This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lvivske (talk | contribs) at 03:44, 8 June 2011 (→Rinat Akhmetov "libel war" redux). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:44, 8 June 2011 by Lvivske (talk | contribs) (→Rinat Akhmetov "libel war" redux)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
 | Welcome to my talk page!
|
3RR at Indian article
Do you have time to look at User_talk:Kumaripriya#A. Nesamony 2 ? This contributor has been asked time and again to provide citations to various articles over several months. In the last 24 hours s/he has added similar uncited content to an already poorly cited article four times, despite my attempts to advise. I am on three reverts myself, although I instigated the dialogue after my second. - Sitush (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Forget the above. Someone else has stepped in to sort it out, although I suspect that the culprit will be back before too long. - Sitush (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
::Pretty much the entire talk page has now disappeared at Talk:A._Nesamony. Am I seeing things? The history has gone right back also. - Sitush (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Forget it. God, I'm having a bad time of it. The discussion was on his/her page for some reason. - Sitush (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Total Drama
I might be a little late on this, but should we add a sidebar, cuz on the Disney parks article they got one and it looks like Total Drama might need one too. A sidebar will be much easier to nagivate throughout the articles since there are only a few articles, unlike other series when they have 20+ articles, then a navigational box would be preffered. But in this case since there are only 8, I think we should go with the sidebar. The navigational box can stay, the side bar will just be an addition. Here is an example of what I pulled out, its really simple and easy to navigate, but I can make it look better like the Disney one Giggett (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- And I can't find anything as far as a standard for sidebars. The more I think about it, the more I think that for a large portion of the audience, who aren't familiar with Misplaced Pages and navboxes at the end of articles, the sidebar will be more useful. I'd say bring the issue up at Talk:Total Drama to get a wider consensus, but it sounds like a good idea to me. —C.Fred (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- there is no need for such thing if we have a navbox already. Idk...you guys really need to know when templates are important. However there is a different box that can help chronology. But theres not much space to put it in.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sidebars are custom and can be applied to whatever size you want. By the way I am not saying it will replace the current navbox, that can stay. The sidebar will just be an addition. Giggett (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sidebars would need to be necessary not just additional. If its practically a mirror image of the navbox, why add it in?Bread Ninja (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's much easier to navigate, barely takes any space, and really simple, there is nothing wrong about it and won't hurt to add Giggett (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Here is a quick view of how it may look, obviously it's gonna have different colors and not link to the Disney pages, but you get the idea Giggett (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, here's a thought against the sidebar: how many of the articles have tables high in the article, so that adding a sidebar, in addition to the infobox, will do nasty things to the spacing? Given the recent issues with table width, it may be best to have as little as possible at the top of the articles and save the navigation stuff for the bottom. —C.Fred (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- The sidebar will be the exact same width as the infobox and go on top of it. I don't see any problem with the space there. And if you really think it looks nasty, I can even merge the sidebar into the infobox. Giggett (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Now we're in the realm of the full-blown redundant: each season's infobox has links to the preceding and succeeding seasons and the main show article. —C.Fred (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Good point, I have changed those preceding and succeeding seasons sections to a list that show all 4 seasons, rather than just 2 Giggett (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Its unnecessary. if we have a navbox, the disney one exist because the navbox for disney is way too big. a smaller one relating to the resorts and hotels sounds reasonable. The boxes you're adding has exact same thing. Stop making more and more templates. the articles are already filled with them.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Bread Ninja's got a point. Consistency is also an issue, and using the next/previous season fields in the standard infobox conveys the sequencing more clearly. —C.Fred (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- I decided to update the current "Chronology" section on the infobox to include all 4 seasons (instead of the next and previous). This allows to easily navigate to any of the 4 seasons, not just the next season or last. It doesn't take any space and it's completely merged within the current infobox. Giggett (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Again....why bother if its going to do the exact same thing the navbox already does? the only difference now is you abbreviated the titles.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Let's say if you're in the top of the REALLY LONG TDWT page, and you want to go to the TDI page. You don't have to scroll down all the way to the navbox template at the bottom of the page. You just go to the infobox and click on TDI. It's much easier. Giggett (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Again....why bother if its going to do the exact same thing the navbox already does? the only difference now is you abbreviated the titles.