can look at the deleted edits, but thats essentially why it doesn't / didn't do it -- Tawker 01:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

RFA

I've answered the question you added to [[Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Lightdarkness |my RFA]]. Thanks for adding it, if you have any other questions, feel free to contact me. Cheers! --lightdarkness 14:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Neologisms

Hi Phr, a while ago you made comments on the Misplaced Pages:Avoid neologisms guideline. I am proposing a revision to the guideline and I'm soliciting your comments. You can find the link to my rewrite at Misplaced Pages talk:Avoid neologisms -- cmh 00:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm sorry if you think I'm too new to be an adminship but I've been being a Wikipedian since December, 2003. I just didn't have an account. I know all about Misplaced Pages. I have interviewed many Wikipedians and have even made friends with a few. I WAS a perfect adminship nominee. An old nominee, General Eisenhower 17:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

List of something I don't really care about

Oh, it is OR but it is not against WP:OR because of In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Misplaced Pages article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions.. I don't think you have to think something is interesting to make a list of it, so I don't get what you are trying to say. I agree, there is a good case that this list is against WP:NOT but it is not against WP:NOR which I inferred that the nom was trying to say. I just don't see the harm in keeping it. People say it is unmaintainable, but I don't see it and even if it was click on history, set it to 500, count the pages. People are willing to maintain this thing for some reason. I for one see no reason not to let them. Kotepho 23:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no use using one policy to say it violates another policy. If it fails WP:NOT it fails WP:NOT; Don't try to get there via WP:NOR. Kotepho 00:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Take Me Higher RfC Comment

You left a relevant comment on the RfC for Take Me Higher regarding model releases. Could you move the comment over to the actual RFC in the appropriate section? Stude62 23:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability

(from my talk page; I replied there)

This is a difficult issue and I understand where you are coming from. However, my "research" is different from the above example in that it does not contradict anything that is common knowledge. It is well known in the anarchist commmunity that the FAQ is going to be published by AK Press. There is nothing stating the FAQ is NOT going to be published.

WP:V says "Because it is not verifiable in a way that would satisfy the Misplaced Pages readership or other editors." - in this case, my claim is easy to verify: anyone can e-mail AK Press and ask them themselves. I am not acting on behalf of AK Press in divulging this information, which is not even new - news of the FAQ's publication has been around for quite a while. -- infinity0 11:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Grabbing wikitext for old revisions

Hi, I noticed your note on Yurik's talk page about this. Just in case you haven't come across it yet, I thought I should mention the action=raw&oldid=123456 syntax, which is useful for grabbing (single) revisions of old wikitext. Lupin|talk|popups 03:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I added Query Interface Suggestions page - if interested, drop by and comment :) --Yurik 19:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

User 207.99.90.253

Phr -- I noticed that you gave a final vandalism warning to user 207.99.90.253 . I just removed his/her nonsense post to article New York City] and added a note on his/her user page. If this nonsense edit constitutes "vandalism" by wiki guidelines, please block this user from editing. Thanks, Docether 21:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Your prod of Fitzgerald Hotel

Courtesy notice. See AfD here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fitzgerald Hotel. I think your prod was a little misguided, given how many prior editors thought the article was fine. Someone even included it into the category for SF landmarks. If you believe an established year-old article with a dozen editors ought to be deleted, you should go to AfD right away. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)