Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:08, 27 July 2006

This is an archive of past discussions with User:John254. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

71.107.251.78

This IP is currently blocked for a month. I suggest ignoring the vandalism to the user talk page, until they get bored, and then reverting it back. If it becomes a real problem (e.g. posting of personal attacks), it might be worth requesting page protection at WP:RFPP. Cheers TigerShark 18:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the recent vandalism on my userpage and talk page :). Fabricationary 19:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Trolling

I recently got a message saying I was trolling and that I should contribute to the work of others not destroy it. I believe it was on comments on the Fabio Grosso page. I am interested in what trolling is, becuase I usually edit articles, never go on the pages, however my emotions got the best of me and I typed what was on my mind and the minds of at least 20 million others. Grosso will not step foot on aussie soil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.49.85 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 9 July 2006

Comments such as this are highly inflammatory and wholly irrelevant to the discussion what content should be in the article. While in practice there is substantial leeway in the use of talk pages for temperate discussion of personal opinions and other matters not directly related to content decisions, this comment goes far beyond the customary limits of discourse on these pages. John254 16:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

My alleged vandalism of History of the World Part 1

I would first of all like to say I am pleased and surprised how quickly you act, after reading people boast about alterations they have made to articles to include insults, I was not sure how good the service was.

Secondly, I don't believe I vandalised a page, nor gave incorrect information, and was merely trying to add to a page. In History of the World Part 1, as the cavemen rise and the music from 2001 plays, they begin beating their chests, then they beat a little lower, repeatedly, until a groan is heard and they start lying down. Now maybe I misinterpreted the scene, they may have been collapsing after hitting themselves below the belt, but I did not intend to cause any vandalism.

If any actual offence was caused I apologise, but I meant no harm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.201.221 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 9 July 2006

You wrote "...an obvious parody of the opening sequence of 2001: A Space Odyssey wherein the first men immediately discover masturbation." Syntactically, "wherein the first men immediately discover masturbation" modifies "2001: A Space Odyssey" -- you are claiming, essentially, that "2001: A Space Odyssey" includes depictions of masturbation. "2001: A Space Odyssey" is a G rated film, and, having previously viewed it myself, I can state with great confidence that no acts of masturbation are depicted in it. The correctness of this literal construction of your edit is further suggested by the fact that events that actually are depicted in "History of the World, Part I" are described in a subsequent sentence: "Memorable scenes include depictions of inventing fire, the first marriage, the first artist (which in turn gives rise to the first critic), and early attempts at comedy and music." John254 01:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Nigelj's comments on Talk:Vulva, npa warnings, etc

I like your picture :-) I'm here because I noticed your recent issue with Nigelj. I have found in the past that he is happy to listen to debate and look at things on the basis of evidence eg here. I hope you can work together in future. Stephen B Streater 17:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Nigelj has recently engaged in serious violations of Misplaced Pages policies. In his comments on Talk:Vulva, the statement "about which he apparently knows so little" is clearly a personal attack. After I placed a legitimate npa-2 warning on his talk page, Nigelj removed the warning without comment, then proceeded to make a personal attack on Reisio in an edit summary. When Paul Cyr restored the initial npa-2 warning, Nigelj removed it without comment again. Nigelj's removals of legitimate warnings from his talk page constitute talk page vandalism. Given the fact that Nigelj has recently engaged in two personal attacks, and two acts of vandalism, I believe that it is of vital importance that he avoid such misconduct in the future. John254 20:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi John254 - why don't you go and have a read of the discussion at User talk:Paul Cyr#My talk page? I hope that, in time, you'll find that it really is possible for us all to rub along here together without too many sparks, and without too much formality (and degrees of violation and series of templates and levels of warning etc etc). Even if things didn't get off to the best of starts, then hey, times can only get better :-) --Nigelj 07:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

n.b. I am removing the warnings I placed on User talk:Nigelj as it appears that the policy violations were inadvertent and unlikely to be repeated. John254 14:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc

Hi John, I noticed that several times you have reverted an IP who keeps blanking the plot section of the The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc page. They continue to blank this section without any explanation beyond an edit summary stating their reason has been "given several times." I was wondering if you know what is going on there? I have reverted them several times over the last few days as section blanking without explanation always looks, at least superficially, like vandalism, but I have not seen this film and don't know anything about it, so I do not know if there is a legitimate reason for removing the section. I would appreciate your opinion. Cheers. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sarah. I have generally treated the removal of large amounts of apparently legitimate text without explanation, or with a frivolous explanation, as vandalism -- especially when this is done by a new user, or by an unregistered user with a dynamic IP address, who need not worry about developing a reputation for contentious editing, and to whom the 3RR can't effectively be applied. The only reasons given by En1, 152.163.101.11, 64.12.117.11, and 205.188.117.11 (presumably all the same person) for removing the plot section are:

(a) "Previous editor had inadvertently, despite good intentions, restored a garbled addition."

(b) "Rv undiscussed changes"

(c) "If you want to add all this, please first clean it up for accuracy, language, etc."

(d) "The reasons for restoring the original version have been given several times. Please state a reason for adding this."

The claim that the plot section is "garbled" appears to be entirely frivolous. The objection to "undiscussed changes" per se might be relevant to a policy page, where changes can't be made without prior consensus, but it is wholly irrelevant to an ordinary article. The claimed need to "clean... up" the plot section for "language" appears to be a repetition of the "garbled" claim. As for the aspersions cast upon the "accuracy" of the plot section, I would note that the supposed inaccuracies have never been specifically identified.

Without any satisfactory explanation of why the removal of the plot section is a legitimate edit, I would see the continued removal of this section as vandalism, and revert it on sight. Since the unconstructive edits have been made from various AOL proxies, warning and blocking the offending IP is not really an option. I have watchlisted this article myself, and requested that the article be semi-protected on WP:RFPP. Thanks for your help in restoring the plot section. John254 17:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, John. That was my view as well, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. Cheers for your quick and informative reply. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 17:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of transwiki link to Prayer (Runescape)

I linked to the article that I just transferred from Misplaced Pages to the Runescape Wiki after Prayer (Runescape) on Misplaced Pages was blanked and redirected. If we can't have Prayer (Runescape) on Misplaced Pages, then why can't we link to the article on a wiki where such an article is permissible? John254 20:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem with linking to the RSWiki's prayer article is that this causes irregularity. If we link to prayer, shouldn't we also link to crafting, smithing, and all the other skills. And if we link to skills, why not also link to other articles Misplaced Pages doesn't allow like locations, spells, or character types? Where would we draw the line? Template:RuneScape should not be a directory of RSWiki articles. Hyenaste  20:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I would "draw the line" at linking only to articles on the RuneScape Wiki that were formerly Misplaced Pages articles, but had to be transwikified. If we don't link to the articles that are moved to the RuneScape Wiki, we may find that, with RuneScape articles being nominated for deletion every week, Template:RuneScape will slowly be shrinking. John254 21:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with drawing the line at deleted articles only. What makes deleted articles more special than articles that were never created? Why list seven skills and ignore the other twenty? What about articles that were deleted a long time ago, like fishing (RuneScape) or mining (RuneScape)? And it doesn't matter too much if the template becomes sparser and sparser; if an article is gone it shouldn't be linked in another form in another wiki. Hyenaste  21:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? Was my argument that effective? o_O Hyenaste  23:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:John254. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.