User talk:El Sandifer - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BigNate37 (talk | contribs) at 21:38, 23 July 2007 (→Image: Misplaced Pages:Non-free media rationale guideline#Template ftw.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:38, 23 July 2007 by BigNate37 (talk | contribs) (→Image: Misplaced Pages:Non-free media rationale guideline#Template ftw.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

NOTE: You may want to glance at my userpage before leaving me a message, especially if the message has something to do with policy.

Hi!

Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 21:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Matthew Fenton

Hey, just wanted to warn you that fighting with Matthew Fenton may be hazardous to your health. The admins around here tend to take his side, especially when he's in the wrong, simply because he's only 14 or 15 years old. He's also been known to have good Wikians blocked permanently because they refuse to jump whenever he or his pal Will "Sceptre" Nobel yell "frog". I suggest checking out the history of Sixty Six's talk page - you have to look at the history and see the last few changes, as Scepter and one of his other admin buddies purged and locked the pages out of spite. I'm not saying you should give up the fight, but make sure you've got admins that will back you up when the time comes. Nobody knows why they keep defending them as if they've done nothing wrong, but if you go through their talk page archives, it's pretty obvious they're causing far more harm to Misplaced Pages than they should be allowed to. Good luck! 24.173.10.197 23:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler tags

Please note that spoiler-season has been redirected to spoiler as a result of a TfD. As part of the close all existing instances of "spoiler-season" have been replaced with "spoiler", so whatlinkshere for spoiler will have about 50 links.

This mostly affects one class of article: Stargate.

Please handle removal of spoiler tags from these articles with special sensitivity. --Tony Sidaway 06:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Fan-cr*p

I replied to your most irritating comment here.--Rambutan (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove my reply?--Rambutan (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've replaced it and replied to your reply, if you follow that.--Rambutan (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

On this subject, you changed the protection date for TSoD; could we have it 24hrs later? It would stop a lot of s*it being rammed onto WP!--Rambutan (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, but I honestly think that the article will be much better if we don't let IPs at it.--Rambutan (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Agent Bishop

The reason that page was protected was to encourage the IP user to discuss removing the spoiler tag instead of edit warring over it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Your comments

Hi, WP:NOT outlaws any discussion which does not relate to article content, so it logically follows that these should be removed. Twinkle gives three types of revert function: good faith, normal and vandalism. One assumes that the AGF and normal reverts are to be used for non-vandalism?--Rambutan (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well?--Rambutan (talk) 11:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

What was the purpose of your message? I've not done anything more than three times in the last 24hrs, and it arguably is protected, since the person reverting them back is in clear breach of policy.--Rambutan (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No, actually I'm not. According to the definition of revert and partial revert at Help:Reverting, simple deletion of material is not a revert: and logically, how could it be? Anyway, it's clearly enforcing policy, and if I got blocked then {{unblock}} would work, since most admins aren't biased against me.--Rambutan (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a violation of policy to enforce policy - how can it be? WP:TALK, WP:NOT and WP:FORUM together mandate the removal of irrelevant drivel from talkpages. Anyway, I have no desire to continue this absurd altercation.--Rambutan (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Spidey

Why did you delete my article,"Spidey and the Mini Marvels"? I worked for an hour typing that. And before that it took me a while to find the comic. How would you like it if I deleted your articles which took YOU AN HOUR?!--User:Venom124

Head's up

Don't know if you've seen, or are interested in a rewrite of WP:FICT. It's at User:Deckiller/Notability (fiction), with discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Rewrite_proposed. I'm in two minds, personally, but I think it'll fracture the community. Again. Steve block Talk 13:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

3rd person

Heya Phil.

Sethie appreciates you asking for what you want "Sethie to not write in 3rd person." He doesn't feel particularly open to doing so... maybe if you offer a reason why, especially since it is a part of Sethie's spiritual practice and way of life.

) Maybe it is just part of the "non-spoiler" movement. Sethie has done hundreds of edits from the 3rd person, however you are the 2nd anti-spoiler to not like the 3rd person.... interesting. :) Sethie 01:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have opened a about the spoiler warning issue, in which I've listed you as one of the involved users. Ken Arromdee 17:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

MedCab case

Hi there. Per your decision not to participate in the MedCab case on spoiler templates, I really think it would be for the best if you did engage. It looks quite likely that the final outcome of the discussion will be substantial changes to the guideline, and I think it's best that as many interested parties are involved as possible. It would be very counter-productive if you didn't participate, and the consensus ended up being one you didn't agree with, and the whole argument got re-opened afterwards. I think it would be much better to settle this now. -Kieran 20:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The mediation case is a move towards civility. So far the discussion has calmed down substantially, points are being summarised and addressed, and we have a mediator as an impartial third party. The mediation case is exactly what you have been looking for. Please come and engage. -Kieran 02:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Sick of Misplaced Pages

