| Revision as of 23:55, 17 December 2014 editBeyond My Ken (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers263,266 edits →Stub tags← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:37, 18 December 2014 edit undoRedban (talk | contribs)378 edits ←Replaced content with '{{retired}}'Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{retired}} | |||
| == Welcome! == | |||
| Hello, Redban, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for ], especially your edits to ]. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: | |||
| * ] and ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] and ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| Please remember to ] your messages on ]s by typing four ]s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on ], or <span class="plainlinks">{{input link |label=click here to ask for help here on your talk page |page=Special:Mytalk |preload=Help:Contents/helpmepreload |preloadtitle=Help me! |type=newsection}}</span> and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! <!-- Template:Welcome --> ] (] | ]) 02:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Redban, you are invited to the Teahouse! == | |||
| {| style="margin: 2em 4em;" | |||
| |- valign="top" | |||
| | ] | |||
| | <div style="background-color:#f4f3f0; color: #393D38; padding: 1em;border-radius:10px; font-size: 1.1em;"> | |||
| Hi '''Redban'''! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages. Come join experienced editors at ]! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from '''experienced editors'''. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Misplaced Pages works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and '''get advice from experts'''. I hope to see you there! {{noping|Jtmorgan}} (]) | |||
| <div class="submit ui-button ui-widget ui-state-default ui-corner-all ui-button-text-only" role="button" aria-disabled="false"><span class="ui-button-text">]</span></div><small><span style="text-align:right;">This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, ] (]) 16:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)</small></span> | |||
| </div> | |||
| |} | |||
| ]<!-- Template:Teahouse_HostBot_Invitation --> | |||
| ==Porn biography AfD's== | |||
| Hello, Redban. You recently participated in an ] in which you attempted to persuade users that she is notable enough for a Misplaced Pages article. Her article was still deleted and I understand your frustration, but attempting to delete articles on other notable porn actresses who you're simply not familiar with is counterproductive. In Bitoni's AfD, you stated, "Either this page remains or you remove 99% of the pornstar biographies on Misplaced Pages", which seems to me like your only motivation for starting ]. I'm sure you've noticed in Bitoni's AfD that Misplaced Pages has many anti-porn editor's, such as the one which said "We shouldn't be hosting articles about living people, especially when they are claimed to be involved in activities that many people find distasteful". Now, you're not angering the anti-porn editor's who changed the ] guideline as an excuse to delete several notable porn star's articles (including Bitoni's) by asking that we delete even more, since that is actually what they want to do to Misplaced Pages, eliminate as many porn biographies as possible. Who you're hurting here is the pro-porn/neutral editors (many of which are probably on your side) who have contributed to these articles, spending several hours on them by both searching for sources and writing content. I also disagree with the deletion of Audrey Bitoni's article and several others as well, and that is why I would like to prevent even more deletions of notable porn stars. You're new to Misplaced Pages and I'm sure you think it's preposterous that Bitoni no longer has an article and that Misplaced Pages's PORNBIO guideline isn't more inclusive, but many anti-porn users are still not satisfied with the amount of porn stars passing PORNBIO and are looking for an incentive to make it even stricter. Most of the AfD's you started are for porn stars who do pass PORNBIO. Did you even read the PORNBIO guideline before starting these AfD's? ] (]) 08:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==Your recent edits== | |||
| ] Hello and ]. When you add content to ] and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to ]. There are two ways to do this. Either: | |||
| # Add four ]s ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or | |||
| # With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (] or ]) located above the edit window. | |||
| This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when. | |||
| Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-tilde --> --] (]) 20:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Warning == | |||
| ]. Stop it, now, otherwise you are in for very tough times. This is not a menace, take it as a friendly advice. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to play ]. --] 10:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I've closed the two AfD's that you created as a speedy keep. While your points are noted, these seemed to be retaliatory and disruptive. Please read ], ], and ] before nominating another article for deletion. <span style="font-family: MV Boli;">]]</span> 18:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Numerous AFDs == | |||
| Could you please wait for the numerous AFDs that you've started to work through before creating any more. Jamming all of these through will not give people enough time to potentially improve the articles before the AFDs close. Or find that they indeed can't improve them. <span style="font-family:monospace;">]</span>|] 16:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Not a problem -- I won't make another one for at least two weeks ] (]) 16:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==Please calm down== | |||
| There's no need to be so upset over the deletion of Audrey Bitoni's article. Just because she didn't pass PORNBIO this time doesn't mean she can't pass it in the future and have her article restored. If she ever wins an award or is inducted into a Hall of Fame, I'll probably be the first one to recreate her article. Are you sure you really want PORNBIO to become stricter or for the guideline to be eliminated entirely? If that happens, forget about ever having Bitoni's article restored. Bitoni is a lot more likely to pass PORNBIO one day than GNG. And just so you know, articles aren't required to pass EVERY guideline, just ONE. Bitoni's article was deleted because she didn't pass either PORNBIO or GNG. If she would have passed just one of those two, her article would have been kept. Most of the articles you've started AfD's for pass PORNBIO, but you're arguing that they should still be deleted because they don't pass the GNG as well. Eva Angelina, another one of your favorite porn stars, passes PORNBIO with flying colors, but likely doesn't pass GNG. I really wonder how you would feel if someone decided to start an AfD for her and argue that her numerous accolades and accomplishments are worthless and that we should ignore them and delete her page. If you really want 99% of porn star biographies deleted from Misplaced Pages, Eva Angelina's would likely be one of them. ] (]) 17:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Tagging for notability == | |||