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- I decided to update the current "Chronology" section on the infobox to include all 4 seasons (instead of the next and previous). This allows to easily navigate to any of the 4 seasons, not just the next season or last. It doesn't take any space and it's completely merged within the current infobox. Giggett (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Bread Ninja's got a point. Consistency is also an issue, and using the next/previous season fields in the standard infobox conveys the sequencing more clearly. —C.Fred (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Its unnecessary. if we have a navbox, the disney one exist because the navbox for disney is way too big. a smaller one relating to the resorts and hotels sounds reasonable. The boxes you're adding has exact same thing. Stop making more and more templates. the articles are already filled with them.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Good point, I have changed those preceding and succeeding seasons sections to a list that show all 4 seasons, rather than just 2 Giggett (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Now we're in the realm of the full-blown redundant: each season's infobox has links to the preceding and succeeding seasons and the main show article. —C.Fred (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- The sidebar will be the exact same width as the infobox and go on top of it. I don't see any problem with the space there. And if you really think it looks nasty, I can even merge the sidebar into the infobox. Giggett (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, here's a thought against the sidebar: how many of the articles have tables high in the article, so that adding a sidebar, in addition to the infobox, will do nasty things to the spacing? Given the recent issues with table width, it may be best to have as little as possible at the top of the articles and save the navigation stuff for the bottom. —C.Fred (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Here is a quick view of how it may look, obviously it's gonna have different colors and not link to the Disney pages, but you get the idea Giggett (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's much easier to navigate, barely takes any space, and really simple, there is nothing wrong about it and won't hurt to add Giggett (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sidebars would need to be necessary not just additional. If its practically a mirror image of the navbox, why add it in?Bread Ninja (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sidebars are custom and can be applied to whatever size you want. By the way I am not saying it will replace the current navbox, that can stay. The sidebar will just be an addition. Giggett (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- there is no need for such thing if we have a navbox already. Idk...you guys really need to know when templates are important. However there is a different box that can help chronology. But theres not much space to put it in.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
(indent reset) Once you figure out what the abbreviations mean. I question whether it's really easier. —C.Fred (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Some articles are really long, and to get to the next season or the first one, it requires to scroll down a lot, whether with this infobox, the links are right in the top. The only thing I have done is added the missing fourth season and abbrebiated. Take a look at one of the articles (by clicking on the links), you can barely notice it. It's still in the same "Chronology" section. Just with all 4 seasons Giggett (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Again, missing the point. sigh...you guys think making it easier is fixing the article, but it just makes it worst. the articles are "covered" in templates. Even some that aren't necessary. such as in-universe information (thats right, i'm talking about the elimination table" Along with other things like using "abreviations". you guys just really missing the idea. Hypothetical "article too long" excuse isn't working. the articles are fine. and scrolling down isn't that big of a deal for all the articles.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- If you say so, I guess there is no need for any more templates Giggett (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- A sidebar might make it more friendly to newer readers. Non-standard use of the chronology box will not help readers familiar with Misplaced Pages standards, and I'm not sure the abbreviations in the infobox help anybody. Net result, I think the changes to the infobox have hurt more than they have helped. —C.Fred (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Okay then, so scrap the sidebar. The abbrebiations were just to make things smaller, but without them it will look something like this
- It's not about pleasing the new users, they can get help when the time comes. Like everyone else, getting a welcome tag on there talk page.....you're only thinking the benefit of the editor, not the reader, not the quality, not the level of benefit, and how much damage it causes. Its best you just have preceded by succeeded by chronology in the infobox if you guys want it so much, but not all the links in one. But seriously? This kind of thinking is what made the articles what they are now.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Fine then, I'm reverting all the changes right now, case closed Giggett (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's not about pleasing the new users, they can get help when the time comes. Like everyone else, getting a welcome tag on there talk page.....you're only thinking the benefit of the editor, not the reader, not the quality, not the level of benefit, and how much damage it causes. Its best you just have preceded by succeeded by chronology in the infobox if you guys want it so much, but not all the links in one. But seriously? This kind of thinking is what made the articles what they are now.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Okay then, so scrap the sidebar. The abbrebiations were just to make things smaller, but without them it will look something like this
