Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fabrictramp (talk | contribs) at 18:55, 8 January 2010 (→Bentley & Skinner: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

PAGE RULES:

• 1) A new topic requires a new section.

• 2) New sections go at the bottom of this page.

• 3) New sections require titles.

• 4) New replies go underneath the post they are in reply to.

• 5) Sign your posts by typing ~~~~. (Sinebot doesn't work here)
  • (please sign at the END of your posts, not at the beginning!)

• 6) Posts must be coherent and civil.

I reserve the right to delete, without response, any and every posting from people unwilling or unable to obey these simple requests._{Per this guideline.}

If your post is in reference to an article, it would be greatly appreciated if you would provide a link to the article in question.

If you are here to tell me you changed or declined a speedy delete tag that you disagreed with, feel free to NOT leave me a note.

I respect your opinion, experience, and judgment on this matter.

I also irrevocably agreed to release my contributions under the GFDL, and that includes the speedy delete tags!

If you still feel that leaving a comment on one of these matter is truly necessary, I ask that you check the edit history of the article in question, and view the version of the page as it existed AT THE TIME I TAGGED IT, before leaving your comment. _{(Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball, and I am not a psychic, and can not and will not be held responsible for actions that occurred after the fact).}

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

WP:NPA

I really implore you to reconsider your tone and approach. You are bordering on violating WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL by leaving insulting messages calling me a "troll" when I am in a good-faith content dispute with you. I apologize for any misunderstanding. If this continues, I may have to list this matter on WP:WQA, an outcome that I certainly wish to avoid. Can you not simply let me edit the article for a few minutes without constant reversion of good edits? — James Kalmar 05:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

AS STATED TWICE PREVIOUSLY, FIX THE PROBLEMS THEN REMOVE THE TEMPLATES. Removing the templates without fixxing the problems FIRST will get you reported to WP:AIV. WuhWuzDat 05:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

And as I have consistently asked, what is your policy position for this statement? You are really attempting to impose your preference on the community at large. Your constant insults terming me a "troll" are truly uncivil and inappropriate - even from a longtime contributor. The argument could even be made that you are held to a higher standard because of your many valuable contributions. — James Kalmar 05:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Read your talk page warnings again.WuhWuzDat 05:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, none of the mildly-patronizing comments you left on my talk page cited any community-approved policy stating that tags cannot be removed just before working on an article rather than just after. The matter is not really that big of a deal. However, I feel the need to express that inventing policy and subsequently insulting and threatening fellow contributors for supposed violations of said invented policy is not in harmony with the collaborative spirit of Misplaced Pages. — James Kalmar 05:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read Admin C.Fred's comments on your talk page. WuhWuzDat 05:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

While policy is not concrete about it, it stands to reason that the problem should be corrected first, then the templates remove. See the warning text of the {{uw-tdel1}} sequence of warnings, which say that it is inappropriate to remove the templates without fixing the problem or indicating the reason for removal in the edit summary. I'm inclined to agree that "approved alteration" is not a sufficient edit summary. —C.Fred (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

After some reflection: if you think it would be best to work on the article before removing the tags, I would be glad to yield to your viewpoint. I was just a bit surprised at the tone of your comments at first, but I know you meant well and you deal with many vandals and the like. Please accept my apologies for any offense, offered as a fellow Wikipedian. — James Kalmar 05:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Jaguar classed as non-notable software

Why have you considered my Jaguar articles non-notable software? We're not talking about the Halcyon or Konix Multisystem here, this console is a cult classic for the sake of... And I think many Jaguar fanboys would be deeply offended by the decision to class the Jaguar as non notable software. Bob_thegamepro Bob thegamepro (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Also Sega Dreamcast as above. Bob_thegamepro Bob thegamepro (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

My prod nominations have absolutely nothing to do with the systems the games ran on, but rather with a blatant lack of any indication of WP:NOTABILITY, on each and every one of your rubber stamped articles. Simply telling us it existed, isn't proving notability. WuhWuzDat 17:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Bentley & Skinner

I declined your speedy request on Bentley & Skinner, which you placed one minute after the article was created. If you thought the text was spammy, changing two words would have made it completely unspammy. Editing is always preferred to deletion.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)