I feel that I've been persecuted on Misplaced Pages, and have thus decided to take a long Wikibreak. I do not feel that Misplaced Pages can ever really succeed when users are picked on for applying policy and admonished from warning vandals. On this point, I agree with User:RickK. There's a full explanation on my userpage, and I'd appreciate any comments anybody has.--Rambutan (talk) 05:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

clarification

hello Phil. with regards to your comment here, this (May 11) is the version which passed FA and was accepted by the community. the main difference between this version and more recent versions is that unilateral and controversial rewrites were instituted in various sections, without discussion, proposal nor an effort to seek consensus beforehand.(July 1)(June 25)(June 11) please also refer to the FAC itself. in fact, this is the very cause of the current edit warring, some of the users are restoring sections from the initial article that passed FAC, and others are restoring sections from latter controversial rewrites. though the Jihad section was pretty much settled, the other rewrites (Family life, Other religions) have not been, and have been disputed since their insertions respectively. ITAQALLAH 18:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Sunnydale High School library

This one turned up on the whatlinkshere for template:spoiler but I'm not removing those tags for now because in my opinion this article may have deeper problems and arguing over tagging would distract from their resolution.

This is the article as I found it. In my opinion the preamble is not really suitable for the article. It looks like an essay about the role of imaginary books, and libraries in general, in fantasy fiction. I removed that and replaced it with a very brief descriptive paragraph, followed by the reference to an essay by Michael Betancourt that at least does belong in the article, though probably not the lead.

This is more your field, I think, so I'd be grateful if you could check it and see if I'm on the right track. --Tony Sidaway 17:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally the wording seems to have a lot in common with this in buffy.wikia.com (which seems to have been written by Angela Beesley) and even more so with this one at buffywiki.org. I think the licenses are compatible, though I couldn't actually find a specific reference to licensing on buffywiki. --Tony Sidaway 18:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Please cease editing warring on WP:SPOIL

Please cease your edit warring on the guideline. 'Nuff said. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 16:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"(Revert Nydas's two edits. First one because it's just flatly wrong, second one because it's an important clarification in practice.)"

"(re-removed Phil's personal views and 'loophole' closure)"

"Misleading edit summary"

Look, I'll grant that maybe it was ambiguous, but I don't think it was, and certainly didn't intend it to be deliberately misleading. I am sorry if you were misled. I also think that "misleading edit summaries" refers more to edit summaries that are destructively misleading, such as making major changes to an article, and marking them as minor, or seriously mislabelling them (eg: to avoid the attention of the RC-patrol). In this case, simply glancing at the diff should have been enough for you (or anyone else) to see that what I meant was that I made a few changes in my original edit and that Tony had a problem with part of them, but reverted the whole thing. That's bordering on being disruptive, and is certainly behaviour likely to engender edit wars. -Kieran 01:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Craft of Research

Hello Phil,

My name is Andrey Stanislavskiy (Mr.). I am trying to built Misplaced Pages entries about professors Joseph Williams and Gregory Colomb, authors of The Craft of Research. While doing so, I encountered your user page Phil Sandifer/Craft of Research. I think it would be good to create a special page on the book, and I feel the material on your page would well serve the purpose. As I am a novice on Misplaced Pages, I am afraid I cannot do this right on my own.

If you are interested, please check pages for Wayne C. Booth, Gregory G. Colomb, and Joseph M. Williams and help me in making the page and links for this great source, The Craft of Research.

About myself: I was born and reside in Ukraine, my native language is Russian. I am a freelance translator from English.

Anstan07 13:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who)

I wonder if you'd like to take a look at Rambutan's recent edits on this article. I'm trying to trim speculation and references to gossip while retaining relevant and well sourced information. Rambutan's response seems to be needlessly aggressive. I think there is still a behavior problem with this editor. --Tony Sidaway 17:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Rambutan asked me on IRC to take a look at his unblock request. I denied it, but he makes a good point that restoring wiki-links to articles that exist is hardly a revert in the normal sense. There may be other issues at play with 3RR gaming and Tony's comment above, but I figured you might want to look at it, and maybe consider reducing the block length, if you feel so inclined. Ral315 » 07:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've had my fair share of disagreements with Rambutan in the past, but on this occasion I think the block is not justified. If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Removal_of_blue_links you'll see that he did bring this matter to the attention of the Administrators and the consensus on there is that the blue links he's reverted back in should be there. Kelpin 08:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I understand your reasons for doing so; I wasn't familiar with the situations. Ral315 » 04:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