| Let alone 4 (at least) disruptive and baseless AfD discussions you started. The time-rate of your tagging (even a notability tag every 30 seconds!) shows you do not even care to check the articles you tag. Many of them are baseless, some of them (eg ] or ]) are SPECTACULARLY baseless (and not just per PORNBIO guideline). I am starting to be tired of your childish and disruptive behaviour. If you don't change your attitude I will be forced to ask for a ban/block of you at ] (if someone else do not anticipate me). There are editors who were banned for much less than what you're doing. ] 18:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Tags are harmless. And the tags that you've removed are debatable. ], for example, has awards for her website and "Best Tease Performance"; none of which are prestigious enough to qualify as "well-known and significant" per ]. Again, the tags are harmless and only alert editors to a page's faults, or potential faults. The result thereof can only be improvement. Another example: Ashlynn Brooke, whom I had tagged, now has a clear page because apparently an award for "Favorite Breasts" is well-known and significant. ] (]) 18:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Pretty much ''everything'' is debatable on this site, but we do strive for some consistency and acceptable guidelines even in the ]. If you have concerns, please bring them to the Talk page of the project and we'll be happy to address them. Thx! --] ] ☮ღ☺ 18:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Tags are not "harmless", considering that you are tagging articles such as ], which leaves other editors to clean up the mess after you. Stop it or I will bring this to ]. ] (]) 19:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: ] doesn't deserve a tag? Her awards are for best Supporting actress, best social media, and best new web starlet. I don't treat those internet awards seriously, and best supporting actress, based on the word "supporting," does not seem to be significant.] (]) 19:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: No, that article should not have been tagged. I suppose ] is insignificant, as well? I suggest you discuss this at ] before progressing any further. ] (]) 19:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Sigh... Let alone it is crystal clear that it is the award that needs to be well-known and significant (], ], ] and so on), while the category need to be individual (non scene-related, and supporting actress or best new starlet certainly are). ] 19:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * And what about tagging for notability ? What is your excuse? ] 19:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::], I'm waiting for an explaination, WHY you tagged the article? ] 21:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Now I also came across this disruptive tagging, please self-revert or I will remove them and report you to ANI. <i style="font-family:Verdana">] ]</i> 22:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Notice == | |||
| ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ]. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. --]]<small>]</small> 16:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Question == | |||
| Hi, are you the Redban from Burbank? ] (]) 01:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry, I'm not. I've never heard of Burbank. ] (]) 01:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Heh. That's something he would say. :) ] (]) 01:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Don't you mean "]"...? --] ] ☮ღ☺ 02:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Stub tags == | |||
| Stub tags go at the '''''bottom''''' of articles., not at the top. Also, please see ] for the definition of what a stub is. ] (]) 22:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: Well, it says, "Stub templates are usually located at the bottom of the page," which sounds flexible; as if its optional. I think it looks better at the top, but I'll relent and put it at the bottom from now. ] (]) 23:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, it's really not flexible. I've been here since 2005 and have 150,000+ edits to thousands of articles, and I've '''''never''''' seen a stub tag at the top of an article. I've reverting yours, which you shouldn't have added abyway, considering the ANI report about your previous tagging spree. ] (]) 23:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You're violating ]: "'''Reversion is not a proper tool for punishing an editor or retaliating or exacting vengeance.''' No edit, reversion or not, should be made for the purpose of teaching another editor a lesson or keeping an editor from enjoying the fruits of his crimes." You may read this quote in the final paragraph of the section titled, "Unacceptable Revisions." A decade at Misplaced Pages notwithstanding, you should be the subject of an ANI report, not I. ] (]) 23:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I reverted your edits because you put the tags in the wrong place. I don't necessarily agree with the tags (some of the articles are not very stubby) so it's not my responsibility to '''''move''''' the tags, only to remove them from the wrong location. There was no retaliation or vengence in the edits, simply cleaning up a mess you made. ] (]) 23:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Red, the stub tags are OK when its appropriate, please just place them at the bottom where they belong. But doing anything just to make a ] doesn't accomplish anything. Thanks, --] ] ☮ღ☺ 23:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I've blocked Redban for 24 hours for disruptive editing. For them to continue in the same vein in light of the flood of complaints above and the ANI discussion is unacceptable, and their responses to BMK are effectively trolling. Hopefully they'll get it eventually. ''']''' ('']'') 23:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC) | |||