Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:15, 1 January 2015

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2
Archive 3	Archive 4
Archive 5	Archive 6- The Beginning

Thanks for calling me a zombie

Mind if I eat your brain? Just because I don't edit much doesn't make me a zombie account. --coldacid (talk|contrib) 19:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Listen Chris, I know you came to the page through gamergate canvassing. So yea, you are a 'zombie account' that came to the page for the reasons I gave. But no, I don't want you to eat my brain, only if we got parts in TWD or the new companion series. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Listen you, bud, I've been fighting you damn deletionists before there was GG, regardless of how I've come across the page. I found out about the attempt to get rid of it through KiA, but I've been watching the page since before that. So kindly stuff it. --coldacid (talk|contrib) 21:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll add that it's the deletionist and special interest attitude at Misplaced Pages that has caused my reduced editing here, as well. Why bother contributing when there are folks like you to cut and spin everything? --coldacid (talk|contrib) 21:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    • FFS, I'm not a 'deletionist', under logical definitions. I probably have !voted in less than half a dozen AFDs. But I do understand when articles are not articles, but platforms for people to spout their views. Evidently, your vote to keep the article was just asking for the closer to ignore Misplaced Pages policies. Hardly worth the effort. Yet you continue to canvass KIA and promote this trash via Twitter. Unbelievable. Dave Dial (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

More Civility

Hi Dave Dial, I've noticed that you have made a rather uncivil political insinuation about me in your edit summary here. Please respect WP:Civility. This is your second reminder from me tonight, and it appears that I am not the only editor that has needed to remind you of this recently. Misplaced Pages works better for everyone when we all follow the policies and try to interact constructively with each other. If you have concerns about my edits, I will be happy to have a rational discussion about them on the talk pages, in hopes that we may find a mutually-agreeable consensus. TBSchemer (talk) 06:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• It's not uncivil to state the truth in an edit summary. Your edit summary claiming some kind of "discussion" on the Talk page was misleading at best, since you were the only participant in that "discussion". And your hostility towards the subject of the article is obvious. There is POV(everyone has one) and there is delusion. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Racists, hypocrites, and loonies

Oh my! On the principle of "you have to laugh or you'll cry", I shall say thanks for the free entertainment! Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• Yea, that's about the only thing one can do at this point. There are dozens of "seek and destroy" operations. I believe Jimmy isn't purposely causing extreme havoc on the project, but the results are the same. I refuse to even post anything at the ArbCom case, or any of the effected articles, at this point. I just have to shake my head and hope sane people see the obvious. Dave Dial (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Deleted file

I had to delete your screenshot of the Amherst paper retraction. As @DHeyward: correctly pointed out on his talkpage, it was listed as an own work when the evidence indicates that you do not own the copyright to the image, and the publication does not seem to be compatible with GFDL or CC-BY-SA. It was hypocritical of you (and I) to link to an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work when admonishing DHeyward for doing essentially the same thing, so the image needed to go. The Wordsmith 23:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• Meh, ok, I guess. I am not really up in those kind of issues, and I was just trying to show the retraction since the Amherst website is hard to navigate. I(mistakenly apparently) believed a partial screen grab from a website was within copyright rules. My apologies. Although if I were an admin I may be more concerned with DHeyward's lack of understanding about our BLP policies and the definition of "unsubstantiated". Dave Dial (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• I spoke to him about that too. I'm trying to de-escalate the whole situation, before he ends up with a topic ban. He makes some good edits and has good points frequently, so I don't want that to happen. The Wordsmith 00:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Ok, sounds good to me. I much rather have a de-escalation than anything else. I have no problem with people making mistakes, we all do that. Thanks! Dave Dial (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• For illustration, I didn't mind the image. Sometimes an image is necessary to make the point and it was made as I had not seen the retraction and it was not obvious from a link, so the image was an excellent solution if not within the letter of the rules. That is also the reasoning for WP:BLPTALK allowance of links to content that it is otherwise unsuitable or questionable as a reference on WP. It's subtle but important distinction. Intention is key and context is key (just like the response to copy vio depends). Avono's talk discussion was about how widespread coverage was, not whether that reference was usable for allegations. At some point, say, if Quinn sues, those same statements may be repeated in other journals to show what she is suing for - the precedent that linking to a site for a discussion, without actually repeating the allegation is chilling but not in a good way. I certainly understand the problem with the source. The retraction's characterization is nearly as problematic as the article (WP wouldn't use any of those words in the specific allegations, ours are much stronger). The retraction didn't even mention the TFYC stuff which some people see as objectionable as the other stuff. I understand the problem with content, I don't like seeing the link that Avono presented that showed Tarc intimidating another editor with it. --DHeyward (talk) 00:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Yea, I posted the screen grab because I was having a hard time navigating through their website and reading the retraction. So I did a "Prt Scr", saved the file and uploaded it so to show the wording of the retraction. But I do not agree the retraction, even if somewhat vulgar, is a problem. It just illustrates the problem. In any case, I don't want to delve further into GG land. I just wanted to state I believe Wordsmith acted appropriately and I support the TBan. I really don't know many of the editors involved here, and I sure don't want good editors blocked or banned. So I hope at this point we can move forward. No damage. Dave Dial (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Where's the beef?. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! - Victor Victoria (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)