In case you weren't aware Salaskin has left a message for you on my talk page. Kelpin 13:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Alfred Bester (Babylon 5); Jaye Davidson; Infinity Abyss; List of fictional universes; Jupiter Hammerheads; City of Death; Interstellar Alliance; Goddard Institute for Space Studies; Mass society; Rising Star (Babylon 5); Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film); Rob Shearman; Fort Myers Miracle; Walter Skinner; Low culture; St. Lucie Mets; Palm Beach Cardinals; Carlo Maria Giulini; Brevard County Manatees

Cleanup: Numerical sight-singing; Triwizard Tournament; Leon Fortunato
Merge: Bluescreen; Minor chord; Cat and Girl
Add Sources: Z'ha'dum (planet); Wizarding world; Minbari
Wikify: The Brain of Morbius; List of fictional journalists; High culture
Expand: Space pirate; List of DC Comics publications; Serial

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 20:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

St. Francis Xavier's College (Liverpool)

I'm afraid your edit was misguided. The controversy section SHOULD remain - you have removed a large portion of the article, whereas, if you felt the section violated WP:BLP, it would have made more sense to remove the individual's name instead and make reference to "a teacher"; rather than blanking a whole section, which smacks of vandalism to me. The section is relevant, as the matter was of great public interest, also it concerned a public figure, the leader of a world famous choir. Indeed, it did not contain, to paraphrase yourself, "scandal and gossip", it is factual, referenced, material (as per WP:BLP#Reliable_sources). You claim it is not "substantially important to the college" - this seems to be a rather ignorant remark, as I'm sure the implications of such a case being in the public eye and the substantial ramifications for the College would be obvious to anybody - it IS a significant event in the recent history of the College, despite the fact it might not sit well with some editors. Edits reverted. Please do not blank these sections again unless you can provide some further discussion on the Talk page FIRST. Liverpool Scouse 14:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, it seems an admin agrees with you on this point. I'll not revert it again, however I'm still of the view that WP:BLP is in places ambiguous in that it can both support and decry the addition of such facts concerning persons notable in such a way as we're discussing, depending upon how you choose to approach the policy. I'll consider it in conjunction with any other applicable policies in a day or two to see if it's worthy of a bringing a case before WP:RFAr. If not, I'll just quietly slink away...!

Liverpool Scouse 16:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ad hoc spoiler warnings

You might like to look at this little mess. I spent around four hours and over 100 article edits finding and removing hand-written spoiler warnings. Some of these were recent but most seem to have been around for ages and just weren't showing up in the searches before. --Tony Sidaway 15:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

A redirect you created is on RfD

I am brining your attention to the fact that a redirect you created (Palestinian Holocaust) is nominated for deletion here. If you wish to comment as to your motivation for creating the redirect, the information would be helpful in considering its existence on the wiki. BigNate37_(T) 19:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Ultima-Java Creative Media

Any thoughts about this? I removed a heap of stuff that looked to have been copied directly from the site itself, and tagged the rest as unsourced. My main question is: Is this just a group of friends with a shared blog and some comics, or is it more significant than that?

Obviously stuff like this ought to go:

Ultima-Java is a coffee shop that exists on the very edge or reality in an exestential plane of our reality known as "The Corridor". The Corridor exists enough in and enough out of the UJ reality, to be everywhere and nowhere, existing in it's own plane, and yet connected to every planet in the physical universe, as well as many sub-dimensions that exist. The perfect place to set up shop for weary interdimentianal travellers.

Alexa hasn't heard of it. Not very promising. --Tony Sidaway 14:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh never mind. On reviewing the above, and the content, I talked myself into giving it a db-a7 tag. --Tony Sidaway 15:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Tony Sidaway/spoilers

I've got a pre-release version of TonyBot running and compiling lists of articles unexpectedly containing the word "spoiler", which it writes to the above page. It uses an exceptions list to exclude articles I've already checked, so this page should be worth watching rather than searching manually for the word "spoiler". I'll get the bot to run at least once a day and update if it sees a change. --Tony Sidaway 20:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Image

Well, given your userpage, I'm not sure how you want to handle this, but Image:T-Mobile Team Time Trial.jpg, which you uploaded, could use a use rationale. (ESkog) 21:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Non-free media rationale guideline#Template ftw. (Sorry Phil, I should take your talk page off my watchlist.) BigNate37_(T) 21:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)