- A sidebar might make it more friendly to newer readers. Non-standard use of the chronology box will not help readers familiar with Misplaced Pages standards, and I'm not sure the abbreviations in the infobox help anybody. Net result, I think the changes to the infobox have hurt more than they have helped. —C.Fred (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- If you say so, I guess there is no need for any more templates Giggett (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Again, missing the point. sigh...you guys think making it easier is fixing the article, but it just makes it worst. the articles are "covered" in templates. Even some that aren't necessary. such as in-universe information (thats right, i'm talking about the elimination table" Along with other things like using "abreviations". you guys just really missing the idea. Hypothetical "article too long" excuse isn't working. the articles are fine. and scrolling down isn't that big of a deal for all the articles.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Some articles are really long, and to get to the next season or the first one, it requires to scroll down a lot, whether with this infobox, the links are right in the top. The only thing I have done is added the missing fourth season and abbrebiated. Take a look at one of the articles (by clicking on the links), you can barely notice it. It's still in the same "Chronology" section. Just with all 4 seasons Giggett (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Rinat Akhmetov "libel war" redux
Just a heads up but a new editor has emerged spouting the "libel against living persons" rhetoric on the Rinat Akhmetov article. If you remember, back in October you had to protect the page because socks were removing sections based on this notion. I reverted to the stable reffed version we edited it down to...call it a hunch but things may erupt again. Letting you know preemptively in case an editwar happens again.--Львівське (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- In addition to Orekhova, a new user (sock?) "Komul" has appeared for the sole purpose of deleting content under alleged BLP guidelines. --Львівське (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
diabeetus
Hi, C.Fred. I am puzzled by the inappropriate action of deleting "burnt out diabetes" of a likely biased user and by your support for the said actions, in particular by your locking the deletion and for not allowing further discussion on this topic. FYI, the key word "burnt out diabetes" has over 2,000 positing and websites. It is a likely paradigm shifting concept, which, as the history of science and medicine has shown repeatedly, antagonizes traditionalists and those who have minimal tolerance for the scientific progress and for advances in science and medicine. History repeats itself. As for technicality of DELTERION OBJECTOIN (“use conventional methods to protest deletion”), not all people on the planet are as Misplaced Pages-savvy as certain biased. Instead of supporting people who have mitigated tolerance for new concepts and mark anything for deletion that is not consistent with “their” traditional and science-conservative expectations, you may wish to also support the underdog of the Misplaced Pages World in the interest of advancing freedom of science and allowing Misplaced Pages to grow rather than becoming yet another tool in the hands of the monitors of the monitors of the monitors…. Very few people mean vandalism, and to discredit a balanced effort of reviving an unfairly deleted page as "vandalism" and showing least tolerance for such efforts in not consistent with your impressive track record in your website. Hope we see your true you and your advocacy for freedom of science and against scientific fanatics.
A request from Underdog
Hi, C.Fred. I am puzzled by the inappropriate action of deleting "burnt out diabetes" of a likely biased user and by your support for the said actions, in particular by your locking the deletion and for not allowing further discussion on this topic. FYI, the key word "burnt out diabetes" has over 2,000 positing and websites. It is a likely paradigm shifting concept, which, as the history of science and medicine has shown repeatedly, antagonizes traditionalists and those who have minimal tolerance for the scientific progress and for advances in science and medicine. History repeats itself. As for technicality of DELTERION OBJECTOIN (“use conventional methods to protest deletion”), not all people on the planet are as Misplaced Pages-savvy as certain biased. Instead of supporting people who have mitigated tolerance for new concepts and mark anything for deletion that is not consistent with “their” traditional and science-conservative expectations, you may wish to also support the underdog of the Misplaced Pages World in the interest of advancing freedom of science and allowing Misplaced Pages to grow rather than becoming yet another tool in the hands of the monitors of the monitors of the monitors…. Very few people mean vandalism, and to discredit a balanced effort of reviving an unfairly deleted page as "vandalism" and showing least tolerance for such efforts in not consistent with your impressive track record in your website. Hope we see your true you and your advocacy for freedom of science and against scientific fanatics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burntout1234 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- The discussion was already closed, and I provided instructions to you on your old account, Burntout123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), of how to appeal the deletion. You chose not to. Instead, you recreated the same article, and per Misplaced Pages policy, that was deleted under criterion for speedy deletion G4, recreation of a deleted article. You persistently recreated it, which showed intent not to cooperate.
- You've now broken another Misplaced Pages rule by creating a new account to avoid your block. If you have no intent to abide by Misplaced Pages's rules and guidelines, there's nothing I can do to help you. —C.Fred (talk) 06:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm replying on your talk page, since the new account is subject to being blocked as an abusive alternate account. —C.Fred (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for restoring my access (also plz remove restrictions on the IP addresses related to burntout123 and burnout1234 so that people in those apartment complexes can maintain their access to avoid collateral damage, a new and interesting concept that I just learned). Would like to suggest to restore "burnt-out diabetes mellitius" in a restricted format with a more balanced and protracted discussion so that more participants can have the opportunity to discuss and contribute.(burntout123(talk))• —Preceding undated comment added 17:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC).
