Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jpgordon (talk | contribs) at 23:46, 14 March 2015 (Undid revision 651401168 by Bryce Carmony (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Your 8,000 merger proposals

Could you please slow down with all of these proposals? You have made so many that it is simply disruptive, and it shows - you don't seem to have actually looked at the articles in question to see if a merger is actually appropriate or not. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Hey Luke, I promise my attempt is not to disrupt anything in Misplaced Pages, the only mergers I'm proposing are involving Content Forking where we have two articles with the separation being not content but perspective. I am going to assume good faith because I know you're only looking out for Misplaced Pages, I would just look at it this way, if I said I was going to make an article "Praises of Google" where only thing in there was Praising Google, we could agree that is not really needed to be its own article. The same goes for "Criticism of Google" we can put the content into the same article. Bryce Carmony (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• A large proportion of these articles were spun out by consensus due to their size. When you're proposing a merger every 10 minutes, there is simply no way you could've actually being assessing whether the merger has merit or not. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in Luke, but I'm butting in. While Bryce may be wrong (he is), there is nothing here I see that rises to the level of "disruptive". I resent the implication. He deserves to be heard, regardless of however wrong (he is) he is. I'm willing to hear him out on Talk pages, because as far as I can see, there is no ulterior motive here. I will ponder his arguments, and scratch my chin.

You're right, Luke, these are content forks, and therefore legitimate, though the article title sucks, we couldn't agree on a better one. The histories do admit of that. But lest Bryce be accused of a Randy from Boise argument, content has been re-arranged before, after consensus was gained that it was for the better.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Just because an article is split doesn't mean we can't look at reemerging it. Misplaced Pages is a work in progress, where we are isn't what matters, but the direction we're heading does. Let's see if we can find some common ground. What would be more neutral to you. 1 article that contains both critical and non critical verifiable sources. or reading an article that excludes all critical sources. What is more NPOV? NPOV is about how we write the articles not how we write the encyclopedia. separate but equal is not equal. There are unflattering spin offs that make sense. for example a company that has been involved in extensive litigation could have an article dedicated to that litigation. but just making a "this article is the Critical POV" is not a solution. Bryce Carmony (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

Bryce Carmony (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

5 albert square has refused to assume good faith, he says that I am WP:POINTY but doesn't say which edits are disruptive he just uses the ambiguous claim. I request that future bans come from a different admin since 5 Albert square bans for personal reasons instead of what is best for Misplaced Pages. Bryce Carmony (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Unblock requests containing personal attacks are not considered. --jpgordon 23:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

As it says, Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.. --jpgordon 23:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Bryce Carmony (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Facts are not personal attacks "you are a dumb idiot" = personal attack "you are going against wikipedia policy assume good faith" =/= personal attack. "your ban is based on personal reasons" =/= personal attack. less than .01% of English speakers edit Misplaced Pages,which is why we assume good faith, admins who are abuse ban is why. Again, none of my edits are disruptive, if they are why are there no references to them in my ban? ] (]) 23:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Facts are not personal attacks "you are a dumb idiot" = personal attack "you are going against wikipedia policy assume good faith" =/= personal attack. "your ban is based on personal reasons" =/= personal attack. less than .01% of English speakers edit Misplaced Pages,which is why we assume good faith, admins who are abuse ban is why. Again, none of my edits are disruptive, if they are why are there no references to them in my ban? ] (]) 23:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Facts are not personal attacks "you are a dumb idiot" = personal attack "you are going against wikipedia policy assume good faith" =/= personal attack. "your ban is based on personal reasons" =/= personal attack. less than .01% of English speakers edit Misplaced Pages,which is why we assume good faith, admins who are abuse ban is why. Again, none of my edits are disruptive, if they are why are there no references to them in my ban? ] (]) 23:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• Requests for unblock