Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:02, 25 August 2014

Got questions? post any new questions by starting a new section below. Before posting, understand the following: If it isn't cited, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia; don't even bother arguing it with me. I am a a follower of Conan the Grammarian: if it's bad writing, I am going to correct it or kill it. I am polite and appreciate politeness in turn. If you act like an ass-hat, I'll ignore you, report you, or simply point and laugh. If I have asked you to not post on my usertalk page, please respect that request and don't do it. If you do anyway, I'll simply delete it and seek your block. I like butterscotch; oddly enough, I also like butter and scotch. Funny how that worked out. In any case, I don't know how that matters here, but I'm just throwing that out there, in case anyone wants to send me some.

My Talk Archives

2010: 4.16 - 11.02 2011: 11.03 - 12.31≈ 2012: 12.31 - 6.22 2012: 01.23 - 12.27 2013: 01.07 - 09.29 2013: 12.17 - 2014: 07.02

Please comment on Talk:Kenji Miyazawa

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kenji Miyazawa. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:La Roux

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:La Roux. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Unbelievable...

You know, especially after their recent block, I desperately would like to believe that Darkfrog has come to better understand our concerns and is attempting to modify their approach to the situation accordingly...and to be fair, they haven't edited the article since their block (that I'm recalling). But their responses to me on their Talk page and the most recent comment on the article's Talk page, which seemed like they hadn't even read what I'd said about RSN, are making it damn hard for me to AGF. It's as though they'd rather simply go round and round debating the situation than do anything that would yield a definitive result.

I'll be the first to say that I think earlier neither one of you was handling the whole thing well, and I'm glad to be able to say that I think you've gotten a bit better about limiting your engagement to a less provocative level lately.

Sorry, just needed to vent for a moment. DonIago (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries; Darkfrog's tendentious and problematic behavior has had me hitting the gym more often nowadays. I foresee an indef block in her future. She cannot help herself. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I would say we've essentially given her a path forward. She can present other sources, go to RSN, or just drop the stick and move on to something else. Her continued attempts to try turning the tables, especially when she's the one who got blocked, is just...ridiculous. DonIago (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

While I tend to agree with the underlying sentiments, you might want to ease back a bit on DF. Your points are good and valid, but in my estimation you may be laying it on a little thick. Just a suggestion. Personally I've gotten quiet because I'm waiting to see whether anything happens at RSN; I don't really feel the need to chime in at either discussion presently. DonIago (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the sanity check. I agree, so I've self-redacted. No spense calling a spade a WP:SPADE. My pops used to say that no one person was the smartest in the room. I agree; I cannot be the pnly one noting Darkfrog's problematic behavior. I don't need to hand her a shovel to bury herself, or need to join her in the hole she's digging. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Funny you say that; one of my signature lines is, "They dug their own hole; I just lent them the shovel." I think the reality is that the RSN filing is going to go nowhere (perhaps unfortunate, as ideally an actual opinion would be better), and DF will still have no consensus supporting their sources. At this time I think the most surprising outcome would be if the sources were ultimately supported by other editors, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it. DonIago (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps DF failed in that she put them all together in a single RSN request; maybe she thought the crush of them would have served her purpose, or obfuscated the matter thoroughly. <shrugs> Maybe you and I should list them individually at RSN. Less to chew through. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty happy with my current level of (non-)involvement honestly, and while you may have a valid point, I'd dread the potential for a bunch of dialogs versus one... Anyway, AFAIC the sources are all unreliable anyway, so while it may not be the most charitable of me, a lack of consensus for inclusion basically works in my favor... But if you want to be the better person, you could do that...but might want to tell DF you're planning to do it first, in case they'd actually have a problem with it. DonIago (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

She has her wall o' textual obfuscation™. I'm thinking that a clear signal would finally shut her up and move the conversation forward. However, I see your point. I'll submit a few and see where that gets us. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm done talking to her (at least for now). I told her where my concerns lie, and either she's not hearing what I'm saying, acting like she's not hearing what I'm saying, or simply doesn't understand me, and I have no idea how to communicate with her in a way that will change that at this point. In any case, as I said at OK Talk, until there's either a consensus to use the sources or a decision at RSN we have our path forward, and frankly I think either one of those just isn't going to be happening. DonIago (talk) 04:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh joy, another RfC. I'm not planning to get involved unless it's desperately needed. DonIago (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I'm seriously considering this or not, but if I proposed simply banning all comparison of the episode to the books that could not be explicitly and directly confirmed by a single reliable source (i.e. no using multiple sources to build a case), how would you feel about that? In other words, no complicated constructions of statements cited to multiple sources; if a specific source doesn't say it, we don't include it. DonIago (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I am and have always been in favor of that idea. The whole point of us being editors and not authors is that we aren't citable. Our Sherlocking should not be in the article. Go for it. I'll back that play. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done DonIago (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

DF is either amazingly dense or really desperate to game the system as much as possible. Either way I want to head-desk. DonIago (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mad Max: Fury Road

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mad Max: Fury Road. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Of Human Feelings

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Of Human Feelings. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:RSN

I see that you are a regular discussant at WP:RSN. A question just got archived at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 175#Alfonso Gomez-Rejon interview. Do you have any advice.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

That happens - questions get archived if they grow stale. You have, imo, three choices. First, you can consider the lack of answer to the question an answer in and of itself. If someone disagreed with you, then they would have spoken up. Secondly, you can cut and paste the exact same, archived question back into the queue, refloating the question. Thirdly - and I have only heard of this - is to make incremental changes to the post in order to prevent the bot from detecting it as stale. Your mileage may vary. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

If you believe that they agreed with me, what did they agree about. I don't think I stated an opinion. Do you interpret that I did?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me check on it later on today and think out a response. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me a little time. The kid is exploring everything that could possibly kill them, so vigilance is key (and WP comes in a very distant 27th).

I don't see any commentary about the noticeboard post you, well, posted. There is likewise, no discussion about the source - from you or anyone else. In the article edit history, it appears that you and Gothicfilm disagreed about the wording and placement of the celebrity assistant thing, but nothing actively connected to the reliability of the source. Christina Radish appears to be a staff member for Colider. The real question would seem to be, 'is Collider a notable news source?' IMO, it is, but if you are concerned with the source, re-list and get more input. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that there is some confusion. The Radish sourced content is not something that there has been warring about. It is content I am considering adding. I was just not sure if it was a valid source. If you think Colider is a RS, I will just add the content. Thanks for taking a look.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

A Newcastle for you!

This might cheer you up. DonQuixote (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)