Sorry about the joke on Floyd Mayweathers page. But you must agree with me?! lol.
Won't happen again.
-V
Vendettos (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Neovandalism
Hi, C.Fred. I need your help and support. The new page neovandalism is tagged for speedy deletion under G3. It is not a hoax or vandalism, nor should it be categorized as G3. It is a serious and relevant topic. Kindly revise your comments and allow several weeks of civil discussion. ----To_Expand_Tolerance_ 18:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)To_Expand_Tolerance_ 18:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burntout123 (talk • contribs)
- Hi, C.Fred. The page neovandalism is now removed after a short period of time of minutes. Maybe in a few days you yourself can help me revive this page without referring to you or anybody else. Ironically I feel you can help me. --To_Expand_Tolerance_ 19:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burntout123 (talk • contribs)
- My concern is that there's too big a hurdle for it to meet to get back to mainspace. You would need to show that neovandalism—and it would need to be referred to by name—has been given significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Since you indicated this is a newly-coined term, I'm doubting there's coverage in any reliable sources at this point. —C.Fred (talk) 22:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- OK. Thanks. I will wait a few weeks. In-between please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Burntout123/Neovandalism and help develop the concept without any partisanship. Indeed I feel that the concept of regulated corruption can be developed as well. This move can set precedence into the next step for Misplaced Pages as the first source of new concepts and new ideologgies. Burntout123 --To_Expand_Tolerance_ 23:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burntout123 (talk • contribs)
- My concern is that there's too big a hurdle for it to meet to get back to mainspace. You would need to show that neovandalism—and it would need to be referred to by name—has been given significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Since you indicated this is a newly-coined term, I'm doubting there's coverage in any reliable sources at this point. —C.Fred (talk) 22:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Not assuming good faith
Hi C Fred User:Burntout123 has left a mildly threatening message that does not assume good faith on my user page. I know he/she has already consumed a significant amount of you time and is already blocked but I am unsure what else can be done. I also wonder what steps can be taken to assess whether there is a COI in the user's edits. Your thoughts are appreciated. Porturology (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- He's not currently blocked: the block I placed on his account has expired. I wouldn't pay too much attention to the message on your talk page. See my comments at User talk:Burntout123#Concept of Neovandalism, and see the whole thread at WP:AN/I#User:Burntout123 and Neovandalism article. I think you're almost certainly right about the COI, since "burnt-out" diabetes is his subject of choice. I'm sure the user means well, but the number of policies he's run afoul of is staggering—on top of everything else, I just uncovered a copyvio tonight. —C.Fred (talk) 06:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Edit Request on Semi Protected Page
I put in an edit request on the page of ReginaRussell. I see there's a backlog of edit requests so I'm posting here. Can you help out with this?
Please remove all of the following. All are unsourced with no supporting material or verifiable references. "currently creating and developing TV shows"
"works behind the scenes with The Humane Society of The United States on various animal rights issues, producing and directing public service announcements."
"She currently raids celebrity closets and auctions clothing for charity on various TV shows. She also does hosting, and fashion and style segments as a celebrity style expert." (Previous sentence says She owned and operated. That means she does not currently)
208.83.60.218 (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
My RfA
I just wanted to take a minute to thank you very much for supporting me in my recent RfA. Even though it was unsuccessful, I appreciate your trust. With much gratitude, jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Copyright
1. Understand the issue and will try to start it de novo. 2. In our prior discussion you had alluded to the prospect of putting 'burnt-out dia..." in my user page. Can u kindly do so? 3. Any chance to merge burntout123 and burntout1234? 4. Feel free to delete this message any time after you read it. Thanks burntout123 --_To_Expand_Tolerance_ 03:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burntout123 (talk • contribs)
- Cool. I'd have started it myself, but I kept feeling like I was regurgitating the page contents and not writing new text.
- Yes. Look for a message on your talk page in about 30 minutes that it's been done.
- No. There's not really any mechanism to merge accounts. Best thing is to just stop using Burntout1234 entirely and make all future edits from Burntout123.
- I archive messages on my talk page—well, I let a bot do it. If this thread stays quiet for seven days, the bot will move it off to an archive page. —C.Fred (talk) 03:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Will follow. Take your time. -burntout123. --_To_Expand_Tolerance_ 03:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burntout123 (talk • contribs)